All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 24, 2025 - Blood Money
01:57:58
Exposing how the Corrupt California GOP is Stealing 2026 from the People with Daniel Mercuri
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, guys, welcome to the latest Blood Money episode.
Today we have a very special guest, Daniel Mercury, who's running for California governor for 2026.
How you doing, sir?
I'm doing good.
Thank you, Ben, for bringing me on and allowing me to speak to your audience.
Yeah, man, it's my pleasure.
So, you know, I'm, I've unfortunately been pulled into this California race for obvious reasons for people that watch this podcast and follow me, which is that Sheriff Chad Bianco falsely accused me of being the third Trump assassin.
And then that got my interest piqued into why he was doing that, you know, and as he kept kind of, you know, which by the way, until today, Daniel, he's saying outlandish, ridiculous things comparing me to murderers and saying that, oh, we don't know.
He might have gone in there and did a mass shooting and insane things like that.
So the lie keeps on persisting, right?
So as, you know, Chad Bianco continued to lie, I got more interested in what is happening in California that this is even possible.
Because this was like I've been.
trying to find historical precedents for this.
And other than that Jewel guy from the 1996 Olympics, there's really not much precedent to a California governor candidate using his campaign muscle to continue to defame me.
Right?
So as I started becoming more interested in seeing what's happening in the landscape of California, I realized that a lot of things are very corrupt in the Republican Party.
And then I started talking to all the candidates, started talking with you, and you gave me a lot of insight on what's really happening in California.
So before, you know, take all my personal stuff out of it, let's forget about the third assassin hoax, Daniel.
First, tell us a little bit about who you are, why you're running and some of the issues you identified being a candidate for California governor.
Wow, that's a huge question.
One of the first things, of course, was when I ran for office here in the state of California was due to the fires that were happening when I first moved to Ventura County back when the Woosley fire had ignited.
And that really opened my eyes up to the corruption.
Here, just a kind of background on me is, I was born here.
I was raised here.
This is where I enlisted into the military.
This is where I proposed to my wife.
This is where I'm raising my family.
And even all throughout the military, top two highest scores, highest enlisted, depending on the classes that you go to or the training that you're in, they get to pick their orders.
So they would write up their orders on the board and you get to pick them.
And I was always top two and I always came back to California.
California is my home.
This is a state that I absolutely love.
It's worth the fight.
There's a tremendous amount of beautiful people, especially those.
A lot of people don't know that my daughter is unfortunately battling leukemia.
And just a tremendous amount of people who I don't even know came out and came out of the woodworks to show their love, show their support.
They really just came out to cook us dinner.ner, buy gifts for my other children because they know they were going through it just as much as, you know, their sister.
And it really opened my eyes up to, you know, the idea that, you know, this is a state worth fighting.
There's a spirit here that I think a lot of us take for granted or don't realize is actually here.
So when I, when the fires happened, you know, one of the interesting things was is on my side of the street, we were given a phone call to pack up and to evacuate.
But right across the street, there was our neighbors no more than, you know, 20 yards away from us.
And they asked us where we were going.
And we said, didn't you get the evacuation notice?
And they said no.
So we started walking up and down this neighborhood, knocking on everybody's door, at least two to three blocks.
And half on one side got notices from the city or from the county and the other half did not.
And yet we were the same distance away from the fires.
So really, it kind of begged the question, you know, what was going on?
The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.
And so at that time, my representative was stepping down that a lot of people didn't know about at my congressional level.
And because everybody wanted answers, what was going on?
You know, what was happening with the fires?
Nobody knew.
knew and this was my first time being exposed to the extensive amount of fires so much so that under Gavin Newsom he has had under his reign over 45,000 wildfires that I personally did the research on.
You would think that one would be enough, but I guess 45,000 and over 9 million acres of land being burned up isn't enough and this is what a lot of people don't know so i jumped into the race in running for congress in the 25th district and that is when i was heavily exposed to the corruption how the corruption works how corrupt government works and operates where they hide and operate and what it is that they do to deceive the people and how things tie into even the party system and
what they do to ensure that their establishment pick candidate sort of perpetuates the continuous problems that we see why i kept asking as everybody else why don't we see any investigations?
Why aren't there any indictments?
Why isn't anybody going to jail?
We could point something out there on that topic because I find people's ignorance on these topics just part of the huge part of the problem because you talk about investigations, right?
All I keep hearing from California is voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud, right?
Yes.
As sheriff, sheriff Chad Bianco has the power to do whatever he wants to do in terms of investigating the voter fraud.
What's happened there?
Because I know that's a big topic with the MAGA crowd.
Was that ever, you know, investigated?
What went down in terms of all that voter fraud stuff.
So the information that I know and what happened to me and a number of the candidates were that when the recall had initially happened, which right after my congressional race, I jumped into the recall.
During the recall, a lot of the other candidates, the conservative candidates, I don't know what happened with the Democrats, but on the Republican side, many of our names were not on the machines, the voting machines.
So if you went and you wanted to select a candidate's name, our names were not in certain areas of certain counties and precincts.
So unfortunately, with the way some of the rules are, is that you're designated a precinct to go in and vote if you don't have a paper ballot, right?
Or a mail in ballot.
So a lot of people could not choose my name or other candidates' names.
We were calling each other.
It's not like all the candidates hate each other.
In fact, a lot of the candidates we all support each other.
And in that instance, we were realizing that voters were being forced to vote for somebody they didn't want to.
Well, that was a huge problem and they did nothing to fix that.
And there was a lot of video recordings of this.
People were sending me photos.
Other candidates were calling and showing me the same thing.
We were all back and forth.
We were calling the SOS.
And the only thing that they can really do is investigate after the election, maybe one percent.
So one of the things that a lot of people don't know is the sheriff has the full authority in every election.
In every county because they are to investigate the machines because they are the sovereigns of the county, meaning they're the oddity to the constitution, the state constitution.
Why?
They're voted in by the people.
So they can't just be removed.
They can't just be fired unless they've engaged in some sort of criminal misconduct, fiduciary delinquency or a deliberate harm to someone else in some capacity, right?
For every crime.
There must be an injured party and for every injured party there must be a remedy.
That remedy can only be decided by a trial jury under the fifth, sixth and seventh amendment, right?
Which breaks down the courts.
So a sheriff has every capacity to take those machines and investigate them.
Riverside County was actually a county.
I spoke to a number of the caucuses.
There's three caucuses.
The last time I checked in the committee where they had actually spoken to the sheriff of that county and said, you know, we'd like our machines to be investigated.
There was foul play.
They had a little bit of evidence that forced the hand of the sheriff to perform an investigation.
It is not outside a sheriff's view to perform any kind of investigation, irrelevant if it appears to be somewhat on a federal level.
Because they are the highest authority of that county, they have every right.
It's not a privilege because they swear the oath, as everybody does, as I did in the military.
You swear the oath to support and defend and uphold what first?
The Constitution.
Why?
Because it's the supreme law of the land.
So it's irrelevant that there are some things that people say, well, that's a federal jurisdiction.
No, it's if wherever the federal government fails to perform their duties, the states take over and vice versa.
That's per the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
See, when you know the Constitution, you understand the state constitution, you understand vested authorities.
It makes it very simple.
Where and who is dragging their feet purposely.
And so I discovered that the sheriff of the Riverside County.
County was performing investigations on the machine fired from what I understand their first person that was tied to the machines to do the investigation didn't like what they were doing told the caucus and a couple members of the caucus that, you know, there was some disagreement about how to go about the investigation so he hired a second person and that he would reveal the information that would transpire from those machines when a sheriff starts to investigate the machines themselves then the machines get tied up and they get tied up in
the court they're given a ticket that then forces the county to have to go back to hand counting why they can't just grab another set of machines because they're contracted and if they're contracted per that county well there's only five that are contracted per the state and each county can only pick one and finalize the contract once they're completed this is why shasta was able to um you know get rid of the machines was because the contract was up they no longer had to use it.
They developed their county laws and they said no more.
We're going back to hand counting.
And so when that happens, what that does is that potentially writes a sheriff out of a job.
So why would they do that?
Right.
So when the second person came in, from what I understand, and again, I don't have this, you know, I can't substantiate all of this, but from what I understand from the caucuses is that he failed to continue and letting the information become public and continue the transparency so that everybody knew what was happening with the machines.
It just sort of disappeared.
And for me, that's sort of my investigation into, you know, a lot of the sheriffs here in the state of California and realizing that a lot of our sheriffs.
are a part of or what a lot of people don't know of, it's called a buyout.
That buyout is a way for more money to kind of come into the county.
It can come in from many different directions.
It can come in through all kinds of county appropriations, where counties can claim a crisis like a homeless crisis.
Whenever there's a crisis, the counties can request or demand more money from the state and or the federal.
then that money goes to that county sometimes through a bond right Los Angeles just was just received a bond from Gavin Newsom's office to help out the homeless the problem is there's no there's no public oversight fiscal committee to determine each line, right?
There's no state controller that oversees how the money is being utilized in a proper manner, right?
So there's no appropriation to that.
And so then that county can take the money and do whatever they want with it in various ways.
And of course, it ties in to the Board of Supervisors.
So now we see a lot of our sheriffs who now suddenly have an inflated, bloated paycheck that's anywhere between $500,000 and $700,000 a year.
That's more than the president of the United States.
So when you ask a sheriff to investigate the machines, you're asking them potentially write themselves out of a job.
Why would they do that?
They're not going to.
So sheriff job is more important than voter fraud issues that's what you're saying yeah i mean the sheriffs unfortunately don't want to rock the boat sheriffs don't want to step out of that norm because they it's not that they are afraid of the governor the problem is that the governor controls the militia right and they report they report to the ag who immediately has over 5,000 lawyers.
So of course, they're going to start performing investigations if they don't play ball.
Most of the sheriffs do.
So they very rarely step out and tell Gavin that they're not going to enforce draconian mandates, regulations, policies, procedures, or, you know, egregious legislation like sanctuary laws, right?
Right.
So when a sheriff doesn't actually engage at a street level immigration enforcement, they're actually violating their oath of office.
Just because they don't doesn't mean that they can't, right?
You can't say that you're going to pick and choose which laws that you're going to enforce based off an emotional whim because it doesn't fit your narrative.
It doesn't work like that.
You are subjected to the oath of office, which is a contract.
Why is it a contract?
Because the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 stipulates that the state So you sign the oath of office.
So under Article 20, Section 3 of the California State Constitution, it is a clear outline, you have to sign it.
So now you're bound by that so that you can be held in a court of record or that you can be prosecuted, right?
So the oath of office has prosecutorial effect.
So if they choose not to and they try to bait and switch and tell, you know, we can't have a society, you know, that, you know, doesn't adhere to these people, you know, who are still living among us, even though they're illegal, you know, we can't, we can't do that.
We don't want to do that.
You know, it would hurt our communities.
No, it would hurt the illegal communities.
So you're not enforcing.
So we have a lot of sheriffs that don't want to enforce federal codes that are actual, that are absolutely 100% constitutional.
How do we know this?
When you look at the Article 1, Section 8, we call the uniform naturalization, which is Clause 4.
That clause is what is Title 8, Section 13, 24, 25 and 26 are built on when it comes to illegal aliens who have invaded our country and this fallacy that, well, they're required due process.
No, they're not.
That's for people.
Due process is for those for immigration courts that have actually gone through the process but they haven't assimilated right through ensuring that they are going to adhere to our way of life right And this is how you ensure that these people no longer go to these protests and they're waving the other country's flag of origin.
Well, if it's so great, go back.
But we have sheriffs that don't want to do that because they're afraid that they're not going to be able to perform certain investigations that these certain communities that they know have illegal aliens are choosing not to enforce the law.
And then they, they, you know, kick the can down the road and they say, well, it's a federal, it's a federal job.
It's the federal jurisdiction.
We can't handle that.
So again, they are failing to perform their duties when they gaslight you in that aspect.
So when you know the laws and you know what they have to enforce, they have to ensure that the people's safety.
are adhered to by way of the constitution.
So again, when the federal government fails to perform their duties, they have to step in.
That's why the sheriffs are the auditors to the constitution they can't just be removed but this is what gives them a unique authority to push back against egregious legislation like sb54 which is sanctuary laws that says that they can't actually touch somebody who is you know an illegal alien uh for a misdemeanor nonsense right this is what you're this is what gaslighting is this is what a bait and switch is and this is how you know that any sheriff who goes down that path verbally is lying to you And what do you make of people that say that,
you know, for example, with Sheriff Chad Bianco, he was, you know, I guess against the mandates.
I mean, the business is still just got shut down, but could you tell me a little bit about what happened there and you know frankly what you would you would have done differently under the same circumstances so this is simple again when you look at american jurisprudence which a lot of our red our representatives don't do they don't look at all three branches of vested authorities so when you look at the lockdowns you know i from what i understand most sheriffs including riverside fought to ensure that their people their staff didn't have to mask up and didn't have to take the jab but they didn't do that for
the rest of the people And when you look at American jurisprudence, I think it's a 2D volume 16 and 16A, Section 98 actually outlines that says that no emergency has justification or just cause to suppress the constitution and state constitution.
So what does that mean?
It means that our government's responsibility was to work around the people's rights, not to infringe upon them and then change the language to change perception when they said, you know, they didn't call it a lockdown.
It was a stay-at-home safe order.
Nonsense.
It was your cherished responsibility to stand up and speak up and saying.
There's no authority, especially when you look at what had already taken precedence with the Supreme Court in this sort of outlining.
So when you understand that, then they have to push back when there's a control.led behavior of legislation that's crossing the table, right?
It's crossing that line.
So the government does not have the authority to control the behavior of the people.
Does not work that way, right?
There's listed, there's eighteen authoritative powers listed in the United States Constitution.
Controlling the behavior of the people is not one of them.
Telling people to mask up, controlled behavior.
Closing a market, thinking making people think that they have to get a job is controlled behavior, right?
But then when you do it for one, when you protect one group, but you don't do for another, well then you're clearly understanding that what's going on is egregious, but you're choosing favoritism.
It doesn't work that way.
So under my administration, it would have never happened.
You would still have been able to continue going to work.
You would never have had to bend to mask up.
Why?
Because a paper cloth is going to stop what this supposedly, you know, this disease or this infection, this virus that supposedly, you know, it shut down the world's economy.
And yet I was in the military whenever there was something that contagious.
I mean, we put on that leather suit, we put on those oxygen tanks, you know, we put on the mask, we don't everything on if it was that contagious.
But a little paper silk cloth or something that came here from China to be masked up, nonsense.
And then stand six feet apart, nonsense, right?
I don't want to keep going down that path, but the problem is, is that you need representation that understands vested authorities and to ensure that the right of the people are secured.
So when sheriffs did not step up for the people of their county, they failed their people.
And when they went around ensuring that draconian mandates were suppressed, aside from their own people being protected, then they enforced draconian mandates and they violated their oath of office.
They should not be in that seat anymore, including all the people who are in the board of supervisors, city councils and mayors.
Anyone who agreed to this legislative bodies who agreed to this violated their oath of office.
Their job is to step down and remove themselves because, again, the Declaration of Independence is very clear that people are above government at all times.
How do you know this?
Because it says that governments are instituted among men to perform one job, and that is to secure the rights of the people.
That's it.
That's their only job.
So you don't get to have an excuse.
And when it's already been, when there's already laws and it's already been ruled and it's already been accounted for when it comes to our government and how they operate and how they're supposed to operate, they don't get to suppress the constitution, which keeps the authority of the people above government at all times.
I mean, you have a lot of different candidates running, and I've become acquainted with a lot of these individuals.
I got to say, you know, there's a couple of them that I prefer more than the others.
The issue that I have across the board though is a lot of candidates don't seem to have this understanding of the law.
That's the one thing that really stands out, including, by the way, Chad Bianco.
And I think people could argue that some of the stuff he's done, again, taking it out of the equation, look at the number of lawsuits against him that seem like legitimate lawsuits.
I mean, they've lost 75 million worth of lawsuits and settlements already, right?
So it would seem as though there's legitimate lawsuits.
There's legitimate grievances against him, which would indicate that he doesn't know how to do his job very well, whether it's, you know, he doesn't understand the law very well or doesn't understand his duties very well.
I mean, why does that sort of thing happen?
Why do we get people in power that don't seem to have the legal understanding that you have?
Is it that your legal understanding would then require us to arrest eighty percent of the politicians out there?
Is that why you're being swept under the rug?
Yes.
One of the biggest things that people say is that Daniel has a lot of knowledge, but Daniel just wants to arrest everybody.
Daniel just wants people to go to prison and, you know, he's going to shut down the government.
Well, let's just take that for as a foundation of things, right?
I've talked about this before, but I'm going to say it to your audience.
You are the government.
So you are the sovereigns.
You are the kings.
You are the queens of this land.
The people are, right?
The first contract that was created was we, the people.
That's the first contract with government body chosen by the people to represent the people.
And therefore, we are the government.
So we have a right under the Declaration of Independence to institute new guards.
Why?
Because when tyrannical regimes peek their heads out and they start subverting the right and the will of the people, it is the people who can remove them at the end of the day because that's really how it works.
This is how it's been designed.
And this is what our forefathers laid out before us.
It's just that this is information that is no longer exercised.
There's a fear factor that government unfortunately has authority over the people.
And that is not true.
It is the other way around.
And so when you have these law enforcement officials in their positions, they have become policy enforcers, not law enforcers.
So policies, regulations, mandates, penal codes, those are designed to control the behavior of your representative, state agencies, and commercial activity, not we, the people.
So whenever there's a boundary that's being crossed that's controlling the behavior, or it's impinging uponon an open and fair and free market, then they have crossed the line.
They have gone outside their vested authorities and outside the limitation of powers, which most of your police officers do not know.
This is why I say they swear an oath, but they don't actually understand what that oath stands for.
They are there to ensure policies get enforced, and they don't serve at the pleasure of the people.
They serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
The sheriff is the highest authority of the county.
The sheriff serves at the pleasure of the people.
and therefore is accountable by the people.
That's why his position or her position is so unique, which require them, if not demanded by the people, to be a constitutional enforcer because they have to make sure that whatever the board of supervisors is passing at the local level that it is constitutional.
And when you start having lawsuits that exceed in the millions, that costs taxpayers money because you're failing to perform your duties.
And a lot of people don't understand when you look at the paragraphs in the state of California.
The first paragraph is chalk full of good fidelity.
So that means that every representative has to have a bond, a bond, which is state law, which is written in our codes that ensure that their office is protected, at least if there is some sort of something that goes amiss.
Maybe it's not the sheriff's fault.
Maybe it was one of their staff members, something that makes the sheriff's office accountable for something egregious that happened, right?
Some sort of harm happened.
Irrelevant of that case, you have to have a bond.
The problem is, is they shifted that bond under criminal liability.
So it's a blanket coverage for everybody under a general protection, which is illegal under our state codes and our constitution.
The problem is, is that there's no accountability.
And so when people don't know what's happening and they don't understand how these departments work or these vested authorities, whether it's the judicial, the legislative or the executive, then they have no clue that their county is being robbed blind because of all the mistakes that a certain representative is engaging in, which a lot of times ends up being, and they engage in fiduciary delinquency on a regular basis because they don't know vested authorities.
So then a lawsuit comes around.
And you and I were talking off camera, all crime is commercial, right?
There's a commercial activity to what happens and what transpires.
And so the courts are also equally sort of involved in sort of proliferating this sort of egregious behavior.
these inactions that shouldn't be happening.
So when you enforce a policy that's not in agreement with the supreme law of the land or the state constitution, then you're enforcing something upon the people that is illegal.
And again, then that force.
And then what that means is they've violated their oath of office.
They have violated their sworn duty to protect their constituents.
And then when you look at the state constitution, if it's out of alignment, it's null and void.
So then you have to go back to the court cases and you have to see, you have to read case law and to ensure that whatever's been set precedents in the past that's still standing to this day, then current law can't.
can't falsely operate under the color of law.
It's illegal.
Even so a lot of people are under the fallacy thinking that just because the legislative body passed it, well, now it's law.
No.
Or even if they enshrine the state constitution, if it's out of alignment, it's null and void.
As a governor, I can slam dunk those into the trash like Michael Jordan from the free throat line.
I don't have to enforce that stuff.
Why?
I don't have to sit down with the judicial branch.
Why?
Or the legislative body.
Why?
Because it's already as if it didn't exist in the first place.
It's not an agreement.
But if you have, if you put somebody in office who doesn't know this, then you're subjecting yourself.
But here's the key.
If you don't know this, then you have no idea that your representative is engaging in treasonous actions, egregious actions, repugnant actions.
So this is why I always tell people, you need to know the law or there is no law and you need to know your rights or you have no rights.
So then when you get a representative or you get a candidate like myself pining for votes, how do you know what to ask if you don't know what to ask?
Because you yourself have no clue.
And this is how they get into office.
Man, yes, it's like the most ignorant people that don't understand the law that are cool with really this backdoor tyranny that's happening.
Because what you're talking about is a large number of politicians, legislatures that are not upholding our laws, right?
So by default, they are in one form or another committing treason against the constitution yet all these individuals seem to be uh bound together i mean we've seen from chat from Chad Bianco's endorsements.
I mean, he has every politician in California practically endorsing him.
And it seems as though they all have similar policies in terms of not addressing the kind of issues you're talking about.
Could you tell us a little bit about that?
Well, let's first look at some of the sheriffs in the state of California.
Some of the sheriffs, and I haven't done the research on all of them, but I do know that a few of them are also California bar members.
You cannot be a bar member and a sheriff at the same time, right?
Because of the fact that the bar enforces and ensures lawyers who are esquires, a title of nobility, which is illegal under the constitution.
uh serve court edicts they don't actually serve the people.
And a lot of people don't understand.
I thought that's what they do.
I thought lawyers, you know, help people, you know, fight for their rights, protect themselves, you know, whatever.
This is why lawsuits go on.
The problem is, is that every lawyer has to adhere to court edicts, meaning when you look at the word bar, what does bar stand for?
It stands for a British accredited registry.
So now when you're part of the ABA or the California bar, you're saying that you're part of the American British Accredited Registry Association.
That's an oxymoron.
You're serving two different jurisdictions.
That is illegal.
So it's a conflict of interest.
When you read American jurisprudence, and there's several books that I have, when you understand the look at some of the transcripts, when you see policies that courts set out, procedures, they have their own edicts and they have to adhere to them.
Then you'll notice that the constitution always sort of takes a back seat.
When you have sheriffs who are members of the bar and they still have a legal license to function in that way, they're now operating under also a different jurisdiction.
So now they're serving not only in the executive branch, right?
But they're serving in the judicial and there's a conflict of interest there.
And then they're under two different jurisdictions, which is both the British and American, but the American law.
The problem is, is that British law or the crown does not operate.
It always tends to supersede by way of the exploitation of the contract clause that forces lawyers to adhere to the court system first, right?
They never really adhere to American law, which is the constitution.
So again, if you don't know this stuff, it gets very complicated.
People wonder why, you know, they go to court.
Years go by and they're always trying to settle out of court is because the court also requires to ensure that they're making their profit as well, right?
There's a profit margin that has to be met for every judge, for every lawyer, for the overhead and so on.
This is why I kept saying that all crime is commercial.
So our sheriffs, unfortunately, are always pushing, you know, to not rock the boat.
They're pushing policies and they're always writing the line.
Not all of them.
We do have some good ones here in the state of California.
But why are all these other people, why is the left, the Democrats, some of the Democrats, not just the Republicans, are enforcing some of these governoral candidates?
That should beg you the question.
You know, it's not that they can build a bridge, you know, and they know how to negotiate with the left.
No, if we should not even have to be having this conversation with negotiating with the left who keeps subverting the right of the people every step of the way, you know, a bridging parental rights, ensuring, you know, that businesses are destroyed.
We have been overtaxed, you know, taxation without representation, you know, quadruple tax, every and from every direction..
I mean, it's ridiculous, right?
Why do we have to keep screaming at them?
And why are then now they suddenly, you know, supporting these particular candidates because they're the establishment pick?
And the establishment pick is usually about raising funds.
The establishment pick candidates are about ensuring, perpetuating the problem so that they can continue to gaslight the people and raise funds.
They throw a few bones and then they do everything they can to generate as much money as they can.
And this is where a huge key problem comes in when it comes to the party.
So when the party up at the upper echelons of the party come into play, they want to pick the candidates that they already have backed agreements when it comes to fundraising.
This is why you always hear, well, we need a candidate that can only raise a million dollars or more.
We want to focus on candidates that can get mainstream media attention.
We want candidates that we know can get name recognition.
I got news for you.
A lot of the candidates already have this, including myself.
The problem is that there is an agreement behind the scenes that comes with strings attached that a lot of people don't understand.
And it comes in various ways.
But this is why you see this sort of why all these people are backing so many different candidates.
And it is because these backing deals that you're not being aware of.
Okay, so because I always wonder, you know, you have all these Republicans and I have some text messages here of them really supporting Chad Bianco, like the Shiva Baggieri person, also Evelyn Sky Jones, these are two community leaders that bring in a lot of votes with them, right?
And they seem to be gung ho about Sheriff Chad Bianco.
And however, I look at this situation, I mean, Sheriff Chad Bianco has like zero chance of winning.
Why would these kind of individuals support somebody like a Sheriff Chad Bianco?
Well, because one, they themselves are ignorant and, you know, they're ignorant.
And I don't mean that to be an insulting way.
It's because of the fact that they keep spitting out the same rhetoric that they've always, you know, heard before.
Like I said before, you know, name recognition.
Well, I have name recognition.
So then what's next one?
Well, you got to have a million dollars.
Why?
You're not going to get any of that money.
And the candidates don't actually use all that money.
How do I know?
Okay.
Here's how it works.
And this is part of the reasoning why they kind of go along with this.
playbook that never works, right?
Again, the Republican Party has become the party that's paid to lose.
And the way it works is when I ran for Congress, this is where I got, I was opened up to the corruption and how it functions when it comes to candidates who eventually get into office.
A lot of times super PACs, PACs, lobbyists, corporations, Fortune 500s, you name it.
will send out notifications or packets in the mail to that candidate.
If that candidate is in a heavily contested area, what would be considered purple district and can swing the state in a particular way or the house in a number of ways that could affect certain businesses, it could affect certain communities, schools, and unions.
So I was in the 25th District at the time, purple district, and I was being sent all kinds of packets because I was saying very similar things that I'm saying now, but I just.
I'm saying now, but I just wasn't as educated back then as I am now.
And these contracts would say, we want to endorse you, but if we endorse you, you have to take our money.
And it was actually written in there that it said, I had to take my money, their money.
Why did I have to take their money?
And down below, there was a number of these state codes.
There was, you know, again, a number of, you know, policies that I had to read in.
I didn't understand why I had to take their money.
And so I would show this to my wife.
And it was written in so many different ways.
And in exchange for this, you know, we will comply.
You will comply in this particular way.
So I started getting phone calls from these packs and these super packs.
And they would ask, you know know, did you get our packet?
And I said, of course I did.
And they said, so could you use $50,000 for your campaign?
And I said, oh, of course.
What candidate can't use $50,000?
And I said, you know, but I'm curious about all these codes because I didn't really understand the law back then.
And they said, don't worry about that.
They said, you know, we have over 2,500 members.
And I said, okay, great.
And they said, we can tell all of our members to donate to you individually.
So the way a pack, one way a pack gets around donating more to a candidate they think is, you know, rattling or, or, you know, the right cages or even the wrong cages, but they're stirring up, that you're a candidate that can raise.
funds.
You're a candidate that they can use.
You might even be an untainted candidate that just, you know, suddenly starts getting some popularity and pull.
They like you.
And so they want to fund you.
But then the thing about this is that they want to ensure that you are contracted to them.
Remember earlier I talked about the contract clause, right?
So the states cannot come up with a law to prevent the obligation of a contract.
That means the contract, the right to contract is not limited.
That means it can be completely egregious.
The courts are going to take the Constitution and throw it out.
Doesn't apply.
Why?
They got to fulfill the contract.
So the contract would ensure.
Let me get this straight.
That contract is superseding the Constitution.
So you're signing your loyalties to that contract instead of the U.S. Constitution?
Yeah.
So again, go back to Article 1, Section 10, and I paraphrase it.
And if you read the California State Constitution under Article 1, Section 9, it actually paraphrases it beautifully.
And it does say that.
So in other words, when the states cannot come up with a law, right?
So there's no law they can draft that can prevent the obligation of a contract.
It's telling you that the right to contract, to just draft a contract, it's not limited.
It can be in all kinds of different fashions and forms and wording.
Right.
this is why the legal language comes into play.
This is why I say they change the language to change perception because it disrupts linguistical canons that the courts adhere to, right?
So the courts adhere to the meaning in a word and a phrase at the time it was first adopted.
But when you understand how to change the legal language to give it new meaning, it disrupts all of that.
And so it confuses and confounds the courts to have to make a proper decision when they've already decided on something of a similar nature in the past.
So now this contract that by way looks legal, The contract itself basically says in these contracts, codes that if they take the money, the candidate takes the money, that candidate can no longer do, say, or enact anything that would be contradictory or counterintuitive to that group.
So if it's, say, it's a realtor pack or it's a teachers un' union or it's a labor union of some kind or it's a farming company, right?
If you try to draft any legislation or if you are governor and you and that legislation comes across your desk, you by that previous contract will be held up because it's there for a number of years.
You cannot actually enact that law because you're under the contract clause.
So now we wonder why our representative who we loved.
and we wonder why they did you know they were so great and they made all these promises and all of a sudden they turn around they've done nothing is because they took the money and they signed in so so question isn't that aren't you by signing that contract and i'm imagining most of the candidates, especially the firm owners, have signed such contracts.
Isn't that by default you're committing treason against the constitution?
No, because again, it's the legal loophole.
It's exploitation of the contract clause.
This is one of the areas that corrupt government hides and operates.
They hide and operate behind the contract clause.
The contract, according to the bar, is what allows people to waive their rights.
And when you waive your right contractually, Well, that's on you because in 1956, U.S. versus Mincker, the judge in the transcript actually said that what appears to be lawful on the surface, people are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
So they're basically telling you, they know you don't know any better.
The courts know that you know nothing about the laws and you certainly don't know about contracts.
This is why it's very important that when you put your name on a dotted line, you know exactly what you're saying and what it's saying.
And you have to be cautious about that.
And you can change contract language in there before you sign it.
Like you can line item out things.
You can address certain codes.
You can sign it UCC 1207, which is without prejudice.
What does that mean?
That means when two lawyers call each other, they'll tell each other, hey Bob, this conversation is without prejudice.
Well, what does that mean?
It means verb's an informal verbal contract that says you can't hold me liable to this.
You can't use this against me.
If there's any disagreement, you can't use this in court.
We're just having a conversation.
So now if you sign a contract like that and the party that hands you the contract and you agree to it, but you sign it, you know, without prejudice, that means they can never come back to you and contest it.
You're saying, I'll agree to this for now, but if there's anything that changes and you try to throw back at me, it's not going to work, right?
And this is what I did to help my wife from being fired from her NICU unit here in Southern California, and I helped over 700 people maintain their jobs during the lockdown because they didn't understand that contract section that they were being forced to have to engage in, right?
And they were always asking people, you know, only people who qualify for religious exemption, which is the First Amendment.
uh can sign you know this this form that would give them that exception or exemption once they you know prove their their faith the problem is is that that was the trick question only those who qualify and my wife said well who qualifies and i looked at her and i said everyone qualifies they're just making it seem like only a handful of people do and that was the trick once we figured that out we understood this dynamic process that was happening with my wife and her job to ensure that once we finally got the religious exception,
which again is illegal, but we were having one foot in and one foot out.
And this is how you have to operate with our current construct of our laws right now under the corporation and not common law.
Then what ends up happening is that contract came to us and said that they were giving it to her indefinitely.
And I said, great, now sign it, you know, UCC 1207 without prejudice and sign your name through that on the line.
So once they took it and they filed it, it was done.
Well, that's what they did.
That means they can never come back and tell her, oh, there's a new pandemic.
You have to take this ne new job.
She'll never have to do it.
And there's nothing they can ever say to her to do it because they've already taken it.
And now that set precedents under the contract.
Now go back to the person who's running for office.
When they sit there and they tell you, we'll give you this money, a lot of candidates don't know what they're signing or don't know the kind of agreements.
And those agreements come in different various ways.
Remember, contract, the right to contract is not limited.
That contract agreement can be verbal.
It can be a handshake.
It can be a dynamic process of social media posts of agreements.
There's a lot of different ways that prove a contract without actual formality of paper indoctrination, right?
Sometimes it's just the pattern of behavior of the person that shows that there is an agreement.
And so a lot of times it's exploited if you don't know any better when you get to the courts.
So a lot of candidates do this not realizing it.
And then if they make an agreement, a lot of times there's a back end to deal for endorsements.
Why?
So when a candidate raises, say, a million dollars, that candidate cannot keep the money.
There's only one of three things that they can do.
One, they can give it back to everybody.
So if they have 500,000 dollars left over, they would have to divvy that up by every person who ever donated to them, which they should have a record of.
And then they give them percentage of what they didn't use back to the person that's left over.
That's too tedious.
So most people don't do that.
What they do is they can either give it to their party preference, right?
So if I have $500,000, I can give that $500,000 over to my favorite party, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Blue Party, you name it.
It can be any party.
I can give it over to that party.
Or I can give it to my favorite nonprofit charitable organization.
But the problem with the charitable organization with these nonprofits is sometimes the party has already a list of their favorites.
favorite or their favored nonprofit charitable organizations that they are associated with.
And then what they do is, is they tell the candidate, And I said, okay, but I said, why would I want to sign this agreement?
And they said, well, because we can help you keep the money.
So I was like, well, should you be telling me this?
And they said, no, it's perfectly legal.
So the way that works is then that charitable nonprofit organization that you choose that's tied to, say, a party member.
somebody who's up at the upper echelon, say the chair, and they have a list of who they want you to choose, you can then take that money, you can give it over to that charitable organization, put yourself on as an advisory member, and under the contract., they can make an agreement.
I'm giving you $500,000.
You as a charitable organization can keep $100,000 to $150,000, but you're going to pay me as an advisory member the remaining money back quarterly.
Perfectly legal.
And this is why we get a lot of candidates like John Cox.
A lot of people know about John Cox, you know, he'll come in and out.
He's what's called a perennial candidate.
A perennial candidate is a candidate who can raise a lot of money or is notorious for fundraising.
And then they raise a bunch of money.
And then they disappear in the void, but they never get elected, right?
You see candidates that run, you know, it's important to be able to run more than once.
You should because sometimes you've got to build up your name.
you've got to get familiar with the environment you got to kind of understand that the landscape that's understandable when you see a candidate maybe you know one to four or five times after that if they haven't won most candidates bow out but can but john cox is is you know i'm almost 50 years old and john cox has been running since before i was born And so he keeps coming in, never wins, but raises millions of dollars.
And then he disappears into the void or he, he, you know, state hops into another state and he tries to run there.
And so then what is that money?
What happens to that money?
Again, that money goes to an organization.
He gets a huge profit of it.
Why?
Because he's the one who did all the work or the majority of the work or he was the icon of the, you know, the figure of people donating to, right?
He was the face of it all.
So of course he's going to get the majority of the money.
So then what happens is a lot of the parties up at the upper echelons will make a back-ended agreement that if that candidate raises so much money, the candidate's going to donate that money back over to the party.
So it goes to the GOP as a whole and or the state GOP if you're on the Republican side or the DNC if you're on the Democratic side.
So then a lot of candidates you'll sometimes see will give a public endorsement.
for somebody who's, you know, maybe going to run for the chair or somebody who is, you know, going to be whatever, you know, the treasurer for the party, for the state, right?
Whatever it is, sometimes candidates will give an endorsement over and then you know they're raising all this money and then all of a sudden they they they end up getting the endorsement from the party well how'd that happen because again they gave over money if you look at dolly you know dolly's wife donated senator dolly who ran in the 2022 he made it to the general you know his wife they have a record of showing that they've donated to the party on average five thousand dollars a year but when he ran for governor he gave over they gave almost forty five thousand dollars and then two days later he got the nomination well how'd that happen right
it's a pay for play and this is how a lot of candidates will throw bones they'll speak in generalities they'll say stuff that you already know gabin new Gavin Newsom is a problem.
Gavin this, Gavin that, right?
Gavin is a perfect example of this.
He keeps talking about, you know, Gavin's this, Gavin's that.
Well, Gavin's not running, first of all.
Second of all, a lot of the things he talks about doing, he could do as sheriff.
That's exactly it.
And a lot of people don't realize that, again, this is just another stepping stone to somebody's, you know, political career.
And we keep hiring, you know, we keep talking about career politicians, but every time.
you put a new career politician in a new position, you're just proliferating and extending that life of career politicians who eventually just get warped or eventually just turn their backs on the constituents because, well, they're making their own money.
This is why, you know, we always wonder, well, gosh, how is it?
that somebody who goes in at the assembly level, they only make roughly 115, 125 a year, and then they come out a millionaire?
How'd that happen?
It's because of the back-ended deals that happen tied to legislation that then give them inside trading to whatever corporation or lobbyists.
These lobbyists are not coming in expressing redress of grievances to the corporation that they're representing.
They're coming in with emoluments.
What is an emolument?
Emolument is gift giving.
Well, how do they do that?
They do that by saying, hey, we're going to contribute to your next election cycle.
So assembly members run every two years, right?
And stays longer.
So this is how they keep perpetuating the problem.
problem.
And then you have somebody who goes from, and we hear that the nonsense from these individuals, these ignorance where they say, well, you should run for local first, then you should work your way up.
Why?
Why should I do that?
Well, you should develop a rapport.
You should build up your experience.
Why?
That's not written in the constitution.
A lot of people ask me, are you qualified?
And I look at the constitution and it basically says in the rules here in the state of California, right?
I got to be over 25.
I have to live in the state for five years.
I can't Be a felon, I qualify.
right that's how that works they're talking about accolades if our forefathers wanted you to have accolades they would have put that in the constitution but they did But they didn't.
Our forefathers also, very important to remind people here, we had an original 13th Amendment, which was all about leaving esquires out of the Congress, which frankly is probably the reason why we have so many problems, because you have two branches of government controlled by lawyers and the judicial industrial complex where there's no checks and balances.
So that seems to be the inherent problem that we need to deal with.
Yes.
So again, going back to that, when you talk about the 13th Amendment, the current 13th Amendment that we have right now actually used to be the 14th Amendment.
And then, of course, it got shifted over to the 13th and then they introduced the current 14th Amendment, which actually is more egregious than people think.
And the original 13th Amendment did not allow for titles of nobility, which we just talked about, which is esquires, right?
Because that's a title of nobility.
And the 13th Amendment that we have right now basically says that, you know, the government doesn't have the right to force you into involuntary slavery.
But you also have to pay attention to what didn't it say?
That you could volunteer yourself.
Right.
So as much as what is said, you also have to pay attention to what is not said.
So how do you volunteer yourself into slavery?
Right.
When we think slavery, we think, you know, chains, whips, out long fields, you know, picking crops or whatever, right?
No, you can enslave yourself contractually.
So that contract forces the people by way of legislation to meet on a profit margin, which is why you never want to run the state like a business.
So then we have these people who, you know, are part of the GOP and they're part of these other patriot groups.
that spout out this nonsense about, well, you have to have so much money.
You have to have name recognition.
You have to have so much media time.
The problem is that the party also controls the media, which they don't know.
So when I was in the recall, I was called by members of the GOP up north that heard that I was holding and hosting my own debate.
And they said, that was really great because I challenged all the candidates to a fair debate.
The debate was basically in short, everybody had to participate in the questions.
So the candidates had to go out.
find top three questions, send them back to my campaign.
Everybody was going to be told who submitted what.
And then we were going to go out and we were going to ask, you know, random registered voters out of these questions, which ones are the top 10 that you want to hear about in this debate?
And everybody was picked.
And then we showed them that.
And then everybody could bring notes.
They could bring their books and everybody was going to know the question in advance.
And every, and, you know, you go.
to these forums and debates and, you know, you got to kind of play a guessing game.
With my debate, nobody's answer was the same.
Everybody had completely different answers and they were well prepared and well thought out.
Some people were in agreement, but they were going about in a different way.
And the GOP heard about that and they said, you don't do that.
We do that.
We liked what you did, but don't ever do that again.
And I thought to myself, who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?
And they said, listen, we really like what you're doing, but we want to take the four what we consider major candidates against the four what we consider the minor candidates.
And at that time, it was like the minor candidates was like Sarah Stevens, Diego Martinez, myself, and I think it was Major Williams.
And the major candidates, I think, was like John Cox, Caitlin Jenner, Kevin Falkner, and Doug Osi at that time during the recall.
And they were going to call the media.
And I asked, I said, wait a second, what do you mean you're going to call the media?
They're just going to show up.
They just come whenever the GOP calls.
And they said, yes, whenever the GOP or the heads of the GOP want to do something.
extravagant or something of note, they have an in with the mainstream media, Fox, CNN, CBS, you name it.
And if they want to make a big deal out of it, they have ties to ensure that they show up.
So this is why you only see top two candidates or what they consider top two or only two candidates that are supposedly running but nobody else.
The reason why that is is because the Republican feels like that this is the perfect opportunity to have two Republicans at the top two seats because it's a jungle primary here, right?
Top two doesn't matter if it's two independents, two Democrats or two Republicans.
They think that if they isolate all the other candidates, the top two that they have already picked are going to win that seat because, well, the Democrats are just so tired of, you know, the deception from the Democrat, you know, the left of their own that they're ready to go conservative again.
they're ready to pick red.
And the problem with that, though, is that the...
And when you dig into these candidates, you'll see that they have more baggage than we need.
And unfortunately, that's all we're going to get.
is we're going to get a few bones and then we're not going to see any indictments.
We're not going to see any prosecutions.
No one's going to go to jail.
We might get a few bones here and there, but that's about it.
And then it's back to business as usual.
And this is why it's so important is, yeah, I'm a registered Republican.
I'm a conservative, but I am America first.
I am California first.
I stand on God.
I believe in Jesus.
The constitution is my is my rifle and my state constitution is my pistol and I am here to ensure that we stay within the confines of limitation of powers keeping the people above government.
That's how this works to ensure that the people who have turned their backs on us are held accountable and I define accountability as prison because without that.
Even General Flynn just came out the other day, like a day ago, and he just posted up the same thing.
Without prison, that kind of accountability, nothing's going to change.
So you need to ask these people, are you going to put any of these, these, you know, these reprobates in prison?
And I guarantee you that the mainstream media's establishment picks for the conservative side aren't going to say yes.
They're not going to do that.
They're going to say, well, I want to break bread with them.
I want to shake hands with them.
I want to negotiate.
I want to do it.
Bianco will kneel for them.
Bianco will kneel for them.
I mean, he's already shown what he's made of.
And so you have a bunch of kneelers, basically, that the party's pushing that are going to kneel to our constitutional rights, that are going to kneel to the we, the people's rights.
You know, this goes a lot deeper, though, man.
We talked about how there was a quote unquote debate that was set up so that the Riverside Republican Party could choose their candidate.
And what I heard, and tell me if this is correct, is that they're trying to embarrass everybody else, that they already pre-selected their candidate.
Could you tell us what you know about that topic?
Yeah.
So, you know, I was given a phone call.
I was, sorry, my microphone went up.
I was given a phone call by the chair of the Riverside caucus.
And the committee chair.
asked if I would attend.
Well, that question came along with a questionnaire and an email to a number of candidates.
And they had only sent it out to about eight candidates.
And that's a problem because you got to ask yourself, and I ask this to your audience, how do you know when someone's running for office?
Most people will say, well, I hear it through the news.
Then you're the reasoning why we're here in the first place, because you need to know when election cycles are happening on your own.
And then you need to know where to find those candidates and who have submitted their candidate statement.
And that is by way of the Secretary of State's website under candidates filing statements.
Then you get to see everyone's name who's declared that they're going to run for whatever office lieutenant governor secretary state assembly and so on and then you'll see a plethora of names that's where you start your research you don't wait for the party and you don't wait for the mainstream media.
You do your own critical thinking.
But that takes time and that takes effort.
And a lot of people, unfortunately, have become automatons.
But back to the Riverside.
The Riverside Caucus called my campaign and sent me that letter.
And I told them I wasn't going to do it.
I wrote back in a very professional manner and I just said, listen, this is a group that I don't care to address.
I've already spoken to the Riverside Caucus at least three times.
I put on a PowerPoint presentation twice.
And when I came back a second time, they actually stopped me in the middle of my presentation because they were offended by the truth.
And one of the questions that I had asked was, there's a bunch of new members.
I actually have a video of this too.
By the way, you know what we call that now?
There's a new term for the right that's offended by the truth.
It's called the woke right.
The woke right that doesn't want the truth to be known.
That's actually as bad as the left right.
Actually, I would even say it's worse because we think those people on our side, but really, they're just a bunch of woke people.
Yes.
So they had, when I gave this presentation, the current chair at that time stopped me in the middle of it.
that was because there was again there was a number of people who swore an oath to support and defend and uphold the state constitution the constitution of the united states so as i was giving my presentation and i got to the state constitution, I looked over to a couple of the members and I asked them, I said, you know, you're talking about going out and having a plan about getting people to run who are conservatives to run in open seats or uncontested seats.
That's a great plan.
But I asked them, I said, have you read this California state constitution?
And these two individuals said no.
And I said, then why would you support and defend and raise your up hand to support and defend and uphold that when you've never even read it?
For all you know, you can be staunchly against it.
Why would you defend that?
Right.
And they went up in front of me and they walked out and them to insult them.
But it was a fact.
You're going to swear an oath to support something that you don't know anything about.
Well, then you're going to to breed ignorance so ignorance is breeding ignorance and so they asked me to stop and uh and nobody spoke up for me especially the people who asked me to go there and i said you know i didn't ask to come here you asked me to come and and so they made a bunch of excuses and then that was it and so then they sent me back this letter and i said you know due to that event that was one of the most unprofessional you know gops that i've ever attended i'm never going to come back uh thanks and but no thanks And then the chair called me and I have her phone call here.
And she had said, you know, she was like, please, I would like to speak to Daniel Mercury.
Is there any way that we can, you know, get him to reconsider to show up?
So I had my PR campaign manager call her and they had a lengthy conversation for about 30, 40 minutes and my PR manager wrote down about four pages of notes of groveling to get Daniel to show up and they didn't realize that I already had two of their members call me and said don't show up they've already chosen behind closed doors Chad Bianco and I said okay well then they've chosen their candidate God bless them and they said yeah so don't show up it's really a ploy to embarrass you and the other candidates because you know it's an early endorsement
right and a lot of people are like are saying that you know why why such an early endorsement and i get it everyone's trying to get ahead and i said well i have no intentions of course this is backyard but you know it's not going to be a it's not fair it's they're not really there to listen to everybody they're not really undecided they've already made up the decision they just want to you know do a snapshot soundbite take some photos and and embarrass the candidates that didn't get the votes and uh and the chair didn't even acknowledge at first that they had two members call me and
they then right after that conversation had a third member call me and tell me that they had heard, you know, about me being notified.
And they said, they said, it's absolutely true.
They were, they were also in that meeting when they had already privately chosen their candidate.
And so my PR manager had said, well, listen, you guys have already chosen a candidate, so we're not going to waste our time.
You've already made your selection.
God bless you.
God bless your candidate.
May the best man win.
And they said, you know, and she said, no, no, no, you know, we're going to welcome Daniel with open arms.
We're so sorry this happened we have not publicly chosen a candidate and my pr manager said we didn't say public we said that you've already done it behind closed doors and so the chair said well you know of course this is his backyard this is chad's backyard and of course you know he has an advantage but we we can't say that he's not going to get it but you know there are a lot of people who don't you know support him in our group and so you know they just said, please consider, you know, we would love to have him here.
And one of the other members is a candidate who's also part of the Riverside Caucus called me and I called a number of candidates and I just said, listen, don't waste your time.
If you don't want to be embarrassed, I wouldn't go.
You know, it's just a courtesy call.
You know, I don't, I don't, I don't support being shotgunned interviewed.
I don't support, you know, being embarrassed.
It's unprofessional.
And this is what's happening among the GOPs and in different areas of the state.
And I get phone calls because I've been at this for years.
I have star been all over the state.
I have been to over 230 somewhat cities.
I've been all 58 counties.
I've spoken to countless and this is what a lot of people think.
You know, all Daniel's, you know, playing catch up to them.
No, they're catching up to me.
This is why I get phone calls from multiple groups.
There's always somebody in some group that knows who I am.
And so that member who's also a candidate called me and he said, hey, thanks for the heads up, but you were absolutely right.
100% it was a trap.
So much so that it was a vote, you know, 38 to 2, you know, in favor of Chad Bianco.
And they said that it was interesting that they had to mention Daniel's name.
They said that and because Daniel Mercury did not show up, he declined to participate.
We are giving him a no vote and a zero vote.
And it was just like this whole spiel about how, you know, they felt against me because I didn't, I didn't participate.
But that's what they wanted.
They wanted me to show up so that they could rub it in my face and other candidates that they didn't support me.
And I didn't give them the opportunity to.
Let me ask you on that topic.
I mean, you have a lot of dirty tricks, a lot of dirty tricks.
You know, you have somebody that's being accused of being a very dishonest person in terms of Chad Bianco.
I mean, that's been all over social media.
There's been a lot of podcasts about it.
And then you have this level of dishonesty on top of it by his supporters.
I mean, that just sounds all kinds of wrong, what's happening there.
Well, they're, they're, listen, even if I, even if, even if Chad doesn't have a rap sheet, let's just go with that.
Let's just go with that, right?
And you look at him taking a knee as a veteran.
I never once ever took a knee in solidarity with the Taliban, with a jihad on any level.
When you swear an oath and you're in part of the executive branch, as I was as a military service member, part of the job requires for you to give up your life.
Part of your job is to ensure that the sanctity of your community stays safe and protected.
But you never give in to the enemy.
And when you do that, you violate your oath of office.
That's why you swear that oath.
You don't kneel in solidarity to any antithesis.
or antithetical group, which is BLM.
BLM, right up on their website, says, we are a Marxist group.
That is antithetical to the Constitution.
It is the antithesis to what we fight for.
And when you succumb to that, you violated your oath.
But he has to take to his grave.
He has to take to his grave that he was praying.
That is the only excuse that he can give that makes sense in any respect, but it doesn't visually align because we know that that's BS.
There was no bowing of the head.
There was no joining of hands.
There was no moment of actual prayer going on, especially when other members took a knee before him.
And you see them screaming, take a knee.
And the argument that I hear that's just nonsense is, well, you know, he did everything he could to, you know, try to keep his town safe from burning down.
He still had areas that were burnt.
He still had areas that were mobbed and robbed.
And, you know, there were still areas that were people who were injured there was plenty of collateral damage and yet at the same time that is a horrible excuse how would you feel if any of our military members took a knee with the jihads that want to burn our country down but they stood down maybe a little bit for that time being but they're still active to this day and we took a knee in front of them while there'd be rolling in the grave you would just be
disheartened so it's a lie that has to be taken so i don't respect him as a candidate i would never vote for him even if i wasn't running and it has nothing to do with the fact that, you know, I know him personally, is I tell a lot of people I was a hair's breadth away of actually supporting him and was going to bow out of this in the early stages when I was talking to the Riverside caucus.
A lot of them wanted me to talk to him and Bill Asaley at the time.
And I was going around just to try to wake up the people of the state of California on my own dime.
Every month, one to three times a month, I had an event.
And I wasn't even, you know, the race wasn't even hard hitting as it is now.
But the more I started looking into him, the more I started realizing I can't let somebody like him be in office either, not at least fighting against that or at least presenting me as a possible choice.
And that's what all candidates are doing.
When people say, oh, you're going to split up the vote.
No, you're going to split up the vote.
Your job is to do proper research and not to get the old playbook that doesn't work.
It's the same playbook we use time in and time again, and it never seems to work.
We are on the losing end.
Yeah.
I want to throw out a few other things here that I've realized.
You know, we have this epidemic of not only the legislature taking away parental rights, especially in places like California and Colorado, where you could pretty much brainwash a child into thinking they're born in the wrong body, put them on hormones, do all that stuff without the parental uh without parental consent uh and really there's no such thing as parental rights and then i look at somebody again like chad bianco i notice his brother's a cps judge i notice that he's been accused of uh kidnapping
children taking away from uh their biological parents uh and i'm like why aren't you investigating the corrupt family law industry that we all know is corrupt that we all know is flawed i don't know if anybody in america right now knows at least a father that hasn't been alienated from their children i mean it's an epidemic but then none of that stuff is addressed by the people in power.
Well, here's the thing, and let me correct you.
There is parental rights.
It is actually constitutional.
Where is it?
It's under the laws of nature and of nature's God.
Where is that?
Declaration of Independence, right?
That we've been endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, right?
So those unalienable rights are associated to the laws of nature.
What is nature?
Nature provides that which is innate.
So what is innate?
Man and woman.
What is man and woman?
XXXY chromosomes.
They don't lie.
They allow for the act of consummation.
And at the moment of conception is new life, which is why our forefathers put that in the Declaration of Independence that we've been endowed meaning gifted by god with unalienable rights not civil those are different unalienable rights cannot be removed they cannot be bought sold or transferred right so when you understand this then you understand parental rights stem from the laws of nature and therefore government has no authority over a parental right because they don't parent we do the mother and
the father, XXXY chromosomes that created that life are the sole provider.
And government has no permissibility to actually engage in disrupting that.
That's why, again, that which is innate.
And so when you look at Marxism, well, Marxist, one of his pillars was the disruption and the abolition of family.
This is why this is happening, because people don't know about Karl Marx and Ingalls.
And when they wrote all their documentation about communists in their
their manifesto and when you look at that and you look at what is transpiring right now all of these bills that are passing egregiously is by way of what's called fabianism fabianism is a soft approach instead of communism coming in destroying the the infrastructure they want to keep the infrastructure because it's great it's good you got land you got property you got buildings you know you don't want to bomb it right what's a better way to do it the fabian approach fabianism basically took the same tactictics and they did it by way of buying out your legislators.
How did they do this?
They do this by the exploitation of the contract clause and they get these corporations to come in and they change the word emolument to lobbying, right?
They change the language to change perception.
So then they come in and then they make these bills and these bills then play around with linguistical canons and then they disrupt parental rights, parental rights that are part of the constitution.
You just didn't know about it.
Yeah.
And you go to the you go in a family court.
I mean, you could say the constitution all you want.
A lot of the time they'll arrest you for talking about the constitution, which again, sheriffs and people in authority positions that could then present repercussions to those tyrannical type judges, well, they never present that.
They give us all the promises.
It sounds like you're willing to arrest those kind of people though.
Because I can, if you put me in office, I can legally, lawfully, constitutionally.
There are so many areas that I now see that what these judges are doing, these law fair judges who engage in activism are stepping outside their vested authorities.
They have to adhere.
And everyone thinks that judges are nonpartisan.
That's not true.
They are not, they are partisan.
Who are they partisan to?
They are partisan to the Constitution.
Why?
Because they have to swear an oath and sign the contract as well.
But again, remember, who were they in agreement with first?
The American bar.
Who's the bar?
The British accredited registry.
So they're under court edicts that are tied to the crown.
So they have to play a very, very fine line of a position of non-partisan, which is why a lot of lawyers who pine to vote to get somebody's vote to be a judge, they don't really have anything listed on their sites.
Why?
Because they can't show partisanship.
So they have to remain neutral.
So it's just their name and maybe how long they've run and the endorsements that they get.
And that's about it.
But you really don't have any insight into them.
In fact, I know this for a fact because when I was up at Bear during the 2022, there was somebody who was running for judgeship and he could not answer.
He could only say, I can neither confirm nor deny.
And at first, everybody thought that that was super funny.
But then it started getting irritating because people wanted to know his stances as a judge and what he was going to enforce and how he felt about particular certain issues or what he would do knowing his, you know, the laws the way they think that they know lawyers know.
The problem is lawyers don't know the law.
They know tort.
They know contract, non-contractual crime.
And then they're like doctors, right?
Just because you're a doctor doesn't mean you have a blanketed understanding of, you know, of, you know, oncology or, you know, neurology and so on, right?
That's what lawyers are.
So don't assume that lawyers actually know the law.
In fact, lawyers are, it's not even a the law.
They pay attention more to the loopholes of the legal language when it comes to the law, not justice.
And the law and justice are not synonymous.
Justice is by way of the people.
The law and the legal loopholes and language is always something that they adhere to.
This is why they always try to tell people that they are non-partisan.
And this is why we have a problem with judges.
If you don't understand this and you step in front of a judge, yeah, you're going to, you're stepping in front of a magistrate.
That's not a court of record.
Family court is not a court of record.
This is why I would never want to go to a family court.
I'd want to go straight to a trial jury because, again, that's by way of your peers.
That's a court of record.
We have courts of equity and these Nisi Prius courts, which is, again, you stand in front of a judge or a magistrate or anything like that, right?
This is not how it's supposed to function.
But again, there's profit to be made.
And this is the problem that we have with court codes that don't align with sovereignty.
And this is where government then peaks their neck out above the people's status.
And it's supposed to be the other way around.
You put me in office, that's going to get corrected.
You put me in office, I can't wait for these judges to peek their heads out because those are the first ones I'm going to make an example out of.
By the way, you know, you go into, you know, Chai Bianco's funders and stuff.
And if you go deep enough, you'll find people that own things like foster care homes, you know, millions of dollars flowing through it, multiple, multiple allegations of child sexual abuse.
So I would do, I would think that if I'm getting money from that individual that is connected with those foster care homes, that is profiting off the family law destruction, I mean, obviously that person is not going to do much.
It sounds like already by contract or by some kind of tacit agreement, they've already agreed not to pursue the real criminals.
So then you have somebody like Daniel Mercury that comes and says, I'm going to arrest all these criminals that are committing treason against the Constitution.
constitution and the whole party is basically against you is what you're saying.
That's exactly it.
They do not want that because it solves the problems.
When you solve the problems, there's no more money to be made.
There's no profit to be made.
This is why they perpetuate the homelessness.
This is why they allow for open borders because, you know, child sex trafficking is $127 billion a year industry, you know, that people don't want to address.
And this is something that when you notice these sorts of accords that are going on behind the scenes and who's making the donations, this is why you have to be very careful.
Are they grassroot donations?
Then you have to be careful.
This is why a lot of people say, well, you need all this money.
No, you don't.
I have been traveling up and down the state of California on my own dime.
How do I get all this information from people that are down south, up north and midwest.
That is because of the fact that I've made my presence known off of my own dime.
I've shown the people that I know how to handle.
I know how to budget and I know how to ensure how to starve the government and feed the people to ensure that they are not meeting a profit margin or having to incur a debt that the following generation has to pay.
But when you say, well, you need millions.
No, you don't.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
There are so many other facets and ways that also the people can participate.
But when you look at who's donating and you see how it's all tied to and you see that there's corruption going on, why would you continue to still support that person?
And that is because most people have already put all their eggs in one basket and they refuse to admit that they were wrong or they want to win so desperately on the Republican ticket that they feel like, well, it's better to go purple than it is to just go fully red and conservative like somebody like me.
So we've got to vote the lesser of two evils and we can kind of work our way up to that position.
And you wonder why we got here in the first place?
It's because of that thinking.
And is that mentality that everybody has been prone to, that they become automatons to, right?
Everybody loves the things that I say, but it scares them.
And so they're in fear of it because they're afraid that they're going to lose their decadence.
So they go with a candidate that they know is hugely corre corrupt, has major red flags, and they feel like, well, that's the only way we can go in so that we can actually win so the left doesn't, and then we can hopefully take back the state when all they did was rob Peter to pay Paul.
Yeah, when you talk about decadence, but I really have to read this, and I'm not trying to throw anybody under the bus, but these are actual leaders that are responding to my campaign against Chad Bianco, right?
So this Evelyn Sky Jones, the reason I mention this is because you mentioned the word decadence, and there's what I've noticed in this in all political realms, definitely in our MAGA movement, that there's a lot of social climbers trying to pretend that they're MAGA.
So I heard a lot about you from individuals.als in Vegas, you are struggling and have no money.
She's saying this about me.
I don't know who is paying you to disrupt Bianco's campaign.
And then she goes on, and this is the interesting part.
I've spent over forty thousand dollars of my own money and will go to the White House when President Trump is in attendance, right?
So anyway, I respond to this lady, you know, firstly, she's telling me that, hey, I'm broke and trying to struggle, trying to insinuate that I'm some kind of loser, right?
And I'm like, what does that have to do with your California leadership position?
Firstly, you know, I'm not even going to try to debate what she said because I'm not going to give credit to her stupid accusations.
But the fact that we're talking about forty thousand dollars plates and really like picking on someone on a personal level, as opposed to talking about the issues, seems very much like, frankly, like I used to get attacked by a lot of leftists on this sort of thing.
They're like, you're a Nazi, you're like a crazy MAGA guy, you're an anti jabber.
It felt just like the same actually.
And it was coming from the right side, supposedly.
Well, let me tell you two things.
And I'm going to go ahead and name names on this one.
Let's talk about Evelyn Sky Jones.
Evelyn Sky Jones is someone I met during the recall.
Out of the blue, she called me and she messaged me and she asked me to call her.
message me and she on Facebook and she said, Daniel, I'm going to support you.
Daniel, I'm going to promote you.
I don't know who you are.
She's one of those kinds of people.
And I had no clue who she was.
And I thought, okay, well, I'm all in for people who want to support me and who want to participate.
But you still have to kind of screen people too, because you do get a lot of unfortunate individuals who are not all there.
And they make, they present themselves as somebody who has heavily influenced and stuff.
And she is somebody who I do not support.
She is somebody who I've had, in fact, very negative interactions with because of the incident that happened at my debate, the one that the GOP called me about and found out about.
And she wanted to get behind my campaign, but It started getting very hectic and she started just kind of getting into this mentality of things that weren't adding up.
She wanted to participate in a way that wasn't congruent with my campaign.
She was saying things that weren't necessarily adding up as to the GOP and her membership and the kind of authority that she had and all this sort of nonsense that just it really made it seem like she was a crazy person.
and eventually got to a point too where there was there was supposed to be involvement with trying to get people to buy things and and they were going to try to make you know sell some shirts and hats and all this and this was at a church but the church uh had a stipulation that if they were going to host the debate um they didn't want anybody selling anything because again it had to do with taxes and their 501 they didn't want to have to get involved in that they just it was a it was an open debate open to the public very uh organized we had a am 590 the answer.
The late great Don Dix and jennifer horne you know uh helped to facilitate it it was a really great event we had you know i think we had 150 people show up we had over 2 000 people watching live um it was a really great event and she wanted to be part of that but she really wasn't.
And so we sort of had this sort of negative interaction where I was like, listen, you're kind of forcing yourself upon my campaign.
You're not really part of my team.
And so this is an issue here.
And you keep doing stuff that's really not something incongruent with my campaign, I'd like you to stop or at least ask permission.
Well, she took offense to that.
And so then what ended up happening was just she tried to tie herself over to Diego Martinez's group and where they were going to try to still sell things.
And once we talked to his campaign manager, they tried to use Evelyn's nickname or different name to get her in.
And that was because we had told her because of the negative interaction, you're not coming to our, we don't want you showing up to the debate.
So do not come.
And she was going to come anyway.
So she brings her son of all things with Diego's Martinez and managers.
And when we found out that, we made sure that security that I paid for knew her face.
And she tried to sneak in through the back.
And she did with her son.
And when we found out, we removed her.
And she became this volatile, violent, vicious, verbally just sick person making threats.
I mean, it was one of the most vicious things.
And my campaign manager at that time was my sister, was just sitting there taking it and listening to her and just this vile-ness coming out, not realizing that her son was still on the inside.
And this is the kind of mentality that Evelyn Sky Jones is.
I have no love for her.
I do not care for her.
And so there was another member.
His name was, I believe his name with the GOP is John Bechtol.
I don't know if he's still part of the GOP.
But he and I had a huge conversation.
We had a blowout.
But during that conversation, he found some respect for me.
And he called my campaign up.
And he wanted to apologize.
And he wanted to kind of get on the same page.
I didn't really want to have anything to do with him.
Bye.
my campaign manager said, listen, you and people like Evelyn Sky-Jones, who are kind of blackballing me.
So Evelyn's called around to all the GOPs to blacklist me and to not invite me.
And then when we told John, John had an inside where he was going to get her kicked out.
And then she called my campaign and she was begging for us not to do it because John was going to do it.
And I told my sister, I said, you do whatever.
I don't care for her.
You can become best friends.
You guys can like each other.
I personally don't, but I don't want her to have anything to do with my campaign.
And so then she backed down.
My campaign manager said, just leave her alone.
We're going to let bygones be bygones and just move forward and just leave it at that.
And then she became a little nicer.
but I didn't trust her as far as I can throw her.
And now she's kind of back out there badmouthing me on social media as well.
I just block people like that.
I don't have time for that.
She's one person and a funnel of, you know, of millions here in the state of California.
And honestly, if people want to support that and GOP likes her, but they don't know all of her ins and outs from the, you know, from the back end on what she does and how vile she can be, let them have her.
Those are the kind of people that I do not care to be around.
They don't hold any opinion.
They don't hold anything over me.
I'm going to continue to run my race, win or lose.
I don't let people like that bring me down and you shouldn't either.
She, her opinion is one opinion of many and it's one of the most uneducated opinions that you could ever receive.
Yeah, yeah, totally.
I mean, none of this stuff is at this point.
It's hard to take things personally, brother, because after being accused of being an assassin, it kind of toughenes your skin a little bit.
You're like, you could pretty much accuse me of anything at this point.
I don't know if I do.
No, and that's what I told you before, right?
You are the third you are the third assassin that never was.
That never was, yeah.
You know, it just I find interesting that right now we're trying to figure out what is the best foot forward in California and it just shocks me that the people that are being supported are clearly like not winners.
Like I just want to win, not at the price of putting someone bad in there that's against our constitution, but someone like you, I would think would transcend just because you're a no in this era where with all the social media, with, you know, people just used to smelling BS, you know, a lot of the time I don't even have to say anything bad about Chad Bianco.
Most people are like, man, the vibe that guy gives me is not very authentic, right?
Because people could sense it.
You have this vibe of honesty that I think could transcend party lines, but you're certainly not a candidate that they're pushing, which just seems to be going against our better interests, because even what you have to say is the most important information that people need to know.
Because you could, you know, like you said, you saved your wife from getting jabbed.
You know how to navigate these family law courts.
I mean, these are the integral issues of tyranny that all of us face and you seem to have answers while a lot of others don't.
Well, one of the best things that we need to do also in the state of California is we need to get rid of the party system here.
In other words, you can have your parties, but when it comes to an election, you don't get to know if somebody has a D or an R or an I next to their name.
Everybody's name is going to be on that ballot and that's going to force everyone to have to figure out who's who.
They're going to have to look at the integrity of that individual, the nature of the character of the candidate, their constitutional understanding, which will force people to be a constitutionalists themselves and the state constitution and whether or not you know they believe in god or not some people say oh that's not important but it's hugely important and when you understand our forefathers memoirs and the declaration of independence but one of the things that we're also facing too is this sort of um this sort of ploy that's going on i was given a phone call by some of the caucuses down south some of the vice chairs called my campaign
and they said listen We don't know if you know, but a lot of the people down here in San Diego that are being led by the Sacramento vice chair or some of the chairs up north are basically trying to ensure that we do not invite other candidates.
The only way they're going to do that is if you particularly call them and let them know your presence.
They know you're there, but they want to act like they don't.
And so they're pushing this agenda to try and hopes to make it Steve and Chad only.
And a lot of the other members know of the other candidates and do not support Chad and Steve.
And so they are trying to ensure that candidates like myself feel left out in the wind and that maybe potentially that ploy will prevent us from continuing to run, not realizing that a lot of us have our own strategies and that strategy is being heavily affected because there are, again, dissension in the group in the sense that they're not okay with the fact that some members want to hear from other candidates.
They don't want to just throw all their eggs in one basket, especially when some of these candidates already have political ties with the UK or already have major red flags with criminal misconduct.
They want to hear from everybody so that they can make a well-educated decision on who they're going to support.
Because at the end of the day, even though their bylaws say, you know, that whatever the party suggests that you vote for, all the members have to vote.
No, you know, they're not going to look.
They don't care.
It's not their business.
But that's how they try to force people to vote in that direction.
And this is a huge ploy because they don't actually follow their own bylaws.
And I know this for a fact.
I have it on video where I got a standing ovation with the CRA during the 2021 recall.
And there were members there that were hugely in support of me.
And when I showed up, a lot of the other candidates were moving and shifting around because one candidate was supposed to show up and he didn't.
And that was Larry Elder.
And so a lot of people were shifting their timeframes around and I was going to go second to last.
But when I got there at my timeframe, I was the last speaker and they weren't going to let me talk.
And so the CRA, one of the chairs was like, no, we invited Daniel.
He is on the ballot and he has a right to talk.
We want to hear him talk.
And so the chair said, okay, we'll let him talk while we're eating.
And so you can see in the video, everybody stands up and gives me a standing ovation.
So I had about 33 people that I knew that were in there and they were texting me.
And they were telling me that the, the bylaw that they had created was that any candidate who does not show up, we cannot consider.
larry elder didn't show up and so the whole room was in support of larry elder the problem was he didn't come there were over 280 delegates that were sitting in there And so other people who were there, that the 33 or 34 that were in support of me started convincing almost half the room to vote my way.
But finally, they, somebody.
stood up and said well this is how it's going to go if we don't get to vote for larry elder then it's a no vote for anybody so they completely obliterated their own bylaw that they had created to ensure that any candidate that doesn't show up we're not going to support them because they didn't show up it was one of the largest delegate meetings to actually listen and hear to all of the candidates they were all going to be given about 15 minutes to talk and then you know they could go to their next event And so I got all this information.
And so it was basically they weren't going to support anybody if they didn't get who they wanted to support in the first place.
So then why did you even bother?
And this is the nonsense that goes behind the scenes that does a disservice to the people of California who maybe aren't a part of these these groups or these chapters or the CRAs or the GOPs or the DNCs, they're they sometimes rely on these groups to do the research because they're so inundated and the only way they want to participate, of course, is the only thing they can do is vote, but they don't have the time to do the research.
So they they become dependent on these groups, unfortunately, like an automaton.
The problem is that these groups are doing a huge disservice by picking a candidate that unfortunately.
It's just not a candidate that we need here in the state of California.
Again, this is why I would never vote for either of these people, even if I was not running.
And so this is why we have such corruption in the party system alone.
And it does.
It makes people go, you know what?
I don't even want to be part of these groups, and I don't even want to vote anymore.
But that's the main plan.
That's the agenda, is to get people to be disenfranchised, because it's easier to control a smaller amount of votes and split them up than it is to try to control 40 million Californians.
Well, only 14 million on average come out to vote for any gubernatorial race.
Where are all the other 17, 18 million?
Right?
this is why it's a it's a perfect plot it's a perfect plan to keep the people divided man i got one more question um if anything else comes to mind i'll pose it, but you know, you're what I noticed is there's a lot of candidates that have a lot of, you know, financial support and that sort of thing.
You're here operating really on a shoestring budget and you're also dealing with your, your, your child who's going through leukemia, which I didn't even know about.
I found out about that like a week, a week and a half ago when you mentioned it, which really blew me away, man.
That sounds like a lot you're dealing with, you know, running for governor and then dealing with, you know, what's happening with your, with your child.
Can you tell us a little bit about that.
Yeah, my daughter was diagnosed about two years, about two and a half years ago.
And my daughter, we, yeah, give me a second.
Sometimes when I talk about it, I get a little choked up about it.
You know, she's a beautiful little thing, very high spirited.
And we noticed that she wasn't eating.
She was very skinny.
She really lost a lot of weight.
And she's an athlete.
And then we noticed that her skin color was changing.
And, you know, I've seen dead bodies in the military.
And there was this one morning where she woke up and her skin was incredibly mottled.
The color of her eyes were almost black.
And there was this tiny little spark left in her eye.
And it was almost gone.
And I'd never actually seen that before, both my wife and I. And we knew this isn't right.
And she was always grabbing at her chest, but she was walking around with a smile.
And so we knew that there was something going on.
And she was getting blood draws.
And we were trying to figure out what was going on.
And then sure enough, when we took her in, called the doctors, they said, your daughter needs a transfusion right now.
She's not going to make it through the weekend.
And so when we did, they needed to run a biopsy.
And it was amazing watching my daughter come back to life when they gave her a blood transfusion.
And it really was like a vampire coming back to life as a human.
One of the most just beautiful things I'd ever seen.
When people say life is in the blood, it's in the blood.
And she woke up feeling like brand new, fresh.
She didn't realize how bad she felt until she felt so good.
they said you know your daughter has leukemia she has pre b cell all leukemia fortunately for her she has the most curable The problem with that is, is if this is the most curable, I would never wish that even on my worst enemy's kid.
Even if I hate you, I would never want your kid to have and go through what my kid has gone through because it has been a day in a day out struggle.
And one of the things that I discovered was a group came to me when they found out that I was running for office.
And they said, you know, you live in the, you know, one of the highest areas of children being diagnosed with leukemia.
And it is because I live near the Santa Susanna laboratory.
And that spill that happened back in 1960, mid-1960s, it was California's and America's Chernobyl.
There were 10 nuclear reactors, and one of them went off in that time frame, not telling everybody that 10 years later, another one went off and then another 10 years later another one went off in fact five had gone off when the first one had gone off it tainted the entire area that land was owned by at that time Rockwell International it was owned by NASA the Department of Energy and and one other group and now it's owned by Boeing and they never cleaned it up in fact so much so
that everybody here in my area says don't drink the water and they say it kind of in a humoristic manner but when I was talking to some of the high schoolers and teachers and principals, there is almost every class and almost every teacher has one kid in their class with leukemia.
And that blew my mind away.
And after a year of my daughter going through the first scheduling of her chemotherapy, some new kids moved into my neighborhood and they're about the same age.
And about within three months, one of the boys was diagnosed with leukemia.
And then a good friend of mine, he had a neighbor, he had a friend that just moved into our area and their kid.
about three months in was diagnosed with leukemia and that's hugely impossible without a co-factor and the co-factor is what the san suzana laboratory in fact we moved here when the woosley fire happened when i talked to you about that woosley fire kicked uped up all that old stuff that they never cleaned up.
They never got back down to the original ground to properly contain the fire.
Is this the fire that happened six months ago?
The Woosley Fire that happened back in 2017, I want to say was 1718, which is about the time that I moved out into this region of California.
And that's when we really started digging into why the government didn't clean it up.
And we started realizing that some of the things that were going on were tied to childhood chemotherapy.
In other words, for every child that has to go through chemotherapy, those doctors and those hospitals make an exorbitant amount of money.
and that the oncology for child treatment for kids with leukemia has been unchanged for nearly almost 70, 80 years.
So in other words, Children's Hospital is the hospital that has set precedents globally.
So even if I took my daughter to Mexico or we went to the UK, if we went to Canada, they follow the same exact protocol that Children's does.
And so we're with Kaiser on the same street as Children's Hospital, and our oncologists are doctors that work with children, so we didn't need to transfer.
And so there was nowhere else for us to go but to go through that process.
And, you know, unfortunately, this actually invigorated me to also stay in this fight because the more I learned with this group about what did not happen, that our legislative body continues to kick the can down the road.
and that they're not actually doing what they're supposed to be doing and that all these kids suffered because of the land, the farm, the water, everything has been tainted.
And there's a lot of archaeologists that have come out here to test the ground and the soil and the water.
And it is by far one of the contaminated areas in all of California.
We're not the only ones.
Government purposed it up because again, if you're a healthy person, your community and the pharmaceutical industries.
So this is a huge problem.
And this has invigorated me to get down to the idea of this and continue to run office it would be pointless for me to run for any other office because it would just only now to solve the problems a governor can solve these issues dramatically in a single night in a single month in one year there's so much that a governor can do and the governor that we have now right now is doing nothing but pointing the finger because well he doesn't want to he's contracted not to to.
And he thinks he's going to be the next president of the United States.
And if we're not smart enough, he's going to be.
And if we don't put him in prison and the next governor that gets in, he's going to run for presidency.
You put me in office, he's going to be living out the rest of his days in a prison cell.
And this is what I promised the people.
I don't want any more children getting sick.
I don't want any more of these industrial complexes getting away with what they're doing.
And we can't sit there and say that, you know, I just want to appeal to a better side of our, you know, left representatives.
No, they have no better side.
If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
I would add that the right side doesn't have a better side either, honestly.
When you talk about institutionally, there's great candidates like you that are all about protecting our constitution.
You know, there's a good moment for me to make the following statement since we're talking about our constitution.
And I'd like you to kind of, you know, give your opinion on my statement.
and any closing statements that you have.
So when this whole third assassin thing went down, obviously it was quite traumatic.
I thought as being a constitutionalist, I thought, you know, this is an opportunity for all Republicans to unify together to really reclaim our constitutional rights to bear arms, period.
There's nothing behind that sentence, right?
Right to bear arms, period, full stop, nothing else, okay?
And I thought this would be a really good opportunity for people to say, yo, this is ridiculous, you know?
It's ridiculous.
Like, let me put it this way, for the, uh, misdemeanor gun charges, where now nine months later they still haven't released their body cams, and it's obvious why they haven't released their body cams, right?
The states probably spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on this BS charge.
On the other token, there's my suit against Chad Bianco and the Riverside Sheriff's Department for all the horrible things that Chad Bianco said in the Riverside Sheriff's Department, uh, I guess supported, right?
And so you look at that equation, there's about three, it's something like what I'm hearing about 350,000 dollars that's been spent, that's been spent thus far on that case.
So we're talking about over half a million dollars over something that's completely unconstitutional.
And I thought this is an opportunity for all of us to stand together and say, look, right to bear arms, none of this nonsense.
But instead what's happened is a lot of Republicans that are part of this crew you're talking about, we're talking about a very specific crew.
You named some of the names.
It's an enclave of individuals that then started attacking me saying, you're going after the one sheriff that's giving us, you know, CCWs, and I'm like responding going, wait a minute, CCWs sound like tyranny on the installment plan.
It sounds like you were tricked into thinking that's a good thing, but what you're really doing is you're acquiescing to your rights being taken, your constitutional rights being taken.
So rather than seeing this kind of uprising to be like, we're going to fight for our constitution and we're going to make sure that these stupid laws in California where they call a gun with 14 bullets a high capacity magazine, making it sound like an AK-47, I thought there's a great opportunity for all of this to go away.
Instead, what happened is that I was attacked endlessly by these individuals telling me I shouldn't be attacking Sheriff Chad Bianco.
Tell me what you make of that.
Well, I knew right away when you were when you were released on your excuse me, I knew right away when you were released on your own recog that there was no evidence and I found it disturbing that there was a claim that there was a potential third assassin and immediately right away I thought this was a ploy for this individual that I had already known who had not quite made his announcement yet that he was going to run for governor because again I was supposed to have that meeting with him and it never happened and I knew that there was something off about
this when somebody is released on their own RECOG that there's not enough evidence because if you were truly the third assassin, you would have never been released.
You would be in a federal penitentiary right now, but that wasn't the case.
So immediately that told me there was some major red flags and there were some inconsistencies here.
Some of the arguments that I hear online about you and you bringing guns, people say, well, that that's just the dumbest thing.
Why would you do that?
First of all, you're an investigative journalist, you travel, you have a right to have a firearm in your car.
One point, one point I just want to make.
Even the, the, the, the, the thing of like he brought guns to Trump Riley, that's a fallacy.
That was impossible to do on that date because the reality is I was one point two miles away, not even parking my car.
I would drive up to the depot.puty to say, I have a couple of firearms, just in case they said, you know what?
It's too weird of a time right now with the assassination attempts.
Do you turn and go home?
I didn't think that this was going to blow up into a guy, you know, claiming, hey, I have a couple of firearms and to then him being accused of being an assassin.
But the geography of that day is I'm 1.2 miles away.
I'm not even trying to park my car yet.
And had I parked my car, I would have had to get out of my car, hop in the shuttle, take a shuttle to the actual rally location.
So this idea that, oh, what a silly, stupid man.
He brought guns into the Trump rally.
That's like saying I went to Disneyland, right?
Same kind of geography.
You park your car, you hop in a shuttle, it takes you to entrance to Disneyland, and that's where you go through all the security stuff, right?
It's like saying that for me parking my car at Disneyland and then going a mile to the actual entrance, I am therefore planning, I don't know, a mass shooting.
I mean, there's no...
Again, you have every right.
You have every right to have a firearm in your car.
You have every right to carry.
You have a right under the Second Amendment.
You have a right under Article 1, Section 1 of the California State Constitution because you have a right to defend.
yourself, right?
You have the right to an arm.
People don't know that a firearm and an arm are under two different jurisdictions.
And so both of those are being eroded.
And that's the other argument too.
As an investigative journalist, you have the right to travel and the right to defend yourself and the right to protect your property.
Your weapon can be in your car because that you have a right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in your property, right?
So again, one note here, one quick thing which is very interesting that like you're referring to me as an investigative journalist.
Whenever Chad Bianco talks about me, he says, oh, he's an influencer and he gets paid for clicks which I've never gotten paid for clicks as an influencer.
I'm not even an influencer.
I'm a documentarian and a journalist.
So when you said that, it kind of was like, okay, why is he calling me an influencer?
Because an influencer trying to get clicks sounds a lot more nefarious and ego-driven than a journalist, a documentarian that is really whose purpose is to be a media person and report.
So anyway, just wanted to mention that.
Yeah, and I completely agree with that.
Again, it's...
It's word choice being utilized to paint you in a negative light to give him credence to the mistake that he engaged in.
Rather than him just coming out and saying, in short, listen, today was a good day.
Our attentions were heightened because of the previous two assassination attempts on the president, because of the fact that there were some oddities to this sort of interaction.
It turns out that this was a false alarm.
Our deputies did their job.
The individual was not who we thought they were.
They have been released on their own RECOG.
It's a good day.
The president had a safe event, and everybody's going home.
So this was a good day.
Kind of like Trump did, by the way.
That's exactly what Trump did.
When they approached him the next day saying, hey, what's up with this third assassin?
I was told by multiple individuals that he made a comment going, hey, I think they got that one wrong.
And then he made another comment where he sounds like a patriot, cool guy, which would have actually made him so much more likable.
Which is, I think that's what we like about Trump is that ability to just kind of be a regular dude and be like, yes.
Yes.
You know what happens.
And had he done that, he wouldn't have gotten sued.
But he decided he wants to dig his feed in.
Until today, by the way.
I just saw another podcast where now he's saying, oh, what if he went in there to try to kill me and do a mass shooting?
I'm like, dude, you're still trying to make me seem like a criminal to justify this nonsense.
People don't see that.
People don't see that.
That's an act of corruption.
That's a microcosm of what that dude is killing me.
is capable of and now you want to give that guy the power that you want to give that stalinist kind of personality like governor you want to make him governor of California I mean sounds like a really bad idea actually you know and again, that this comes down to inconsistencies.
So again, you know, when I was in the military, I used to have to perform investigations on people that I would ground, you know, operatives that, you know, couldn't do their search and rescue missions, couldn't fly, couldn't, you know, do their jump calls, couldn't be a gunner, couldn't go on search and rescue missions, couldn't participate with inserts and extracts with spec ops.
I used to have to perform investigations to ensure that there was evidence that was based on fact to ensure that these people that that were not operational ready had.
had actual factual evidence as to why I was grounding them, right?
And this was something that I knew right away, just as a veteran who's performed investigations, that there was too many inconsistencies.
So even though I didn't really know you personally, I know you through a mutual friend of ours and had heard about you, you know, you know, a couple years ago and and your your investigative skills and your videos and stuff.
So I knew that there was something off because here's something else too.
And I find it very, I don't know, I don't want to say it's, you know, fortuitous or anything like that, but I always say everything is in God's timing.
is the likelihood, and this is my personal opinion, what is the likelihood of a man like you who has a tremendous following, has, you know, it's true MAGA, is out there, you know, really doing documentaries and doing your research and digging up on people and putting out videos out there to reveal the truth.
You happen to be the one person that by chance, the deputies try to screw over and use you as, they try to take you as an, they were trying to be an opportunist, basically.
Chad was being an opportunist with you.
The one person that made you, the one person that
maybe they thought was some sort of you know, nobody, a person who had no skills, somebody that they could just pin this on and paint him to be like some hero ends up being you somebody who fights back who went out there and timestamped everything who started performing your own investigation who went out there and started actually digging information to start protecting your name you started fighting for yourself and to prove inconsistencies on his part which made you go down a further rabbit hole and
made him look horribly bad not because you're trying to be deceptive but because you wanted to find truth and when you did you started digging you started finding all his major red flags which a lot of people had already started seeing but you just exposed it what would be the chance out of all the millions of people that showed up in the county to go see president trump that you would be the one person that he thought that he could pin this situation on.
And I guarantee you, they were probably looking for somebody like this to try to say third assassin because that's how he operates.
He looks for those.
He looks for those who make himself look, you know, glorified and he chose the wrong person and I think that was Godsend in my personal opinion.
No, no, I think that too, man.
I think about that day all the time, man.
And I'll be honest with you.
It's been tremendously difficult.
I've tried to hold my composure throughout a lot of really traumatic things.
I mean, nothing close to like having a daughter that's suffering from leukemia.
I mean, I definitely sympathize, but it's definitely a very unique experience that happened and I've been trying to figure it out.
I've been trying to figure out why out of 50,000 people and I know he was trying to target people.
I know this was in his better interests and the only conclusion I could come to is that this was really and I hate even talking like this because people that talk about, oh, God chose me.
I think a lot of that sounds very douchey to me a lot of the time.
But I do see how the way this is playing out that like a really bad guy that was certainly.
Certainly pulling, you know, the pulling the wool over a lot of people's eyes.
Now, I mean, I just doubt that now he has any chance of becoming governor.
And I, and I think before he did have a chance, and that might be the, you know, God's silver lining to all of this.
And, you know, we'll see, we'll see how it plays out.
It's a story that's still being written, you know?
No, and I, and I'm definitely in support of it.
I'm definitely in support of, I'm definitely in support of.
anybody who's out there that wants to reveal the truth.
And that's why, that's why one of my previous slogans during the 2022 was, you know, I'm here to offend you because the truth offends.
People don't want to hearar the truth.
They don't want to do their homework.
When they start to get behind and support somebody and they realize that that person is vile or they're repugnant, they're evil or they've done just too many shady things.
It's one thing to say, you know, somebody made a few mistakes in the past and they've done something to rectify it and they didn't hide it, they owned it.
Those are the people that I can get behind.
Why?
Because we're not perfect.
We're all going to make mistakes.
We're going to put our foot in our mouths.
It's going to happen.
You know, our emotions sometimes get the better of us.
We're human.
I get that.
But when you take something to your grave, when you know it's an absolute lie, when you purposely try to destroy somebody else's life for your own personal gain, and when you have a rap sheet that's just as long as, you know, a criminal serving life, there's a problem here and that is not somebody that i want an office and and to have that revealed and to reveal the truth it does sometimes hurt people who don't want to hear this who have finally felt like they found somebody that they can really rally behind And
now you're making them angry because they've realized they've made a mistake.
So the only thing they can do is continue to pump out platitudes and call you a liar.
Yet they themselves have turned a blind eye.
They themselves have shut off their ability to hear the truth and to be, you know, critical and cognitive thinkers to ensure that they are adhering to truth.
And that's just, unfortunately, thing that we are seeing and that's going to be the divide of our state it's not the candidates it's the people who are getting behind the wrong candidate and not realizing that they're making a mistake and they have the ability to push any candidate that has the the proper intent to ensure that they're not leading you they're serving you and this is what we fail to to seek out we seek new leadership we don't seek new servants and this is why we are where we are Yeah,
and I told you, I'd rather support somebody like you that's telling these truths, even if we knew that it's going to be impossible to win, but these truths getting out for people to understand what their rights are, especially at this most critical time when we just went through COVID and everybody's rights were stripped away from them.
And look at you, you have certain information that stopped the same from happening to you.
So how great would it be if the entire state knew this information, knew literally the blanket of BS that's been put on top of us, which I call statutory laws, maritime laws, that prevents you from getting over here, which is God's law, constitutional law.
And that stealing is what I think it's most important to peers as opposed to pretending that just somebody, hey, is a Republican, he's going to have our rights.
What are our rights?
What are you as a Republican?
I thought being a Republican, part of that was being very much pro-constitution and that being the sword that we die on that is the sword that we die on the us constitution and if we're not willing to make the us constitution the sword we die upon these runs for office are just different forms of losses like i was saying yes tyranny on the installment plan right yes you cannot have the same road to that same tyranny yes you cannot have government by consent when
statutes, mandates, regulations, and policies supersede his law.
His law, meaning God's law, which is written in the hearts of man, which is what our constitution and declaration of inde Independence and the Bill of Rights were founded upon.
When you actually study this and you do the research, you will come to that conclusion without me having to influence you.
It just is because that's how our forefathers thought.
They were genius at the time.
We don't live in a democracy.
We live in a constitutional republic and there is a significant differences between the two.
And if you don't know them, that's a problem.
And this is why exactly what you're saying.
And to go back real briefly, CCWs are illegal because they turn a right into a privilege.
Under my administration, we're going to be a CCW state, meaning you're going to, as soon as you, you know, you may purchase your firearm and you already go through the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms for a background check, as soon as you walk out with it, you're already a lawful CCW, right?
I don't necessarily recommend it open and carry because you put a target on your back, but we can work on that.
But in my instances, I'd rather keep the criminal guessing as to who's carrying and who's not.
Why?
Because they don't want to get lit up.
Yeah.
And when you remove that CCW, again, you cannot turn a right into a privilege and you cannot charge a fee thereof.
We call that extortion.
So it's already lawful.
You have the right to keep and bear arms.
You have the right to defend, right?
You have the right to be secure in your property and your persons and your place and your papers and so on, right?
All this is already laid out.
So then if I go out and I. If I go out and I protect myself right now without that CCW, I'm liable.
But if I have a CCW, then I'm not liable, right?
So I asked government for permission for what I already have that's unalienable.
Do you see the conflict here?
And this is why it's already standing when you have Miranda versus Arizona, you know, Shuttleworth versus Birmingham, you have Marbury versus Madison.
Like all these laws are still standing to this day, which means they, they, laws must be in agreement.
And this is what we're fighting against is repugnancy.
Awesome, Danny.
Awesome.
Now, I'm going to give the mic to you one last time here.
Any closing statements you want to share with the people?
I just want people to understand that I'm not here.
I want people to, I want people to.
to I want people to understand that I am not here to lead you.
I don't want to lead you.
I don't care to lead you.
I want to serve you.
I want people to understand that I am here to starve the government and feed the people and that I define accountability as imprisonment.
Prison is the solution for corrupt representative.
Nothing less will do.
And if people want to get behind my campaign and my candidacy, they can go to Daniel for CalGovernor.com and there they can donate, they can participate, they can go to my flyers page and download flyers and start door knocking if they want to or handing out flyers.
They can share my videos.
I have multiple platforms.
There's multiple ways that you can participate.
And if you're not sure, you can always text me.
There is a campaign phone line that is an iPhone.
I receive messages.
I answer the phone and I text people back as well.
You can direct message me through email if you want me to come out and speak to your group or if you want to just talk to me directly.
There's a number of ways that you can support my campaign.
And one of the best things that we need to understand right now is that.
We need to realize it's not about trying to do the right thing.
It's about getting back to doing the God-given constitutionally right thing.
And that is exactly why I'm running here.
And this is if this is what you want and you're ready for retribution and you're ready for restitution, I am your candidate.
Man, sounds like poetry if you ask me.
This is the kind of, this is what everybody's waiting for.
This is the uproar right now in the mega party with this Epstein files not being released.
It's all about accountability for people that are, you know, harming our country, harming our kids.
Thank you so much, Daniel.
You know, for the viewers out there, look, I've been in deep in this campaign for obvious reasons.
I've met all the candidates and I got to tell you, there's a lot of candidates running first and foremost, but I've talked to maybe two that have, and I'm talking about Daniel and one other person that actually referenced the constitution.
Daniel's knowledge when it comes to the constitution and our rights and how we're being really robbed and raped in so many different ways is on a different level.
And I don't know how you compete with that.
I don't know how you compete with that if you really want to restore our constitutional rights and none of this nonsense.
You know, my case alone, $600,000 has already been spent on an unconstitutional, nonsensical thing that shouldn't have happened.
$600,000 of the people's money, you know?
So anyway, what's happening to me is a microcosm of the corruption.
You multiply that, you look at the web.
It's very clear why these certain people are always pushed to the forefront, and it's because they want to compromise your rights.
And what Daniel's talking about right now is not allowing them to compromise our rights and holding them accountable so they have the fear of God in them.
So the next time they think about doing some nonsense like COVID and robbing us with mandates and trying to force jab us with this death jab, then people will think twice about it.
about doing something like that next time but right now the reason why they're so free to do things like that is look at look at these politicians look at these politicians that are not willing to stand up and hold anybody accountable they all went along with the covid nonsense and they'll do it again and again to take away your rights to take away your businesses and And really,
the only people that are standing in the way of something like that is people that have the willpower of an individual like Daniel, whose own daughter right now is going through immense difficulties and he's out here trying to be governor.
So anyway, brother, thank you so much for coming to the Blood Money podcast.
For the viewers out there, make sure you check out americahappens.com where we have selection of some of our hottest content.
And I will see you all on the next episode of Blood Money.
Liar, liar, hands on fire The LM healer, Fergus has a coaster Liar, liar, hands on fire The LM healer, Fergus has a coaster I'm
▲
Export Selection