Meet the Candidate: Dr. Alex Balekian, 30th District Congressional Candidate

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
My Burbank Talks presents another episode of Meet
the Candidate, the show wherewe invite anyone appearing on
the Burbank ballot in the 2024election to join us here and
give our listeners a chance tolearn about their background and
the issues important to them.
Now let's join our podcast.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Hello Burbank, craig Schubert here with you once
again and another Meet theCandidate podcast, and this one,
I think, is a little morespecial.
This time we're going way aboveour pay grade here and we're
doing for a member of Congress.
So this is for Adam Schiff'sseat, who is now running for
Senate, and his seat is nowempty.

(00:38):
So we have a wide open field.
And so today we have Dr AlexLincoln in, who is going to talk
about his candidacy and hisbackground and let you get to
know him a little bit.
And as always, you know me, I'mgoing to ask the tough
questions.
I think it's important to getto know who he is because, in
all honesty, I don't know who heis, and these are questions

(00:59):
that I want to know.
So I think it's important thatyou also find out these things
too.
So I want to give you a littlebackground on him first.
He's from Glendale.
He attended the GlendaleUnified School District, so I
guess that's a good thing.
You know we're in Burbank, butyou know we still like our
Glendale people.
Dr Blinken identifies as a proudDukmasian Republican and has

(01:22):
felt disenfranchised within hisparty for the last 20 years.
He began the race as a no-partypreference candidate but
redesigned his campaign as aRepublican two months later.
We can ask him about that.
Dr Blinken is a Glendale-bornand raised physician is defining
the GOP in Los Angeles County.

(01:43):
He embodies characteristics nottypically associated with
contemporary Republicancandidates Middle Eastern, the
son of immigrants, pro-choiceand never having run for public
office before.
He is also married to a man.
Dr Blinken frames his campaignas a contest between
progressives andnon-progressives, rather than

(02:04):
Democrats versus Republicans.
He states.
Progressive policies aren'tworking.
My fiscally responsible,socially sane platform,
prioritizing ideas over identitypolitics, will attract
disenfranchised voters.
Moderate Democrats,independents and moderate
Republicans tired of extremepolarization in the two-party

(02:28):
system Find that all veryinteresting, so let's get into
some of that.
So let's start off Number one.
Dr Blink, thank you for comingtoday.
Welcome to the show.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
Thank you, Craig.
Thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Well, we're glad to have you here.
I mean, like I said, I'm veryexcited about this one.
So you attended GlendaleUnified School District, but it
doesn't say much about that.
Did you play any sports inschool?
Did you do any extra, quickeractivities?
Just a little about the first18 years of your life, a little
bit.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
Right.
So it was actually the first 16years of my life, so it
answered your question.
No, I definitely was not sporty.
I graduated second in my class.
I was 16 years old, so I was onthat nerdy side of the spectrum
rather than the sporty side ofthe spectrum.
Um, yeah, born and raised andshe's becoming a doctor.
Yes, um.

(03:23):
So yeah, born and raised inGlendale, grew up in an Armenian
immigrant household.
I was the first member of myextended family born here in the
States and I went to Armenianschool for the first six or
seven grades because my parentswanted me to read and write
Armenian, and then after that Iwent to Glendale Public Schools,
first Toll Junior High Schooland then Hoover High School.

(03:44):
Yeah, I was two years youngerthan everybody else, so I was
kind of an anomaly.
For that reason.
I didn't really have manyfriends and I was just a
bookworm and yeah.
So I was 16 when I graduated,back when a public school
education here in SouthernCalifornia could actually get

(04:04):
you into places like UCLA andthen get you into medical school
.
So the inexorable decline thatwe've seen, at least with my
high school, hoover High School,with the test scores, is
something that I findregrettable and something that I
am hoping that the schooldistrict will try to reverse.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
Do you think some of that is due to the culture in
Glendale?

Speaker 3 (04:26):
I think it's all of the above.
I think there has a lot to dowith Armenian immigrant families
.
If you have parents who don'tspeak English, who are not
fluent in English, they may notparticipate more with the kids,
you know, helping them withtheir homework.
That said, one of my firstmemories of childhood I was
probably around three years oldremember looking up at the

(04:46):
fluorescent light bulbs inglendale college because my
mother took me with her toenglish classes.
So when I was growing up, mymother's command of the english
language was definitely notfluent.
Um, so it's not an uh but it'simportant.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
I think that she did work to try to learn the
language and not just you know,know, I mean, and try to fit in,
which I think is very importantfor any immigrant.

Speaker 3 (05:06):
Absolutely, and I that's what I say is one of my
policies is to havecomprehensive immigration reform
where we actually have atransparent system.
A transparent system thatpeople kind of like applying for
school or for a job.
You are ranked, and so whatthings would we, would we be
prioritizing?
Well, we want industrious,skilled immigrants who are going

(05:27):
to um, embrace our constitutionand we're going to assimilate
fully into life.
So I'm going to hold you rightthere, cause we will get an
immigration later.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Sure, of course, I've got a lot of categories for you
coming up here.
Let's do this.
I think it's important.
Um, okay, so on the college,and you did you go.
You said UCLA, I went to UCLA.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
I went to UCLA because I was 16 at the time, my
mother said you were not livingon campus, so I stayed at home
for four years, um, so I neverwent to parties, frat parties, I
never pledged anything.
And then, when I was 20 and Igot into medical school down in
San Diego and I moved away and Iwas, you know, two hours away.
That is when I really hit mykind of like party phase and

(06:05):
stuff.
So it was the timing was a bitoff, as you know what it should
have been, but I I kind of hadmy college experience in medical
school.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
It's still good to go through that, though, because I
think that you know that's alife experience, you know to see
that entire culture of you knowI mean you work hard Monday
through, or Sunday throughThursday, and then Friday and
Saturday nights.
It's on.

Speaker 3 (06:25):
Exactly, and I learned how to surf when I was
in San Diego, so that was anadded benefit, an added bonus.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
It's a great community down there.
Okay, so now you are apracticing doctor right now,
right, so what's your specialtyand are you working out of of a
facility or hospital?
Tell us a little about that,yeah.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
So, um, I've been a physician for 20 years now.
I practice pulmonary andcritical care medicine, so I'm
triple boarded.
I practice pulmonary medicine,so that means I'm a lung
specialist.
Um, I am also boarded incritical care, so I work in the
intensive care unit.
Life support people connectedto machines, kind of people saw
that or experienced it with thewhole COVID pandemic, so that
was me kind of putting on myspace suit and going in there

(07:10):
head first.
I also practice internalmedicine, so I'm a general
internist if I need to be.
I've worked as a hospitalist ina hospital, so I'm entirely
hospital-based.
I work at a couple hospitalshere in Glendale and also up in
the Bay Area, so I commute upand down couple hospitals here
in Glendale and also up in theBay Area, so I commute up and
down.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
Oh okay, so that's a heavy schedule then.
So if you do win the election,what happens to all that then?
Do you get sabbatical orsomething, or do you walk away
or do you still practice alittle bit?
What goes on next?

Speaker 3 (07:37):
Excellent question.
So for the first 10 years of mycareer I was at USC, I was an
academic pulmonologist, I didresearch in lung cancer, I
taught at the medical school andthen in 2019, I said okay, I
just kind of want to change yourpace and cleanse my palate.
So I went into private practice.
So I am kind of an endangeredspecies.
I am a solo practitioner withmy own private practice, which

(07:58):
nowadays you don't find many ofthose anymore and because of
that I control my own schedule.
So I have I staff an intensivecare unit with a bunch of
doctors and nurse practitionersup in the Bay Area and I control
the scheduling.
And so I work about eight daysper month, plus two weekends a

(08:18):
month.
And what people don't realize isafter Newt Gingrich and the
Republicans took over Congressin 1994, they consolidated the
votes over a 36-hour period.
So people come in on a Tuesdaymorning, they vote on a Tuesday
afternoon all day, wednesday andalso Thursday morning, and then
they are expected to go back totheir constituents on Thursday
evening.

(08:39):
So Friday, saturday, sunday,monday of every week you are
expected to be back in your homedistrict.
Sunday, monday of every week,you are expected to be back in
your home district, and thatfacilitates me working as a
physician, because withintensive care it's more shift
work when you're on, you're on,and when you're not on, you're
not on.
So it's something that I willstill be able to do and I want
to do, because that is how Iwill keep my finger on the pulse
of my community and also ofbeing a small business owner.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
I always have thought it's been a.
If you look how that's all setup and going back to your
district, well you know, if youlive on the East Coast you're
commuting half an hour an hour,whatever, back and forth.
But those of us on the WestCoast you're talking about, you
know three, four hour flights ineach direction at each time,
which takes up a good.
You know that takes a lot oftime in itself just flying back
and forth.
So I think that's you know.

(09:27):
People in the East Coast don'trealize the sacrifice our
politicians make on the WestCoast to be in their districts
as much as they are.

Speaker 3 (09:33):
But there's also politicians who don't make that
sacrifice and there are peoplewho are not present within their
district, and I think a goodexample is somebody like maxine
waters mad max, they call her.
She has been representinginglewood for close to 40 years
now.
She doesn't live in inglewood,um.

(09:54):
And so there are those peoplewho are just kind of career
politicians, who have made alife out of living off of other
people's tax dollars and aren'tnecessarily beholden to their
constituents.
They spend more time with thelobbyists in Washington, and I
would like to reverse that trendand I think we need to bring
back the idea of the citizenlegislator and we need to erase

(10:17):
from our minds this politicianright.
I don't think a politicianshould exist.
It should be somebody who ispart of the citizenry, part of
the community, a small businessowner who knows what it's like
to work on a budget and have topivot with the economy, for
example, going poorly, ratherthan somebody who says, oh, I've

(10:39):
been in a lifetime of publicservice, what exactly is that
public service?

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Well, you just said I don't want to be a politician,
you know.
But let's get into the I saidwe'd talk about a little later.
You were an independent.
Now I am actually anindependent voter.
I I will go on the record, I'ma.
I'm a registered Democratbecause I registered when I was
18 years old and didn't know thedifference really back then,
never really changed it, butI've always voted independently.

(11:06):
I have voted Republican, Ivoted Democrat.
I think it's the man or thewoman, not the, you know, not
the party.

Speaker 3 (11:15):
I agree.

Speaker 2 (11:16):
My dad was the opposite.
If you, he was a strictRepublican and you had the R
next to your name, you got thevote no matter what, but I've
always thought the best persongets the vote so independent.
But yet you went fromindependent and became a
Republican.
Now, what was the reason forthat?

(11:37):
Why didn't you make thatdecision?
Was it because of you weretrying to get more votes on that
side and saw you're runningagainst all these Democrats and
you stand out more as Republican?
Are you identifying more withthe party right now?
Why did you go Republican?

Speaker 3 (11:51):
So a lot to unpack there.
But I grew up in an Armenianhousehold in California in the
80s.
You could not be Armenian inCalifornia in the 80s and not be
Republican, because your uncle,george, george Duke Magian, was
running the state.
And I remember when I was inArmenian school there was one
busload of kids every year thatwould go up to Sacramento to see

(12:13):
him, our Uncle George right, itwas usually the older kids in
eighth and ninth grade, so Iwould always get passed over,
but they would take up yourpicture and they put in the
yearbook.
So it was this big thing.
So I grew up in a Republicanhousehold and at the time what
did that mean?
It meant exactly what GeorgeDuke Mason stood for public
safety, stay out of my bankaccount, stay out of my personal

(12:34):
life, and that is what I firmlybelieve.
And that is the immigrantexperience.
Where you come to this country,usually you've been uprooted
because you don't want to leaveyour home of.
You know, my father was 41years old when he had to uproot
himself.
He was born and raised inBaghdad and when Saddam and the
Baathist revolution happened hewas 41.

(12:55):
I think to myself, god, if Ihad to hit the reset button at
41, right, I'm 45 now, just fouryears ago.
If I just had to just leaveeverything and start over, what
would I do?
So, even if I'm having a badday, I think that pales in
comparison sacrifices ourparents have made, right?
And so they came here and whathe did was the man was a trained
engineer, but he didn't comehere with his licensing, his
degree.
So what did he do?

(13:16):
He found a.
He leased a fried chicken shopin san fernando back when san
fernando in the in the 70s wasjust gang territory, um, and it
was very cheap because it was,you know, gang territory.
And he leased a chicken joint,fried chicken joint, and made
that work until he could get hisgeneral contractor's license.
But that business friendly, beable to redefine yourself, reset

(13:39):
yourself, free of regulations,free of the government stepping
in, and the harder you work, themore you can make of yourself,
the more you can build of yourdream and you're not going to
get taxed to death.
That is what this country meantto my parents and it still
means to me, and at the time theRepublican party reflected
those values and that is why Igrew up as a Republican.

(13:59):
And not to say that welfaredoesn't have its place, but it's
a a safety net.
You weren't supposed to bedependent upon things like
welfare.
If you were down on your luck,yes, you could rely on it, but
you know personal responsibility, rugged individualism, pull
yourself up by your bootstraps.
That is what I grew up with andthat is what I stand for.
And then since so now I'm I'm adisenfranchised republican

(14:21):
because, especially since 20sorry, with the Bush-Cheney
years my party of fiscalresponsibility and smaller
government became the party ofinvading and bombing other
countries, running up ournational debt by opening up
several theaters of war, andthat was not something that I
wanted.
So for the last 20 years I'vebeen a disenfranchised

(14:41):
Republican and so when I madethis run, I said OK, I'm going
to run as an independent becauseneither party speaks for me.
Neither party in its currentstate speaks for me.
I disagree with the two partysystem.
I think it unnecessarilydivides us and the moderate 80
percent of us in the middledilutes our power because it
makes us choose red or blue, ror D, and in that way the powers

(15:03):
that be are able to kind ofdistract us and get done what
they're going to get done.

Speaker 2 (15:09):
That's very well said , by the way, and I do totally
agree with that Right Hugeproblem right now in our country
.

Speaker 3 (15:15):
Huge and so, but what we found out within three
months is no name, no party, nosupport, going nowhere.
So I said, ok, I dislike thetwo party system, but if I'm
going to change the game, I haveto play the game.
And it was disingenuous of meto register as a democrat,
because I've never been ademocrat, and I said, okay, I'm

(15:37):
going to be a disenfranchisedrepublican.
I'm going to be very explicitby being a disenfranchised
republican.
And the support from the GOPhas not been full-throated, and
that's fine, because when I getto Congress I won't owe anything
to anyone, except for myconstituents here.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
Do they think that this is because Adam Schiff's
seat and he's a very strongDemocrat and very popular here
and, by the way, he's done agreat job and we see him at
every event in the city ofBurbank, every time, and he's
always.
He'll stay, he'll talk topeople.
Good man, Do you think that theRepublicans just figured we
can't win that district, sowe're not going to even care

(16:19):
about it and you're on your own,Is that?

Speaker 3 (16:21):
how you feel.
That's exactly what it is, andthey've said that explicitly.
And they said this is not asomething that's on our radar.
You're on your own kid.
That is fine, because it'sgreat, because when we have this
victory, it will belong to uscompletely and that is why and
again, proof positive rightEverybody said, oh, there's a
safe Dem on Dem race.

(16:42):
It's 54% Democrat.
Everybody said, oh, there's asafe Dem on Dem race, it's 54%
Democrat.
There are going to be twoDemocrats.
It's going to be two of thefour Laura Friedman,
assemblywoman.
Anthony Portantino, stateSenator.
Mike Feuer, former cityattorney and former assemblyman.
Or Nick Melvoin, current LAUSDboard member, and especially,
because they out-raised this 15to 1.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Well, I also think the two LA people didn't
resonate in non-LA places andthis district is more non-LA
than LA, so I think they didn'treally have a chance.
I also see the fact that inmany races a Republican did make
it to the runoff and I wonder,you know, if the Democrats kind
of orchestrated that, figuringthey had a better chance of

(17:22):
winning with a Democrat versusRepublican when it was a
one-on-one election for thegeneral.
So you kind of wonder you knowwhat goes on behind the scenes
sometimes.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
They.
To my knowledge, they did notorchestrate it.
And I'll tell you why because Ihear through the grapevine that
Anthony Portantino is stillsupremely angry at me and the
Armenians.
He's supremely angry at me forderailing his candidacy and he's
supremely angry at theArmenians for what he sees as a
betrayal of him.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
Well, you know, people vote the way they see
they should vote.
I'm sorry to hear that, becausehe is a good man, a Burbank
resident too.
But hey, you know things happen.
Let's get into some topics.
Let's do it.
Okay, we're going to start offwith homelessness and affordable
housing.
You can have.

(18:14):
I went to your website and Ipulled a bunch of your talking
points off, but I didn't go lookat them because I wanted to
talk to you about it.
Sure, I don't want to bepredisposed to anything.
So I put homelessness andaffordable housing together,
okay, as a topic.
Um, homelessness is a bigbuzzword nowadays.
You know, in california it's.
It's a huge thing.
I don't know how big of a thingis another in other states, you

(18:36):
know.
And of course, you got to workwith a bunch of other
congressmen across the country.
But throwing money it seemsthat at homelessness is not the
solution, because— Not, if youask Laura Friedman.
Well, measure H came along yearsago and Burbank gets I think
it's 5% of the money they putinto it and we're having to pull
money out of our general fundsto pay for our own homeless

(18:58):
stuff here because we don't getthe—we put $10 million in and we
get back $200,000, which isridiculous, and a lot of the
money that's going intohomelessness now can't be
accounted for.

Speaker 3 (19:09):
Evaporated to thin air.

Speaker 2 (19:10):
They don't know where it went.
Millions and millions ofdollars, you know, billions.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Billions 25 billion at last clip.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
So what are your thoughts?
Because homelessness, I think,is more of a regional issue than
it is a national issue, to apoint.
So what's your thoughts andwhat can you do to help
California in that situation,you think?

Speaker 3 (19:29):
So I would actually wholeheartedly disagree with you
.
The fact that we haven't solvedit so far is because we think
that it's a regional issue andit is absolutely a national
issue.
And I'm going to tell you mycenterpiece legislation.
So I'm going to separatehomelessness from affordable
housing.
Okay, because the homelesspopulation about, I would say, a
quarter to a third of it arepeople who are truly down on

(19:52):
their luck, living out of theircars like have no money.
So that is a completelyseparate population than the
other two-thirds, which ismental illness, schizophrenia,
drug addiction.
So I'm going to I'm going tosplit those two apart because
we've treated the entirety ofthe homeless population as an
affordable housing issue andwe've thrown money and thrown

(20:14):
money and thrown money and hasbeen fixed.
Why?
Because the majority theboulders, not the pebbles.
The boulders are not a housingissue, it's a mental health
issue.
These people cannot take careof themselves.
If you put them in a house, howare they going to take care of
the house?
So I, as a physician, amuniquely qualified to say okay,
this is a mental health issue.

(20:36):
We need to diagnose the mentalillness, we need to diagnose the
drug addiction.
We need to take care of themfirst, and then everything else
will logically follow.
So I'm going to take out, we'regoing to put a pin in the
affordable housing part of it.
Okay, and the people who aredown on their luck, because
those people they don't live inthe tent cities, they don't want
to be out on the street, theylive in their car.
If they can find a shelterthey'll go over there.

(20:56):
They don't have problems withdrug addiction, it's usually
something else that's happened.
Let's say, they had an illnessand they lost their job, or they
got unexpectedly pregnant andnow they have an extra mouth to
feed Um and mom cannot go towork because now she has a baby
to take care of.
So it's those things where it'sa life event and not
necessarily mental illness ordrug addiction.
So we're going to put a pin inthat.
So how would I solve this?

(21:18):
From Congress, three things.
Number one reopen the federalmental institutions, the ones
that we know had abuses.
We've learned from them in thepast.
There are severely mentally illpeople with schizophrenia
yelling at the sky.
They're hallucinating thosepeople.
They lack medical capacity.
They need to be hospitalized.
They need to be put onmedications whatnot to get them

(21:41):
better.
Once they are better and theyhave medical capacity again,
they can tell what and wrong.
Then we say, okay, where is yourfamily?
Let's find your family.
Let's reunite you with yourfamily, because family support
for mental illness means thatyou have fewer outbreaks, for
example, of your schizophreniaor bipolar.
Similarly, the people who aredrug addicted they don't have

(22:02):
schizophrenia, um, they are drugaddicted and their drug
addiction is so powerful that itpreempts their ability to hold
down a job, hold down steadyincome, put a roof over their
heads.
Those people who live in thetent cities disband the tent
cities.
That is not their family.
Find their families, ask themwhere did you go to high school?
Most of these people they so40% of California homeless are

(22:24):
not from California, althoughthey were here immediately
before they went homeless.
They were couch surfing for avery long time, originated from
out of state and then came overhere.

Speaker 2 (22:33):
That's why I call it a regional issue, because you're
not going to find the homelessin Minnesota and other cold
weather states.
You're just not going to findit.

Speaker 3 (22:40):
Correct.
But so if you're going to betransporting those people across
state lines back to theirfamilies, then you need to pair
them with federal dollars sothat their home states and their
home counties can thenconstruct rehab beds for them to
be treated.

Speaker 2 (22:54):
You see, the return to their place of origin,
basically where they might havea support system Correct,
because family is the number onepredictor of sobriety in drug
addiction.

Speaker 3 (23:03):
Family-based counseling is superior to
non-family based counseling andagain, I as a physician know
this from the medical literature.
And the final thing, and thisis where federally needs to
happen, the drugs, the drugs arecoming from our ports, they're
coming from the southern border.
We know that there's Chinesefentanyl that's coming, being
assembled in Mexico.

(23:25):
There's also crystal meth.
There was, maybe about twoweeks ago, a drug bust with
5,000 pounds of crystal methdisguised ridiculously as
watermelons.
I don't know if you saw those.
So although the one before thenwhich was disguised as zucchini
, like the pale green zucchini,that kind of looked like it
could pass, but 5,000 pounds ofcrystal meth, all of this

(23:47):
fentanyl that's coming if you'renot securing the border.
So I say, fund the police, fundCustoms and Border Protection.
Do you know that when our localcops, when our sheriffs, they
find somebody with a drug bustand it's suspected that they've
come from across the border,they are forbidden, forbidden

(24:08):
from speaking to or cooperatingwith customs and border control?
Why?
Because california is asanctuary state.
My opponent, laura freeman, haspassed legislation that
actively makes it difficult forour local police and sheriff's
deputies to communicate withcustoms and border control.
If there's a drug bust, if wesuspect that this has come
illegally over, for our localpolice and sheriff's deputies to
communicate with Customs andBorder Control.
If there's a drug bust, if wesuspect that this has come
illegally over the Southernborder, it's just catch and

(24:29):
release.
Why?
Because of people, progressivepolitics like Laura Friedman,
who have made these laws.
So it's really about publicsafety and that's what I stand
for.
And she is a threat to publicsafety.
And we are not going to makethe public safe from the
mentally ill homeless, from thedrug addicted homeless who are
just desperate and are going torob somebody just so they can
get their next fix, unless webuck these progressive policies

(24:55):
Driven by the founder of theProgressive Caucus, laura
Friedman, that are threateningour public safety.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
OK, and I think these are all great.
I agree, you told me this wasgoing to be hard.

Speaker 3 (25:11):
Well, yeah, well, it is.

Speaker 2 (25:12):
But I think it's hard questions, but I think you have
answers, which is good.
So throw the affordable housingin now too Sure, because we did
put that down too.
So that's not affordablehousing.
Because a lot of times, staterules, like like in Burbank,
have created havoc here.
Yes, in our, you know, in ourcommunity, and it's it shouldn't

(25:33):
be one size fits all Right,which is what they've done.
So what are your thoughts onaffordable housing and how can
you not force cities, but howcan you encourage cities?

Speaker 3 (25:42):
So there are five things which lead into how much
you pay for your housing.
So number one is the interestrate on the loan, number two is
the property tax on the dwelling, number three is the insurance
and upkeep for the dwelling,number four is the utilities gas

(26:05):
and electricity.
And then number five is theprofit that the landlord puts on
it.
So again just to recap theinterest rate on the loan, the
property tax on the dwelling,the insurance and upkeep of the
home, the cost of those.
Number four is the utilitiesgas and electric.

(26:26):
And then number five is theprofit that the landlord puts.
The government has control overthe first four.
So the interest ratesnationally.
If our government is spendspend spending $35 trillion in
debt, a dollar isn't worth thatmuch anymore.
We have inflation.
That's why interest rates go up.

(26:47):
So it is governmental actionsthat lead to that increase.
Number two property taxes.
My opponent, laura Friedman, inorder to generate more money
that she can waste on homelesshousing, has authored Prop 5.
Prop 5 will increase propertytaxes on homes, will increase
the rents on the rental places,will increase the prices of the

(27:08):
stores that you go to, becausethose store owners now have to
pay higher property taxes, right.
So she's.
Whatever.
Doesn't matter what thequestion is, her answer is
always going to be let's raisetaxes and spend more money.
Number three insurance.
Number three insurance.
It's costly to build and repairhere.
Why?

(27:28):
Simply because if you have highstarting minimum wages Gas If
it takes a certain price of gasto transport lumber from Home
Depot to your house, thecontractor is going to fold that
in.
So if gas prices are high, it'sgoing to increase how much it's
going to cost to fix your home.
Finally, number four utilitieselectricity.

(27:49):
I don't know about you, but inGlendale electricity rates went
up by 70% last month.
They're going to go over thenext two years up 200%.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
We've had raises here in Burbank too, right For
infrastructure purposes.

Speaker 3 (28:01):
Yes, exactly, gwp sets those.
It's the government that setsthose.
So when people talk about highcost of living, 80% of those
factors four out of the five isin the lap of our elected
officials, laura Friedman.
Now, when they want to say okay, landlord, you can't raise the

(28:23):
rent, you can make thelandlord's profit zero.
Go ahead, make it zero.
Okay, what is that landlordgoing to do?
That landlord is going to stopupkeeping your apartment.
So more regulations, like myopponent Laura Freeman and her
progressive posse have done,have not resulted in improved
cost of living.
In fact, it's been quite theopposite in improved cost of

(28:45):
living.
In fact, it's been quite theopposite.
So I'm here as a civilian tosay these are where the problems
lie.
But it's not politicallyexpedient for them to say the
truth.
So that's why they incorrectlyvilify landlords as these evil
land barons who are trying tosqueeze the people dry.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
We're going through that in Burbank right now and I
don't know if either one has aneasy answer, because I think the
landlords have great points andthe renters have great points,
so we're going to see what thatall shakes out.
But that's a tough subject.
Let's move into education.
You kind of touched on itbefore that education is

(29:23):
becoming worse and worse.
I think our country is dumb,dumbing down, as they say.
You know, um, uh, where othercountries you know your china's
and places like that are.
You know they?
They go after things.
Um, where do you?
What would you do to change, tofix our education system?
Because our public schoolsthat's public schools.

(29:43):
It's not our teachers, it's notthe teachers, but our system,
education system, public systemis not serving our needs as a
country and on our students andchallenging anymore.
So what are your thoughts?

Speaker 3 (29:57):
there, the unions, the teachers unions, are the
problems.
I'll just go ahead and say itCalifornia spends about $24,000
per pupil per year and Texas, Ithink, is about $12,000 or
$14,000 per pupil per year.
So we have high cost, low valueeducation.
Where does that money go?
Prop 2 is a bond measurebecause they've not been keeping

(30:21):
up with the schools, repairingthem, et, etc.
And they want to increase ourproperty taxes to pay for that.
We have plenty of money beingthrown onto the bonfire of our
California education system andso they just need to be more
judicious, expeditious with ourmoney, rather than us throwing
more money at the problem.

(30:42):
And you just look at charterschools.
There's been an explosion ofcharter schools, private schools
.
There are these ridiculouslylong wait lists for Armenian
private schools.
So when I went to privateschool, my parents sent me
because they wanted me to learnArmenian.
But seventh grade they saidokay, now you need to go to an
American school, becausenobody's going to take an
Armenian school seriously.
You need to go to the Americanschool so that you can get

(31:03):
places.
That is why I went into publicschools.
Now it's quite the opposite,because now you have these
private schools that are kind ofthe bastions.
Why?
Because the unions don't havethat much of a reach in those
schools and that is where themoney is being frittered away.
And my whole point is we need tofocus on making our kids

(31:25):
educated, innovative Americans.
Right Back in our glory days inthe 60s and 70s, with the space
race, math and science were keyand we needed to put a man on
the moon, and that is what droveeverything and that is what
drove our innovation.
Now you have the likes ofTaiwan, china, india.
They're the ones innovating.

(31:46):
What I tell people is in 2023,california tech companies
applied for and received 40,000foreign worker visas because
they couldn't find that techtalent at home.
And there's this.
You know, people call me my oneof my city council members

(32:06):
called me an anti-LGBT, magafiedextremist because I spoke out
against our school districts.
Now I'll give the example ofLAUSD.
Lausd has a curriculum thatthey call queer all year and
their math, their test scoresare worse than Glendale's test
scores.
I say why can't you have mathall month, right, um, and so why

(32:29):
can't you have multiplicationMondays?
Why, if why, can we not justfocus on the basics so that we
make marketable, innovativestudents?
And again, I'm not anti-LGBT.
I, as a gay man, as a closetedstudent, I am a success because
my teachers didn't focus onaffirming my identity.
They focused on affirming my IQand then I became a happy,

(32:53):
well-adjusted, confident,successful adult.
Because I had those skills,because I was a leader, and that
is what schools should be therefor is academic excellence, and
unless we're churning out thetruth, experts, um, that are not
being, you know, run circlesaround by the Chinese and the
Indians.

(33:14):
Until we're doing that, weshouldn't be focusing on much
else.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
Well, I think, uh, once again, great points.
I'm going to move on and sayingit's probably very near and
dear to you, but you'll caveatto this, and that's healthcare,
yes, but as a Republican now I'mgoing to say the A word
abortion.
Okay, you know, reproductiverights.

(33:39):
The Republican Party has kindof stuck their foot in their
mouth a little on that and it'sbecome a huge issue in the
country.
But you seem to have adifferent approach.
So why don't you talk about howyou feel about all that?
Right, this is so yeah, we'retalking about health care and
about abortion rights and allthat too.
So what is yours?

Speaker 3 (34:00):
Yeah, I will start with abortion rights.
Gay marriage, abortion stay outof it.
That is not the government'sposition.
That is not my position, eventhough I disagree with you.
That is not the government'sposition.
That is not my position, eventhough I disagree with you.
I say that the home, thehousehold, is the ultimate unit
of governance, the primary unitof governance, and you have
control over your own householdand the government.

(34:21):
Be damned.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
And that is why I'm a disenfranchised Republican.
So if Roe versus Wade was thelaw for most of our lifetimes
and they were vote to bring thatback Now, would you vote for
that?
Or would you say I'm not goingto vote for that because I went?
I want to have no rules at all.
I mean, what, what, what's your?
How are you going to come downon that?

Speaker 3 (34:41):
So my, I prefer no rules at all.
I may, I'm essentially alibertarian.
So what I say is nobody shouldcome between the patient-doctor
relationship, nobody shouldinsert themselves into the
doctor-patient relationship, andI believe that fewer laws are

(35:03):
better, because you will createunintended loopholes and
unintended red tape.
So the example that I give isokay.
So let's say, says Alex, wouldyou vote for an constitutional
amendment that says abortion?
So, roe v Wade, right, theysaid essentially it's legal
until the point of fetalviability.
And me, I'm an intensive carephysician, right, I connect
people to life support, adultsto life support.

(35:23):
A child who's 26 weeks, youknow, in when connected life
support, it is a 70% chance oflife.
So if you're in the thirdtrimester, I personally think if
there's nothing wrong with mom,nothing wrong with baby and the
child at 26 weeks, it ismedically unethical.
And I think that we asphysicians should have this code
of ethics and say okay, are yousure you can't?

(35:45):
You know, talk about this, butdon't get in that patient doctor
relationship.
Don't you have that in?
Do no harm, correct, you havethat in.
Do no harm.
Precisely so, number one do noharm.
And number two patient autonomyshall never be violated.
So when people say, my body, mychoice, whether with abortion
or whether with vaccine mandates, I would say yes, I agree,
because I took an oath to do noharm and also not violate

(36:08):
patient autonomy.
And what I find is a lot ofpeople just focus on, okay,
pro-life, pro-choice.
I say that we should focus moreon prevention.
I would prefer preventionrather than punishment.
If we can get better access tofamily planning to women and we
have them have fewer unexpectedpregnancies, I, as a, would go

(36:29):
for that, and some women also.
When they get pregnantunexpectedly, it's not that they
don't want the child.
They say, oh my gosh, I don'thave childcare, I'm not gonna be
able to juggle this with my jobor with my school.
And if somebody says, oh well,here's a way to have affordable
childcare, would you now want tohave this child?
And now that you're better ableto juggle this and a lot of

(36:51):
women will say, oh, yes, I wouldprefer this.
So I want to steer people awayfrom that dichotomy of abortion
or no abortion and I want to saythere's 2 million yearly
opportunities of prevention thatare missed because there are 2
million unexpected pregnanciesin this country every year, 1
million of which and an abortionand 1 million of which end in
abortion and one million ofwhich are carried to term and

(37:14):
cause upheaval of life inwhatever way they're going to.
But if those two millionpregnancies were unplanned, I
say those are two millionopportunities of prevention that
we missed.
And I would rather focus onmaking widespread availability
of birth control, making morewidespread sex education, so
younger kids they know exactly,you know, what's safe and not
unsafe sex.

(37:35):
So that is how I prefer to lookat it.
But in the end, governmentshould stay out of it.
I firmly believe in that.

Speaker 2 (37:40):
Okay, and also health care.
Yep, you know the Obama orAffordable Care Act is under
attack by the Republicans andwe're going to abolish it.
We're gonna get rid of it All.
They've never presented a planto replace it with, but they
just want to get rid of itbecause it's not theirs.
So what happens when, let's say, mr Trump wins the election and

(38:01):
says we're going to cancel that?
And where do you come down onthat?

Speaker 3 (38:06):
My whole thing is don't get rid of plan a if you
already don't have plan Bfleshed out Right.
This is not something thatwe're going to go by the seat of
our pants.
We've never seen a plan BCorrect.
So if we can get a better planB, then I say OK, then let's nix
plan A and go to plan B.
Are there things about theAffordable Care Act that I don't
like?
Absolutely?
The biggest thing that I don'tlike, and a lot of people don't

(38:28):
know about, is that doctors wereforbidden from owning and
running hospitals In order toget the hospital lobby backing
the bill and not to kill it.
They said we don't want tocompete with doctor-owned
hospitals.
Why Doctors who run hospitals?
I know where all theinefficiencies are.
I know exactly how we canchange things to make things
better.
I don't need somebody, anadministrator, in the C-suite

(38:57):
telling me what's going to workor not, right?
So physician-run hospitals getbetter outcomes with fewer
resources.
But then that was next.
So since the Affordable CareAct was passed, doctors have
been forbidden from owning orrunning hospitals.
The ones who existedgrandfathered in.
So that is one big piece that I, as a physician, would change,
because physicians can runhospitals more efficiently than
administrators can, but otherthings.
So it's great to say, okay, wewant to expand health coverage

(39:22):
to everybody, universal healthcoverage, yes, I would love that
.
There are good ways and bad waysof doing that.
For example, here in Californiathey just extended Medi-Cal to
almost a million illegalimmigrants, but they didn't
increase the number of doctors,nurse practitioners to see those
patients.
So, yes, you're going to patyourself on the back for giving

(39:44):
a million immigrants somebodywho just came across two weeks
ago full health coverage, butthe existing Californians who
are low income.
So if you have more patients tosee but you didn't increase the
number of doctors, your waittimes will increase, your
mammogram will be delayed, yourcolonoscopy will delay, your
cancer screening tests will bedelayed and then that will

(40:07):
translate downstream to highercancer deaths.
How exactly did we serve thegreater good of the population?
We didn't.
I, as a physician, know I amintimately aware and uniquely
qualified to know where theinefficiencies are and how to
fix this.
The problem is we as physicianstend not to advocate for
themselves, but I want to changethat when I get to Congress.

Speaker 2 (40:29):
I agree with the fact there's, but that's okay.
Let's say we increase theamount of doctors, yep, then are
you for the extra, theimmigrants all getting medicare
also, or medical I mean also, ifwe increase the amount of
doctors?

Speaker 3 (40:43):
so public health is getting the greater, getting the
greatest good for thepopulation with as few resources
as possible.
So if doing so costs more moneyand it's going to cause more
debt, then no, I'm not in favorof that.
We need to prioritize wherewe're going to do things.
But also, again, I'm veryfiercely anti-lobbyist, anti-big

(41:07):
pharma, anti-hospitalcorporations, anti-insurance
companies.
They are dominating theconversation and they can do so
because their lobbyists havetheir claws inside these career
politicians.
Laura Friedman, for example,has owned six figures in Pfizer
stock at least for the last 10years since she's been in the

(41:27):
Glendale City Council.
I've never owned pharmaceuticalstock.
So those kinds ofanti-corruption things that will
get these large big players I'mnot going to say out of the
conversation entirely, becausethey still need to be involved,
but they've dominated it.
And the people on the ground,the doctors and the patients,
their voices have been drownedout or snuffed out entirely, and

(41:50):
I think that's wrong and thatis why we need a complete
overhaul and I think somethinglike term limits, for example,
would go help that tremendously.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
We're going to bounce off the wall again.
Okay, and for people, we'regoing to go long on this podcast
than usual, because I think theissues are important and I
think you know, hearing what hehas to say is very important
also.
So if you're listening outthere, sit back and relax.
I think it's going to continueto stay.
Interesting Transportation Nowthat once again it might be more

(42:22):
regional than national, butCalifornia.
We're dealing with high-speedrail right now and we're putting
billions of dollars.

Speaker 3 (42:29):
What high-speed rail.

Speaker 2 (42:30):
Well, yeah, and we get a lot of money from the
federal government.
How do you feel abouttransportation, especially in LA
, where we're so glued to ourcars and everything else here?
Are there any simple solutions?
Not simple solutions, but whatdo you see about transportation
in general?
Transportation in general, bythe way.

(42:51):
That was not on your website,by the way, correct, that's.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
that's a trick question by me no, that that's
great and I'm I'm happy to talkabout that and we can just kind
of break it down into things.
So there is, for example, localtransportation, which is
walking and bicycling.
Bike lanes right now are a hugehot topic in glendale hollywood
and west hollywood becausethese road diets and lanes of
traffic that have been takenaway.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
We're going down Burbank right now.

Speaker 3 (43:16):
Yes, with our BRT system on all of yes to put in
bike lanes, and I'll come backto that.
But let's go top to thishigh-speed train.
So the high-speed train.
So LA to San Francisco.
That route is the busiest routein the country.
It's the busiest flight routein the country.
La to San Francisco.
And when I say LA, like LA,burbank, ontario airports, and

(43:38):
then you have, you know, sanJose, oakland, southern
California, northern California.
Correct, we're a big statethough?
Yes, and that is the busiestcorridor, if you look at
somebody like the French, andthey have their TGV, their
high-speed bullet train.
Those trains have to be on raillike straight, straight rail to
be able to achieve those speedsof 280 miles an hour.

(44:01):
You're not going to be able toachieve those unless you have an
uninterrupted straight line, nocurves across swaths of land.
So you're going to have to doeminent domain across different
properties.
That is a big deal and, like Isaid, the French.
But it's been nationalized.

(44:22):
So whatever farmland it wentthrough, they went ahead and
claimed as eminent domain andthen they went ahead and
reimbursed the people who ownedit.
So we need to ask ourselves isthis something that people would
use often and just kind of do acost benefit analysis of it?
But as it stands now, this piein the sky, dream of this train

(44:44):
it's not happening.
It's not happening at all.
Why?
Because you have the exactopposite of him in a domain
where you're having all thesepeople who are.
These are usually affluentpeople who don't want the train
going through their neighborhood, for example, and are suing on
behalf.
Yes.
And they're suing on behalf of aminnow that's in some creek.

(45:04):
So, again, this is governmentred tape.
California has a lot of redtape and this is not something
easy to fix.
Um, yeah, so that's the.
That's what I'm going to say onon the train.
So it's a very complex issue.
I think the way that we'regoing about it is difficult.
I think either we suck it upand say, okay, we're going to do

(45:32):
imminent domain, we're not.
We're going to make a realstraight line from union station
all the way up to you, the bartstation and sfo, um, and you
know there's not going to beanybody who can sue for
environmental stuff.
We are going to reimburse thepeople, um, whose land it goes
through threefold, whatever it'sworth, we're going to do it and
and that's it.

Speaker 2 (45:46):
Um, that is probably how you would have to do it it's
just amazing that we aresupposed to be the greatest
country in the world but yet wecan't get high-speed rail, and
it's all across Europe.
Like I said, people, they justdo it.
They don't sit there and playpolitics with it, they just do
it.
And we can't do that here,which I find amazing at times.

Speaker 3 (46:06):
It's because the individual can put a stop to the
entire machine.
It's like the filibuster Anindividual can do that, and so
that's what makes us uniquelyAmerican, because no other
country has the filibuster.
So it's the analog to thefilibuster, but more local
things.
Right with transportation.
My opponent, the bike lane lady, we'll call her she is pushing

(46:28):
through in Sacramento a billthat will not only mandate
bicycle lanes in every city inthe state but will also expedite
them as a quick build whichwill bypass the normal public
comment period, and then thecity will just go ahead and
insert it and the public commentperiod will be for a year to
five years after that to see ifthey want to keep it or reverse

(46:49):
it.
Not a very efficient way ofdoing things.
But you know, she says we gotto get people out of their cars.
We need to make it.
We need to stop making it soeasy for people to park
everywhere and drive everywhere.
I would love it if I wasprivileged enough that my home
and my place of work wereseparated by a leisurely 20
minute bicycle ride.

(47:10):
I would love that, or even abus ride, or even a bus ride.
But that doesn't exist.
So even if you built the bestbike lanes in the world.
My commute is longer than that.
I wouldn't be able to bicycleBus lanes, sorry.
Buses Comes back to publicsafety and homeless.
Right now, our buses, ourmetros, they are mobile mental
institutions.

(47:30):
You have a better than averagechance of getting stabbed and
killed on LA Metro than actuallygetting to your place of work
unscathed.
And the first step is don't putthe cart before the horse.
Don't build your bus lanes,because people aren't going to
ride the buses if they're stillcrazy people on the buses.
And what you need to do isfirst fix the homeless problem
and then people will naturallygravitate.

(47:53):
Laura Friedman says if you justlet me shove these bike lanes
down your throat, I am sure youwould enjoy the taste.
And they say if you build it,they will come.
And if we give subsidies toelectric stuff, people will
build it.
What I say is what governmentsubsidy did you receive to buy
your smartphone?
You didn't, I didn't.

(48:17):
Smartphones exploded inpopularity.
Why?
Because they were a good ideaand people naturally adopted
them without being forced to doso.
So if there is a good idea,people will naturally gravitate
towards it.
And I say fix the homelessproblem, get the homeless
problem off the bus.
I would love to sit and havesomebody drive me so that I

(48:37):
could read, but I don't want tohave to look out of the corner
of my eye at that crazy person,you know, mumbling to himself.
I don't know if he's got aweapon or not or if he has any
self-restraint.
I don't want that danger.
It's all about public safety,and once you clean up that
threat to public safety, thenpeople will naturally gravitate
towards something that willbecome a good idea.

Speaker 2 (48:59):
I think it's evident.
I still think it's convenience.
If you ever go on a Google Mapsand you need to go somewhere in
the right directions and itgives you by car or by bus, by
walking, walking, and it's 15 to18 minutes in a car, but an
hour and 45 minutes to two hoursand a half on a bus, right, why

(49:19):
would you want to take a busand go two and a half hours in
each?
That's five hours, just to youknow.
Say, hey, I'm taking publictransportation.
Until they make publictransportation convenient for
people, like the subway in newyork, yeah, what's the
motivation for people to get ridof their cars?
Because it's just, you don'thave that kind of time in a day.

Speaker 3 (49:39):
But that's also.
It's this europeanromanticization that americans
have and everything's better,right, you fall in love while
you're on your vacation.
It's your summer love.
You go over there.
I.
I rode the metro in Paris andit was great, it was convenient.
Paris is a two mile wide circle,two miles.
The greater Parisian area issix miles.

(50:03):
A couple million people putinto that.
Okay, glendale to Burbank isabout six miles, right, yeah, so
these are densely packed areaswith everything that you need in
those areas.
But once you get out of Paris,if you go to Provence or you go
to Nice, they have no subways.
People drive their cars,because that's just how it's

(50:24):
built.
So, yes, in downtown LA, if youwant to make it dense, a
metropolis and have buses andmetros going to places, sure.
But it's a fallacy that abedroom community, a less dense
community like Burbank orGlendale or Salon de Honga, is
going to be able to be fit intothat box.

(50:47):
I think it's this Europeanromantization that doesn't occur
outside of the big cities intothat box.
I think it's this europeanromantization that doesn't occur
outside of the big citiesholland, I am um amsterdam,
berlin, london and paris.
Right, it doesn't.
You go to harlem, dutch harlem.
They don't have metros there,right?
So it's just, it's it's thisartificial romantization that
occurs, that I think thatthey're trying to artificially

(51:11):
apply here.

Speaker 2 (51:13):
Okay, we open another box now.
Sure, okay, let's do it.
Well, we, we, we talk.

Speaker 3 (51:18):
Dodger's exhausted.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
I put him to sleep all the time talking.
Let's well we.
We tackle Roe versus Wade, solet's get another hot, hot
button topic.
Once again, it is a hugecontrast between Republicans and
Democrats, and that's on guncontrol.
Yep.
We just had another incident ofa school shooting, and I do

(51:43):
agree, you know, the guns aren'tkilling people, it's the people
who have the guns who arekilling people.
I get all that, but in Burbankwe had 14 gun shops in a
five-mile square Number one themost gun shops in square miles
in the world.
It's easy to get guns,especially assault rifles.
And why do we need assaultrifles?

(52:07):
I mean, I just I don't get it.
I love the Second Amendment.
I think I'm not trying tochange it, but just sometimes it
doesn't make sense to me.
So the republicans are, I don'twant to say, pro guns, but
they're also kind of in thenra's pocket and where democrats
keep trying to pass gunlegislation and ban assault
weapons, and it's just it.

(52:27):
It's just they're colliding.
So let's have your thoughts onit.
Sure.

Speaker 3 (52:32):
Um, I'm a physician, I'm a statistician, I'm a math
geek, so I like to look at thenumbers.
There are 40,000 gun deaths inthis country every year.
600 of them about one and ahalf percent are due to assault
rifles.
Of them, about 1.5% are due toassault rifles.

(52:55):
So if you snapped your fingersand got rid of assault rifles,
98.5% of gun deaths would stilloccur.
So 39,400 gun deaths wouldstill occur.
So it's a politically expedienttopic that will get nothing
tangible done for the greatergood of public health.
And we've proven that becauseif you look at the gun death

(53:18):
rate from before and after theexpiration of the Clinton
assault weapon ban that happenedduring the Bush years W the
rate of gun deaths didn't change.
Why?
Because it's one and a halfpercent.
So again, talking about theboulders versus the pebbles.
So yes, they grab newsheadlines, but just over half,

(53:41):
almost 60%, of gun deaths everyyear are from older white men
who kill themselves with theirpistols, their legal pistols.
That is a mental health problem.
A lot of those men are veterans.
They're legal pistols.
That is a mental health problem.
A lot of those men are veterans.
A lot of those men are widowers.
It is a mental health problem.
Banning assault weapons is notgoing to change that, even if

(54:04):
you ban guns.

Speaker 2 (54:06):
So there are, you know, in, but it was this the
assault weapons are used more inmass shootings than just a
typical handgun Although they douse handguns at times but
assault weapons are a cause inmost mass shootings in the
schools and other places though.

Speaker 3 (54:25):
So the data does not support that.
So as far as mass shootings, sothe majority of mass shootings,
which is defined as four people, not the gunman being shot,
okay, the majority of massshootings are done with pistols,
semi-automatic pistols.
So, for example, you go tochicago on labor day weekend and

(54:45):
they said there were sixshootings, you know, over the
weekend.
Those are done by easilyconcealable glocks that these
kids, these youth, they justkind of put in their pant
waistband and then they just goout and shoot.
So again, numbers, let's dealhonestly in numbers.
So people focus on the assaultweapons because it's serves

(55:07):
their political purposes, but me, as a services researcher, it
doesn't move the needle.
As far as gun deaths, so again,the mental health problem.
Older white men, we areforgetting about them.
The remaining ones are going tobe young, primarily black men
who get their guns illegally andperpetrate their shootings.

(55:29):
So they're already skirting thegun laws.
More gun laws they will skirt.
So how are we going to preventthose?
And it's not an easy task.
But again, the solution forthese longstanding problems
doesn't lie where you're looking.
It lies, far from it.
The homelessness issue is not ahousing issue, it's a mental

(55:50):
health issue.
The gun death issue.
It's a mental health issue andan education issue.
We need to go into these innercities.
We need to make sure theseyoung men and the young women
who have these young men asbabies get educated, because
educated people have gainfulemployment.
People with gainful employmentare less likely to commit crimes

(56:11):
, and that's how you solve that.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
I've never heard the stats on assault weapons and
deaths before.
I find that very interesting.
I'm still not convinced thattaking away assault weapons is
not a good idea, even if itsaves only 2,000 lives a year,
because that's 2,000 lives.
But it just seems like wealways hear about an assault
weapon on these big massshootings.

(56:39):
So I'm still a proponent ofgetting rid of assault weapons.
But I think you have some goodpoints there and, like I say,
the whole idea of this is toshare and to learn, and I may
disagree with you, but I respectyour opinion on that and I
think it's once again I learnedsomething.
So it's one thing I have totake into consideration.

Speaker 3 (56:59):
One other thing that I'd like you to take into
consideration is let's look atthe example of Venezuela.
So, venezuela, you have Maduro,who the opposition says, okay,
he lost the election.
And so now the oppositionleader is has fled to Spain as a
political refugee, and soMaduro is telling his is

(57:22):
directing his soldiers to snuffout whatever's happening.
And even though we can say, oh,that would never be us,
venezuela was an up and coming,like it was the darling of South
America, right Adjacent toColumbia, which was horrible at
the time, in the late eighties,early nineties.
So you have, if the peoplecannot have guns, how are they

(57:42):
going to fight against theirgovernment that's suppressing
them?
So somebody told me this, and itwas interesting, it was
actually somebody that I wascalling for fundraising.
Um, he said the assault weaponsare there in case the
government tries to pullanything on us, in case they try
to make us stay in our homesunlawfully, unless they have
military curfews, for example.
Um, and I thought that wasinteresting because, yes, our

(58:04):
military has those guns.
And what if they try to snuffus down?
What?
What do we have to fight backagainst them?
Are we going to throw rocks,throw stones?

Speaker 2 (58:15):
I am going to say also, the January 6th thing was
it was absolutely horrendous,but I do, I, you know, you look
back and they did not bring inassault rifles and start mowing
down people and everything else.
That was all just physicalviolence, and with sticks and
poles and and fists andeverything else.
That was all just physicalviolence and with sticks, and
poles, and fists and everythingelse.
So, yeah, that could have beena whole lot worse, you know, and

(58:36):
if they thought the electionwas not overturned correctly.
So I understand your point, butI'm also glad that it didn't
come to that at our Capitol.
That could have been absolutelyterrible, agreed.
Okay, time to jump in anotherbox here, and this one's not not
as tough.
I just saw it.

(58:57):
I saw it on your, your website,so I want to just throw it out.
Touch on real quickly.
It said term limits.

Speaker 3 (59:02):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (59:03):
So what do you?
What's your your thought onterm limits?
Cause, of course, you havelifelong politicians who you
know, but yeah, we've had adamschiff for 20 years and he got a
lot of power because of that 20years and it helped us, I think
, in the long run.
So what are your thoughts onterm limits?

Speaker 3 (59:20):
I think term limits are necessary.
Um, because our government andif you ask people, the average
joe on the street our governmenthas stopped representing us and
acting in our best interests,and it is acting in special
interests is what it's doing.
And our elected officials areless beholden to us and more

(59:42):
beholden to the people who getthem re-elected, to the people
who contribute to there-election funds.
An example that I'll give isHenry Cuellar, representative
from Texas, who was caughtgetting bribes half a million
dollars from the government ofAzerbaijan.
And then you have somebody likeSenator Menendez from New
Jersey, who is getting gold barsfrom the Egyptian government.

(01:00:05):
These people have been therelonger than they need to.
I always talk about King Charlesand Lady Di.
I'm talking about Chuck Schumer, okay, and also Lady Di like
Diane Feinstein, okay.
Monarchs die in their thrones.
An elected official shouldn'tdie in their throne unless
they're assassinated, right?

(01:00:26):
So Diane Feinstein, who'd beenthere for 30 some odd years, do
you think she was running herown show?
Towards the end of it, shewasn't.
People were telling her whereto go, what to do.
Her staffers, her unelectedstaffers, who were not beholden
to us, were the ones who werelikely running the show.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
You have to worry about is Joe Biden going through
the same thing?
And if they didn't step in, hegot reelected.
Who would really be running thepresidency.
So I think Joe Biden's done agood job.
But my dad lived to 101, and Isaw his decline mentally as he
got into his 90s and stuff.
And he was a smart man.

(01:01:03):
But to run a country and run ahousehold two different things.

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
I agree.
That's why I think that termlimits are great and I would
advocate for two terms or 12years for a senator and I would
advocate for three terms or sixyears for some.
You know House ofRepresentatives, but you have
all these examples of you knowthese staffers and these
lobbyists doing things forpeople.
In the California legislaturethere was a great example of the

(01:01:32):
assemblyman from Riverside Iforget what his name is, it'll
come to me he was taughtsomebody had queried him about
his bill and he says oh, I don'tknow the exact details of it.
Like buddy, you authored thisbill, you introduced this bill.
How do you not know what's inyour own bill?
Because he didn't write it.
Somebody wrote it for him, astaffer who's been there God
knows how long, a lobbyist.

(01:01:54):
So that's why I think if youtill your soil you won't get
weeds, and right now we got abunch of weeds.

Speaker 2 (01:02:01):
Agreed.
I also have heard over and overagain that anybody elected to
Congress, once they leave, ifthey're not a millionaire, they
did something wrong, right, I'veheard that for how long?
How long, you know, throughstock trading or whatever they
do there.

Speaker 3 (01:02:14):
So, um, and it's not just.
It's not just term limits forcongressional representatives
and centers, it's for theirstaff as well.
A lot of people don't know thatthe peace corps has a four year
limit.
Why?
Because they want fresh ideas,fresh faces.
So what I would do is I wouldnot only I would limit not only

(01:02:35):
representatives and senators tothe terms that I put out, but
also their staff six years max.
And I would put a six-yearmoratorium between the time that
they leave and the time theycan work for lobbyists.
Right now it's only one year,so they still have their
contacts.
They still they trade theirinfluence, their contacts, for
money on behalf of the lobbyists.
And a lot of people say well,you know writing laws, you know

(01:02:57):
it takes time, like we.
There's some mastery thatoccurs there.
The two things that I say isnumber one the constitution was
written by the founding fathers,who were farmers, they were
small business owners.
Right, they were not.
I guess they were statesmen,but they weren't, you know,
career politicians.
But also number two, and moreimportantly, I was in a
three-year internal medicineresidency.
I learned how to save a life inthree years.

(01:03:18):
From intern to resident, Ilearned how to save a life in
three years.
You can learn writing laws andbills in a six-year period.
It's not rocket science.

Speaker 2 (01:03:29):
Well, I do agree.
I think that the bills are waytoo complicated and put all the
writers on them and everythingelse.
Let's move on.
Another one of these hot-buttonissues Immigration and border
security.
Yes, and we all know thatDonald Trump wanted to build the
wall, and the wall, I think, istwo-thirds built, to a point.
Each party blames each otherfor all the border crisis and

(01:03:53):
everything else.
What's your, what's your takeon all that?

Speaker 3 (01:03:58):
Again, I'm going to, I'm going to be a geek and geek
it on the numbers.
So let's first talk about mysolution.
Don't lie, the numbers don'tlie.
So my solution is comprehensiveimmigration reform where we
have an explicit system thatprioritizes immigrants, as if
you were getting somebody intocollege or at a job, things that
I would prioritize younger,able-bodied people who are going

(01:04:19):
to work and be productive,people who have certain job
skills that the country needsand people who speak the
language so they assimilate andthey don't create these insular
neighborhoods that are justgoing to be walled off from
everything.
And when I say skills that thecountry needs, I'm not going to,
I don't want to.

Speaker 2 (01:04:37):
I am going to interrupt you.
Yeah, you said when yourparents came here they had to go
and learn English here.
They didn't have that.
They didn't have that skill,correct, when they came here, so
they would not have qualifiedthen so my, my father spoke
english.

Speaker 3 (01:04:51):
Um, my mother very broken english, shattered, I
would say, um, but yeah, he had,he had commanded the english
language.
Okay, um, but yes, she learnedand but it's.
It's just one of those thingswhere you say, okay, we're going
to give you conditional it waspaying attention to what you
said say what it was of course,of course, and so the.
That's why.
But you could say, for exampleand again, these are things that
I would prioritize you actuallyput it in committee and you

(01:05:11):
discuss them.
So you say, okay, somebody whohas job skills but doesn't learn
what if they enrolled and yougive them a condition, like a
green card, for example, andwithin two years you have to
pass not only the civics testbut also a basic English test,
and if you do, then you canbecome a citizen.
So I'm open to those kinds ofthings.
But we need a transparentsystem where people can apply so
they know where their standingis.

(01:05:32):
And then they do so from theirhome countries, and what you do
is people who are here illegally.
You give them an opportunity, ano-fault opportunity, to apply
and get on there.
And you know people say, okay,what about the dreamers?
These kids who were, you know,two years old when they were
brought here?
They don't know any othercountry?
Well, those kids, they're youngand able-bodied, they speak the

(01:05:52):
English language and if they'vegone to the schools here, they
probably have some marketableskill that we need.
So they would actually, byvirtue of those criteria, rank
quite high and would be grantedcitizenship.
And then we decide, you knowwe're going to give I don't know
half a million, 1 million, 2million new people every year
citizenship, but at least peopleknow where they stand.
But if that system is to berespected, we must not reward

(01:06:15):
the people who jump the line,and that is why we need to for
lack of a better term build thewall.
But here's where I get into thenumbers.
Prior to this flood of peoplefrom the southern border, prior
to that illegal immigration,half of it came from the

(01:06:36):
southern border, the other halfcame from tourists who
overstayed their tourist visas.
So, prior to joe biden, therewere a lot of venezuelans flying
here from their home country,which was in tatters, as
tourists and then overstayingtheir tourist visa.
So that was about half amillion to about 750,000 people,
most of them Venezuelans.

(01:06:57):
But so it's not just, oh,building a wall is going to make
this better.
No, there are people who fly in.
So it's not just building thewall, it's increasing funding
for customs and border control.
Fund the police.
Don't defund the police.
Okay, make it easier for localjurisdictions to cooperate with
federal jurisdiction because,again, this is not simply an
immigration issue, this is apublic safety issue.

(01:07:20):
The drug's coming in A lot ofthese people who want to come in
, coyotes smugglers are sayingokay, do this and, by the way,
carry this package of illegaldrugs and drop it off here for
the drug dealers on the otherside, and then they'll let you
go free, right?
So there's a lot of chicanerygoing on.
That it's, you know.

(01:07:41):
Simply, building the wall is isnot going to be it.
We also need increased customsand border patrol to enforce the
laws okay, um, sounds good.

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
Let's go to the box next door to that box Wars and
foreign policy.
Yes, I find it very interestingthat our country seems to pick
and choose the causes and thewars and all this Look at all
the protesters with Israel andPalestine and all that but where

(01:08:12):
were those people when it comesto Ukraine and Russia?
Where are those people when itcomes to Ukraine and Russia?
Where are those people when itcomes to Armenia?
Where are those people when itcomes to Sudan?
I don't understand why thatissue is so important, but the
other issues aren't.
And, of course, if you make itinto Congress, you're going to
be voting on aid to foreigncountries and foreign policy and

(01:08:35):
all that stuff, so give us yourthoughts.

Speaker 3 (01:08:38):
Okay, I think we need to define what it is that our
government needs to do for us.
I think we need to redefine orremind ourselves, because a lot
of people are upset,disenfranchised with their two
parties, with their government,because it's not working for
them.
So I propose this is how I'mdefining the government the
government should be there tofocus on the health, wealth and

(01:09:01):
security of its own citizensbefore it adds on the bells and
whistles of other countries.
So public security, publichealth, public wealth in that
order we sort out in our ownhome before we actually add on
other things.
I am my single issue.
If you're going to be a singleissue voter, my single issue is

(01:09:22):
balanced budget.
We have $35 trillion in debt andrising.
That is $100,000 per American.
That's crushing debt.
That would be.
I couldn't handle $100,000worth of debt right now.
That's crushing debt.
That would be I couldn't handle$100,000 worth of debt right
now.
Could you Not at all?
No?
So my opponent, laura Friedman,worries about the planet that
we're going to hand down to ourchildren.

(01:09:42):
I worry about the debt thatwe're going to hand down to our
children.
What if your parents left younot with the house that you grew
up in.
But the IOU to the bank of ahundred and thousand dollars
that you now have to pay do theynecessarily leave you better
off?
No, so that that to me, I am asingle issue voter, and so I I

(01:10:04):
try to be very formulaic aboutthese things.
Why?
Because politicians have lostall credibility with the
populace, because they do notbehave predictably.
They do not have this explicitmoral code that we can hold them
accountable to.
Instead, decisions are made atthe behest of special interests

(01:10:26):
who have their claws in thesepoliticians.
So I, as far as foreignconflicts go, I say I would have
to have a clear goal, timelineand exit strategy.
If I'm going to vote on thatand in Congress, only Congress
can declare war I need a cleargoal, timeline and exit strategy

(01:10:46):
.
So let's talk about Ukraine.
What is our goal?
There is no agreed upon goal.
Is it to get the Russians outfrom before their February 2022
incursion?
Is it to get the russians outfrom before their february 2022
incursion?
That's what we want.
But then you ask zielinski hewants them out of eastern
ukraine.
Plus, he wants crimea back.
So we haven't even agreed on ourgoal and we just keep throwing

(01:11:08):
money at the problem, throwingmoney at the problem, throwing
money at the problem, thinkingthat it's gonna go away.
We've thrown enough money at itthat we need to switch gears
and look at it differently.
Something like the Israeliconflict, right?
Free the hostages.
That's a goal.
Free the hostages.
So that's what I'd go for.
I was like, okay, that's whatwe have to focus on is their
remaining hostages.
Let them go, and then Israelwill naturally stop firing on

(01:11:33):
them.
But let them go, right, that'sa clear goal.
So I think that's why how Iwould, and so you could again
say a thing, for you know, whydidn't the United States step in
when Armenians were beingethnically cleansed from
Azerbaijan?
Why?
Because Armenians don't haveanything to exploit.
We have no natural resources,right?

(01:11:53):
Azerbaijan, we know, is theback door where Russian oil and
gas is being smuggled and soldto Europe.
Europe isn't getting a third ofits oil and gas from Azerbaijan
.
Europe is getting a third ofits Russian oil and gas via
Azerbaijan, and people areprofiting massively off of that,

(01:12:13):
and that's why nobody helped.
So it's not because we did thisbecause of a set of ideals that
we hold true.
We did this because a bigcorporation could make money,
and that is what I want tocombat and that is why the likes
of Laura Friedman right, whohas her stocks in these
pharmaceutical companies youknow or you have.

(01:12:36):
I mean, I'll talk aboutsomebody like Mike Garcia,
congressman Mike Garcia.
I am at arm's length with MikeGarcia because the man worked
for a defense contractor beforehe yeah, he was a fighter pilot
and then worked for a defensecontractor.
Now he's in Congress.
So again, I'm not saying thathe's a good or bad guy, but I
would be cautious in approachinghis votes and what he's

(01:12:58):
thinking Like.
Who does he hold his allegianceto?
And that is how I would kind ofsolve that.
I don't think that the UnitedStates should be the world's
policeman, because we arepolicing selectively.
I think that we should go backto our basics, which is the
constitution, and I think thatwe need to choose our allies in
any conflict based on whichparty matches most closely to

(01:13:21):
our constitution.
And I think if we did that,it's explicit, it's morally
defensible and that is how I'dgo about entering into conflicts
.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
I'm going to go into two more.
I have two questions.
I'm going to kind of put intoone for you.

Speaker 3 (01:13:38):
Okay, let me know if I'm being verbose.

Speaker 2 (01:13:39):
Probably too late, but no, no, no, I, I.
I think this is great.
Good, if I did not know who youwere.
Okay, and after listening tothis, I'm sure anybody now is
going to understand who you are,and and and you are more
independent than you really areRepublican, I think so which is
nice.

Speaker 3 (01:13:55):
Yeah, I don't.
Like I said, our campaign, mechoosing to run as a Republican
was a means to an end, and thatmeans to an end is playing the
game.
That, I think, is rotten and Iwould like to change.
But I need to get from within.
Same as Luke Skywalker, right,had to get close into the Death
Star to hit it.

Speaker 2 (01:14:13):
Well, okay, that's great because it comes right to
my question now.
So let's say you win and let'ssay Trump wins and your policies
conflict with his policies andthere's a lot of divisiveness in
Congress right now.
Right, I mean, you watch theState of the Union and it just
cracks you up when he sayssomething and that side room

(01:14:37):
rises, and that side room.
It's a stupid game.
To me it's theatrics.
But if you go against what hesays and you become a Liz Cheney
and you're ostracized andsuddenly you are out completely
because you went against LordTrump, right?
What's going to happen whenyour policies differ from his

(01:15:01):
policies?
If you were to be elected andyou were to be elected and you
are the odd man out what happensthen?
How do you?
Are you going to state yourmorals and your thoughts?
Are you going to let the partytalk you into doing what you
have to do and stand up witheverybody else and clap at those
moments?

Speaker 3 (01:15:20):
Great question and please keep me honest as far as
replying to every single pointthat you brought up there.
First, I want to cover LizCheney.
I greet everything with ahealthy dose of skepticism and
it boggles my mind how somebodynamed Cheney suddenly is the

(01:15:40):
most moral person in the room.
Dick Cheney is the primaryreason why I am a
disenfranchised Republican.
He was a war machine, he was awarmonger, yes, and to hear
somebody say, oh God, the Bushdays, wasn't it better during
the Bush days?
And gosh, liz Cheney, she'ssuch an angel.
Oh my God, are you listening toyourself?
Ok, are you listening toyourself?

(01:16:02):
So I think Liz Cheney is anabsolutely rotten individual.
She comes from an absolutelyrotten man, a warmonger, and so
I think, throw out that babywith that bathwater.
So that's, that's number one.
How do you really feel aboutthat?
Um?
So number two is you said youknow what would I do if I came
at a loggerheads with, withtrump.
This is the beauty of the, thenational gop and everybody else

(01:16:28):
with the exception of.
So I got the endorsement ofvivek ramaswamy, okay, um,
because our platforms um overlap, I think almost entirely.
But you know, donald trump, thenational republican nrcc, the
national republicancongressional council.
They have given me zero help,zero support.
When we win this, it'll bebecause of our own sweat, blood,

(01:16:52):
sweat and tears.
So if they think that I owethem anything, they can kiss my
ass.
There you go, right.
So I said I am a single issuevoter.
Mine is a balanced budget.
I don't care.
So the fact that Donald Trumpand the Republican Congress
increased the debt ceiling in2017, that is my red line,
absolutely not.

(01:17:12):
You want to talk rhino?
That, in my opinion, is a rhino, right?
We would all be better off ifwe ran this country like we run
our own household, on a budgetand with minimal interference
from outside sources.
So when you say how am I goingto vote, I've laid out very
explicitly, I think.
I think most people will knowhow I vote, absolutely.
And so if there's a budget thatthey say, okay, alex, sign off

(01:17:36):
on this, I say, if it's adeficit spending, I am not
signing off.
I don't care if it's a democrat, republican budget, so that is,
I will not budge on that.
I also will not budge on anysort of you know, government.
Uh, again, abortion ban, gaymarriage ban.
Uh, vaccine mandate stay out ofit.
Right, I am.
I am very passionate aboutthose.

(01:17:56):
So, depending on what it is, Iam going to act at the behest of
my people, my district, notsomebody in washington, somebody
on the east coast.
So liz cheney was voted outbecause donald trump found a
favored person to her right whothen challenged her in the
primary and got her out.
That's not going to happen inDistrict 30, right, I mean, this

(01:18:18):
is not Trump town.
Right, there are people wholove Trump.
Right, there are people whodon't love Trump and there are
people in between.
We're just going to kind ofhold their noses because he's
the less you know.
They don't like Kamala or JoeBiden, what have you?
But, and this is the mostimportant one, at the end of the
day, I have to be true to myreputation and my conscience and
that is how I'll vote.
And the beauty is, I'm apracticing physician, I have a

(01:18:41):
day job, I love my day job andit's not going to be the end of
the world for me to lose,because I have a skill set where
I've already been flourishingoutside of Congress, and this
you know.
Second job that I'd be doing inCongress is for my people to
clean up this filthy politicalgame and bring back some sanity.

(01:19:03):
Like I say, fiscallyresponsible, socially sane.
So that is how I would treatthe whole Trump thing is.
I am voting my conscience, myplatform, which is clearly
delineated.
Um and come hell or high water.
That's what I'm going to doCause, like I said, I got a day
job that I can go back to.

Speaker 2 (01:19:18):
Well, if you make it in there, I'm going to hold you
to that.
Do it, do it Absolutely,because you will be my
congressman then.
So last, and you were talkingabout, you know, district 30,
and this is your place Now.
So I'm going to get very localon you, yeah, okay.
Uh, adam schiff has always beenvery good to burbank and I say

(01:19:40):
attends every function we havehere is accessible.
Uh, he really didn't have anykind of personal security until
the uh january 6th here, becausethen they kind of made him
bring some you know securitywith him.
But he always just shows up andhe's always.
I say it's accessible.
So what do you know aboutbecause you're a Glendale person
and as little as I know aboutGlendale what do you know about

(01:20:01):
Burbank and our issues righthere in our city?
What do you know about Burbank?

Speaker 3 (01:20:08):
So Glendale was so boring.
When I was growing up, right,my sister and I we'd always hang
out in Burbank.
You'd always go to the AMC backwhen it only had 14 cinemas,
right, um, we'd go toFuddruckers back when
Fuddruckers was still open.
You used to love Fuddruckers,yeah.
So we spent quite a bit of timein Burbank because Glendale was
just boring.
Um, you know club which is nowactually, it's it's, it's gone,

(01:20:33):
it's right, was right by blackangus or maybe it's the um
bicycle, I mean the bjs yeah, Ithink this is.

Speaker 2 (01:20:39):
It's just an empty lot now bobby mcgee.

Speaker 3 (01:20:41):
Sorry, bobby mcgee's was torn down yes and then um
the bicycle club so you doremember those days.
Yes, of course I remember thosedays, um, and so I.
So they're different areas ofburbank.
Right, there's definitely therancho, which the burbank rancho
and the Glendale Rancho.
They are very, you know, likeGemini twins, right, they're,
they're attached to the hip.
So that is definitely a groupthere that they love their

(01:21:02):
equestrian properties and theydon't want, you know, cars or
unnecessary bike lanes or things, for example, going through
their development either there.
So, yes, that's the, that's.
The next one is the Horace Manncondo development.
So again, there's the need formore housing and then there's

(01:21:24):
the way of putting it in sodensely that it causes
congestion, that causes peoplenot to be able to have their
livelihoods go to work, etc.
Those kinds of laws sb9 andsb10, and also laura friedman's
law, um, ab, not ab2290, Iforget the number.

(01:21:45):
So she and anthony portentinoauthored and passed legislation
to do away with local zoning andshove this state zoning with
the dense housing down people'sthroats Again, when I was
growing up, glendale, burbank,bedroom communities, single

(01:22:05):
family homes my priority ispublic safety.
My priority is local governance.
People don't like local controlbeing taken away from them.
The example that I'll give isthat the bike lanes in Glendale,
north Brand Boulevard, verynear to where I live.
I live half a mile away fromthose.
I no longer take BrandBoulevard to the freeway because

(01:22:26):
it is a cluster, it's anabsolute cluster.
And I've gone to the sidestreets and I've and I've said
I'm not against bike lanes, I'mjust against the poor execution
of the bike lanes where theycurrently are.
If they had simply been one ortwo blocks to the east, at the
quieter residential streets, youcan make them one way and going
up in north and south, and youseparate the bike traffic from

(01:22:47):
the car traffic.
But now what's happening is thecar traffic is going to the
quiet residential streets, whichare no longer quiet.
And again, these decisions weremade without the input of the
local communities, who areintimately aware of what is
better for their localneighborhoods.
And so this centralization ofpower that Laura Friedman has
perpetrated away from localneighborhoods into Sacramento,

(01:23:10):
where there's an edict that isbeing handed down, and woe be
you if you don't follow this.
I am dead set against that.
Burbank has its identity,glendale has its identity.
Even within thosesub-neighborhoods right the
rancho, they have their identity.
So I want to bring it back tolocal governance and again I
said, the primary unit ofgovernance is the household and

(01:23:31):
as close as we can get it thereand keep the primary decision
making there, I think it wouldmake everybody happy.

Speaker 2 (01:23:38):
I think people in Burbank will agree with that,
and I know you deserve a largerarea, but you know Burbank cares
about Burbank.
You know we all care about ourown cities.
So we've gone long.
We've gone longer than no.
No, no, this is hey, I'm theone directing this.
So if I want to go along,that's on me.
But I think everything webrought up was important and

(01:23:59):
it's how they get to know whoyou are and what you think.
So what I always do at the endof every Meet the Candidate
podcast is I let our candidate.
You know who your camera is.
I'm going to give you as muchtime as you want.
You can look right in thatcamera.
You look right at your voters,into your voters' eyes, okay,
and if you're listening on apodcast, then turn up the volume

(01:24:22):
a little bit.
Tell them why they should votefor you for Congress.
So this is your time.
Take as long as you want.

Speaker 3 (01:24:33):
Thank you, craig, for having me on and thank you,
ladies and gentlemen, forlistening to me.
I am Alex Bileckian, md, bornand raised in Glendale.
I am a practicing physician inthe community and I am running
for Congress in California's30th district because I feel
that we need better publicsafety.
I think that a governmentshould focus on public safety,

(01:24:55):
public health and public wealthin that health and public wealth
in that order, and it should doso as efficiently as possible,
and I think that our electedofficials, career politicians
like my opponent, laura Friedman, have abdicated their
responsibilities to us by notbeing able to provide basic
public safety.

(01:25:15):
I am against the likes ofpeople like George Gcon, who are
soft on crimes and would ratherapologize on behalf of
criminals rather than make themlive up to the consequences of
their crimes, and I am comingout against his teammates,
people like Laura Friedman,people like Nidia Rahman, people
like Hugo Soto Martinez, whoare wreaking havoc in different

(01:25:37):
council areas and assembly areas.
I am an endangered species.
I am a gay, pro-choiceRepublican.
My husband and I live inGlendale, we have a cat and he
loves it here and I love it here, and I'm running because the
town that I grew up in myGlendale and also your Burbank

(01:25:57):
has changed.
In some ways it's changed forthe better, but in a lot of ways
it's changed for the worse.
As far as more homelessness, asfar as higher cost of living
and based on how much we'repaying, I don't think we're
getting high value return.
And I want to bring back thenotion of government working for
us, not simply careerpoliticians who have found a

(01:26:20):
path to enrich themselves at ourexpense.
And that is why I'm running andmy single issues would be a
balanced budget.
I will never vote for deficitspending and also I want to work
towards term limits because Ithink that if we have more open
spots that are accessible toregular citizens like you and me
, then I think people wouldbecome more engaged and would

(01:26:44):
participate and wouldn't leavethe governance to other people.
So I thank you for watching and, craig, thank you again for
having me.
Oh, and if you want to know moreabout me, my website is
alexbalekiancomA-L-E-X-B-A-L-E-K-I-A-Ncom.
It's also alex4ca30.com, if yousee our billboards, if you've
seen our flyers anywhere.

(01:27:06):
I would love your vote, I wouldlove your contribution, be it
your contribution of money oryour contribution of time.
We need volunteers.
We only have about 54 days leftuntil the election.
Of time.
We need volunteers.
We only have about 54 days leftuntil the election and I love
all hands on deck so that wecould take our grassroots
movement and shock them all bywinning this November.

Speaker 2 (01:27:26):
Dr Alex Blinken.
Very incredible, very good.
I love these podcasts becausewe get to find out what's really
going on, so thank you verymuch for coming in.

Speaker 3 (01:27:37):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (01:27:38):
I am Well once again throw it out there that if
you're a candidate and I'm goingto appear on the Burbank ballot
in any way, you please send usan email at news at my
Burbankcom.
We will get you on, get your,get your views and opinions and
let people get to know who youare, which we think is very
important.

(01:27:58):
So thank you very much forlistening or for watching, and
we will see you next time.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Meet the Candidate: Dr. Alex Balekian, 30th District Congressional Candidate

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

All Episodes

Meet the Candidate: Dr. Alex Balekian, 30th District Congressional Candidate

Stuff You Should Know