So conservatives for once find something that is gaining popular interest and acclaim and a
line of attack on a social issue that's gaining widespread acceptance, which is targeting
extremely non child friendly, adult oriented, child age inappropriate sexual content in books
in public school libraries as well as in other public libraries. And of course
we are hit with this charge that we are in favor of book bands.
And of course what does the media to do with the media adopts completely wholesale
the language of the left to describe the issue because they are big mad about
this, so they cannot actually report on this accurately. They have to use
precisely the preferred euphemisms, the preferred language of the left when it comes to
this controverted question. So that is what is presented to itself to us.
Rather with this piece from Sacramento b reporting on a new bill that has been
introduced into the California State Assembly AB one eight two five, the California Freedom
to Read Act, which aims to prevent public libraries from banning literatures so called
in a discriminatory manner. And this even gets me to this is a John
Girardi bugaboo. Discrimination. Oh, that's discrimination. That's no good. Discrimination
as such is not illegal or civilly evil. In America, I think we
have this sense in our heads that all discrimination is bad. When you hear
the word discrimination, you think bad stuff. Why Well, because you're thinking
about various kinds of things that involve unreasonable, harmful discrimination. All right,
If you're discriminating in your hiring or in the people you choose to serve in
your business on the basis of race, well that's wrong, that's unreasonable.
The fact that someone has skin of a different color than you, or is
of a different ethnicity from you, does not, in and of itself make
that person unqualified for the job that you're hiring for or unworthy of service from
your business. Okay, if a grocery store is out here deciding we're not
going to serve African Americans, well that's a really horrible thing to do.
Why not? Why wouldn't you serve African Americans. Discrimination on the basis of
race is an unreasonable category. It is unjustly saying that this certain group of
people who have a characteristic that they cannot control. They cannot control their national
origin, they cannot control their racial background. That's just who they are to
just exclude them from society on the basis of something so silly as skin color
is unjust, but not all forms of discrimination are unreasonable or unjust. Here's
a form of discrimination that businesses do all the time. No shoes, no
shirt, no service. But you're discriminating against those who choose to go shoeless
or shirtless. Yeah, yes, we're allly gonna serve people in our store
who are fully clothed. Sorry, you do have the right to discriminate In
America, the government has the right discriminate on all kinds of characteristics. Employers
discriminate all all the time. Three years experience needed for a job posting.
Government does that all the time. All kinds of people do that all the
time. You're discriminating on the basis of min Yeah, this is a form
of discrimination that's legal and legitimate. We are allowed to discriminate on the basis
of how much work experience you have. This position must have a bachelor's degree.
Need to have a bachelor's degree to apply. Oh, you're discriminating against
people without a bachelor's degree. Yes, yes, that's what we're doing.
Okay, So discriminating is not per se bad. It depends on the kind
of question. The category that you are using for discriminating is the category which
is form the basis for your criticism for your discrimination. Is that an unlawful
category? And that's what the Civil Rights Acts were. It was establishing that
businesses and the government in its conduct in various respects. There were several different
civil rights acts. It wasn't just one single act. It was establishing that
businesses, for example, may not discriminate on the basis of and then it
gave several different categories race, religion, et cetera, ethnic background, skin
color in certain contexts. Sex now not not in all contexts, Okay,
there some there's greater latitude for sex based discrimination in certain ways in certain areas,
respecting the fact that there are genuine biological differences between the sexes, and
so discrimination in certain context on the basis of sex is not unreasonable. Having
different physical fitness standards for men and women within the military, for example,
makes a certain degree of sense if you're going to have male and female service
members. Men and women are different. Now, the outcry that's being made
over school boards and governing bodies overseeing library systems throughout California and Generally speaking,
in California, libraries are run by counties. So in Fresno County, the
library system is part of the Fresno County government. It's the Fresno County Library.
And who is the governing body for the County of Fresno. It's the
County Board of Supervisors. So the County Board of Supervisors hires the librarian,
who's the chief officer for all the libraries within Fresno County, who in turn
hires subordinate employees to manage this branch and this branch in this branch and this
branch employees to help out the manager for this branch of this branch, this
branch. Okay, So that's just that's how that's the structure of how this
works. Also, you have libraries within public schools. Okay, public schools
are governed by their school boards, their school boards of trustees, Close,
unified, president unified, Central, unified, et cetera. They each have
a governing board of trustees. And that's one of the things to remember with
all of this is that the people who govern these different library systems are accountable
to voters. There is democratic control over the county libraries. There is democratic
control over the public school libraries through elected school board or county supervisor, school
board members or elected county supervisors. All right, that is how American governance
works, and this is how it's working in these smaller contexts of county government
and the school board government and school board government governance. I should say,
the people elect the school board members. The school board members are there to
represent the people and what the people have asked them to do within the confines
of the law. County supervisors are there to be responsive to the people who
elected them, within the confines of the law. So in a number of
school districts around California and a number of county governments in California, including Fresno
County, actions have been taken to remove certain kinds of books from children's libraries
and children's libraries sections in some fashion or another. Now within the confines of
the law. California law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity, So a county supervisor or a you know, school board member can't
ask that all the gay books be removed. However, there are certain other
categories that county supervisors like Steve Brandell, for example, have looked at to
say, hey, these books aren't necessarily appropriate in the kids section. Introducing
sexualized content, just generally sexualized content to children at an excessively early age,
and possibly in a flippant fashion, is not good for childhood, healthy sexual
development. Those books don't all need to be in the public school library.
They don't all need to be in the county library in the kids section.
That's not a protected category. Okay, yes, we are discriminating against one
is discriminating against this book or that book, but it's on the basis of
suitability for childhood development. If you're a librarian running a library for children,
you have to discriminate on that basis all the time. That's the whole reason.
To have a kid's section of library means that you have engaged in a
massive systematic act of discrimination, which we call library curating, in order to
segregate out. These are all of the books that are written at a kid's
reading level, that are appropriate for kids. Okay, we're gonna put them
all in the kids section. You know, we're not gonna put like Wilt
Chamberlain's Autobiography, which is written at slightly more of like an adult level,
and talks about Wilt Chamberlain having various kinds of romantic escapades with hundreds and hundreds
of ladies. Uh, that's not gonna go in the kids section. All
right, We'll put a biography of, you know, George, a biography
of George Washington that's written out of fifth grade reading level. We'll put that
in the kid's section. Okay, we'll put a biography about George Washington,
Carver, We'll put a biography about this person. We'll put it about Abraham
Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Edison and Benjamin Frank. Will put biographies of
those guys written at that level. We're not going to put the gritty details
of the life of Uh, I don't know, take your horrible per of
Hugh Hefner. Yeah, we're not going to put a detailed biography of Hugh
Hefner in the kids section. Why, Because we curate, we discriminate.
We say this book is suitable for kids, and this book isn't. I
think what the Left is trying to argue is that as long as their book
is coded as LGBT friendly, that it therefore must be in that kid's section.
It has to be in that kid's section. It needs to be.
And if any person right of Hillary Clinton voices any kind of concern with it,
any kind of objection to it, any kind of anger with it,
or dares to try to remove it, that must be unjust, unlawful discrimination.
And in fact, it's a flat out book band. It's goose step
in nazis trampling all over the right of kids to read. And that's just
ridiculous. Again, It's called library curation. That's what happens. Every library
in America discriminates. You discriminate on the basis of literary merit. You discriminate
on the basis of genre, putting one kind of thing in one section and
another kind of thing in another section. You discriminate on age appropriateness, you
discriminate on all kinds of categories within the context of a library. But this
discrimination saying that, hey, this is not appropriate for kids for their sexual
development, this is allegedly wrong. We'll dig more into the details of this
bill right after the break. This is the John Girardi Show on Power Talk.
The beginning of this Sacramento best story about a new bill that's been introduced
in the state legislature. AB one eight two five, which is going to
try to put roadblocks to prevent public libraries from trying to engage in curation decisions
to keep out age inappropriate books from kids sections of libraries. Uh the story
it begins with it feels like something. It feels like something I would have
done, or maybe my wife and I would have done. In February,
Capital Books on k on K Street in Sacramentos Downtown received at TI two star
review critical of the store's children's book section. It was Black History Month and
the store was adorned with posters of black children, families, and books to
celebrate African American literature. Quote children's section is littered with woke, leftist ideologue
literature. The review read, however, it was nice that the children's section
had a small chair in beanbags. In support of its selection of diverse literature,
and in opposition to the review, Capital Books put the review on a
shirt. The move has been lauded as an example of how to deal with
pushback by those in favor of book bands by the American Booksellers Association. Capital
Books co owner Ross rojek So, the owner of the store, has lauded
it as a way of dealing with pushback. Also, it was not calling
for a book ban. Also, it had no objection to African American books.
The objection was to woke leftist literature. That's a different thing, and
wants somebody wants to claim there's too much black representation in a bookstore, that
is during Black History Month. Rojack said, you can't please everybody, So
we set up the article by demonstrating people who dislike left wing books, really
they dislike black people. That's really what we're talking about. That everyone who
objects the left wing stuff is a horrible racist, and they support book bands,
they support banning books. Even though we're talking about here the context of
a private bookstore, that someone's complaining, you have all this left wing book,
all these left wing books, I don't like them. That's not a
call for a book ban, saying hey, I don't like this bookstore because
it has a bunch of left wing literature in it. Book bands have been
going on for as long as books have been printed. Rojack said, is
Rojack again someone who co owns a bookstore. Is he really the authority on
the entire history of books and banning? Why are we citing his view on
those? But Now, critics often target features stories. Critics often target features
stories from LGBTQ plus and communities of color that is poorly written. I think
it's trying to say that critics often target stories from LGBTQ and communities of color.
But even that's grammatically bad anyway, McClatchy, everybody, What it does
is reduce representation and the ability for children to find books that represent them or
their family, Rojak said, And then you can just hear the disdain dripping
from this quote. Not every child in public school is a straight is a
white, straight, evangelical child. So those children of color need to see
books that represent themselves. Literally, nobody in this current milieu of objecting to
inappropriate books in libraries. Nobody has objected to black people being portrayed. Not
one person has objected to diverse racial backgrounds of people being portrayed. What we're
objecting to is the sex stuff. That's what we're objecting to. Literally,
nobody is upset that there are books with African American characters or families or anything
like that. Nobody. The only thing we're objecting to is the sex stuff.
Now, what is this bill allegedly going to do this bill, which
by the way, has nothing to do with the first example that the article
gives. The first example the article gives is with a private bookstore. Private
bookstore can put whatever the heck they want within the confines. I guess of
obscenity laws ABE one eight two five would quote aims to prevent public libraries.
So not the bookstore in the first example in this story from banning literature in
a discriminatory manner. They're already out not legally able to do that. Libraries
already can't say we're getting rid of basic Again, let's let's remember what discrimination
is. Discrimination is not bad, what is bad in America. What is
unlawful in America, more broadly, is discrimination on the basis of certain protected
categories, categories like race in California, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
If you have a public library system saying we're getting rid of every single book
depicting a gay person, then yeah, that might be unlawful conduct. Maybe,
But if you're a library and you discriminate by shoving kid appropriate books in
a kid's section and adult appropriate books in adult sections, you're not engaged in
discrimination. If you engage in curation by saying this book is trashy. It's
written towards kids, but it has a bunch of age and appropriate stuff like
cursing in sex and things like that. I'm not going to stock it on
the shelf. You're not stomping all over the First Amendment by so doing,
You're not a goose step in Nazi. You're engaged in library curation. That's
the job. Then it gets to the real thing. We want professional librarians
to be making decisions on how and what books to provide to their local readers,
rather than these vocal minorities with an agenda to attack and suppress the voices
and perspectives of LGPTQ plus and communities of color, said assembly Member al Muratushi,
a Democrat from Torrance who authored the bill. All right, well,
let's go towards Fresno County here, because that's what they're really upset about.
That's the objection we keep hearing. We need to let professional librarians do their
jobs. Stop are the professional librarians doing their jobs when you have a book
written to kids under the age of nine that shows a kid in a bathtub
masturbating. This is aimed at children nine and under talking about how good masturbation
makes people feel. Is that really an age appropriate thing for a book in
a public school library? Talking about whether you feel sexy or not? Do
you like the word sexy? Do you think you should be? For nine
year olds? Under nine year olds? That's one of the books. There
are five copies of it within the Fresno County library system. Our heroic professional
librarians did such a great job bringing that in. The professional librarians work for
the voters and taxpayers of Fresno County. Ultimately, they are under the authority
of the elected Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors are elected by the
people of Fresno County. The people of Fresno County vote for the Board of
Supervisors, and they pay all the taxes that fund all the libraries and pay
for the salaries of all those amazing quote professional librarians. The idea that these
librarians have received some some wisdom from on high that guides them that we mortals
cannot touch about what is and isn't appropriate for kids is bunk. They're not
all experts in child psychosocial or sexual development. They're getting a bunch of stuff
that publishing companies recommend that teachers, that groups recommend that people donate, and
they're stacking it on the shelves. Probably a lot of them are doing it
without even really reviewing the books all that carefully, or if they are,
they're doing a terrible job. They want to shove the democratic process out of
this institution that's fundamentally run by the people. And by the way, it's
a majority in Fresno County at the very least, because it's certainly a majority
of the people on the Board of Supervisors. That's how we got this thing
passed. It's not a vocal minority. When we return, I talk a
little bit about Christy Nome and her dogs biting everyone and also claiming that she
met the leader of North Korea, and some bigger discussions about who should be
the vice president, all kinds of fun stuff. Next on the John Girardi
Show. Been loving all the coverage and laughing at basically everything about Christy Nome
and the whole story about her dog and shooting her dog after her dog killed
a bunch of chickens and stuff like that. And I'm just kind of sitting
over on the sidelines as a non dog person and someone who doesn't own a
dog, does not want to own a dog, doesn't particularly like dogs.
I've been sort of over here laughing about the whole thing and also laughing at
Christy Nome just completely sinking her chances of being named the vice president because she
has just leaned into it and just keeps talking about it and keeps like,
oh, don't buy the liberal media near it was in your book you talked
about killing your dog. I don't know, and she keeps trying to justify
it. I actually am leaning towards Gnome on this thing that I actually do
kind of think that I don't think that she's this irredeemably evil monster for doing
this. What I do think, though, is that it's appealing to very
very few people. If anything, it's it makes her seem like a monster
to basically suburbanite folks who kind of don't understand this sort of country mentality that
you know, animals are tools and they're not you know, children, and
if an animal is not serving its purpose, then it's you know, getting
rid of it is not the worst thing in the world. But there are
also a lot of like rural people who love dogs, and I'd say probably
there's if if there's any group of people that really loves dogs, it might
be non suburban, non urban people who live in rural communities. They might
love dogs even more than suburbanites. So I think that her, you know,
writing about this in her own autobiography so fulsomely, I think is sort
of a huge turn off to a lot of people, especially for Donald Trump.
Who what does Donald Trump need to win? What's the big demographic that's
a real swing from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty is suburban women. He really
needs suburban women. And I can think a few things less attractive to the
suburban female vote than someone who shoots their dog and just kind of keeps leaning
into it. Well, and why do I have that? Why do I
have this sort of negative attitude towards Christino? Well, she was just a
huge waffler when it came to transgender questions. Why. Well, she's the
governor of South Dakota, and a major political force in South Dakota is this
big hospital system, and this big hospital system was leaning on her to say,
hey, you shouldn't sign this bill to prevent men biological males from participating
in women's sports. And this hospital system was doing gender transition stuff, and
so all of a sudden, you know, rock ribbed conservative Christy Nome was
this waffling puddle of mess when it came to the question of legislation to keep
men out of women's sports and various kinds of transgender things. So, you
know, I just don't really trust her after that. You know, when
it gets to a moment of crisis, what do you do. I just
don't really trust her. I mean, she's better than Kamala Harris, okay,
but I don't really trust her. And thus I was not very enthused
for the idea of her potentially being Donald Trump's vice presidential you know, running
mate. But now there's even more bizarre stuff going on with her. In
her this same book, nom wrote that she met with North Korean dictator Kim
Jong un while serving in Congress she was a member of the House of Representatives,
I guess before she was governor on the House Armed Services Committee, and
that she canceled a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. To the best anyone
can determine this the write up of it in National Review, written by I
think Jim Gerrity. To the best anyone can determine neither claim is true,
and Noame didn't help herself during a recent interview on the topic, so she
was interviewed by Margaret Brennan, who said, so, you write about lessons
learned in leadership, and you bring up some specific incidents I want to ask
you about. You talk about meeting some world leaders and one specific one quote.
I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong un. I'm
sure he underrested me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants.
I have been a children's pastor, after all, did you meet Kim
Jong un? Nome response, Well, you know, as soon as this
was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this
passage, and I have met with many many world leaders. I have traveled
around the world. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we
went forward and have made some edits. So I'm glad that this book is
being released in a couple of days and that those edits will be in place,
and that people will will have the updated version. So you did not
meet with Kim Jong un, That's what you're saying. Brendan questions Sir Nome
responds, no, I have met with many, many world leaders, many
world leaders. I have traveled around the world. I think I have talked
extensively in this book about my time serving in Congress, my time as governor
before governor, some of the travels that I've had. I'm not going to
talk about my specific meetings with world leaders. I'm just not going to do
that. This anecdote shouldn't have been in the book, and as soon as
it was brought to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted.
And yet later in the interview, Nome insisted, I'm not retracting anything.
If you take sections out of your book in the next printing, you are
indeed retracting things. Did you meet Kim Jong Un, Garrity writes, is
a yes or no question, And the only reason Brendan is asking about it
is because Noam wrote that she had done so in her own book. So
this anecdote shouldn't have been in the book. As soon as it was brought
to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted. As soon as
it was brought to her attention. She's the narrator of the audiobook version,
so it's like clearly the book was ghost written. I mean, this is
clearly what's happening. The book was ghost written. She didn't review the copy
that carefully, or if she did, she somehow thought she could get away
with this whole section talking about meeting Kim Jong un, when people have now
looked back and real like, like, there's a record of this kind of
thing, when members of a delegation of members of Congress meet with a world
leader or a world leader comes to Congress to meet with members of Congress,
Like, there's a record of this, and it's clear that she was full
of it. So she's either she either didn't really read her own autobiography,
but clearly she did because she recorded the audiobook version of it. So geez.
I mean, I think I'm kind of glad. I'm quite glad that
this has sort of knocked her out of contention to be the vice president because
she seems messy, and that leads me to ask sort of ponder aloud,
who might be the vice president. We'll talk about that next after the break.
This is the John Gerardy Show on Power Talk. Who is going to
be the next vice president? Well, it's definitely not going to be Christy
Nom. She's sort of settle that by the whole dog shooting thing, and
then also by claiming she met Kim Jong un and that she stared him down.
He probably underestimated me, but I've had enough time staring down tiny dictators
back because I'm a sassy lady who served as a children's pastor at my church.
And it's like, well, okay, actually you've never met Kim jongun.
You know, there's no record you met Kim Jong un. And she's
more or less admitted it because she said that that section is not going to
be in the second printing of her book. So seems like Christy Nome is
out, So who's it gonna be. Well, it sounds like it's kind
of down to a couple of names. JD. Vans from Ohio. Doug
Bergham, the governor of North Dakota, the former governor of North Dakota,
who actually I kind of like seems like a somewhat sharp dude the few things
have seen of him. Marco Rubio of all people, which I find fascinating,
although it does raise some problem. Apparently there's a certain I guess it's
in the twelfth Amendment. There's a certain constitutional problem potentially with both a presidential
nominee and a vice presidential nominee, or a president and a vice president rather
both coming from the same state Donald Trump and Rubio both being Florida residents,
that there could be some kind of complication there just legally, which I find
interesting. I guess I'm not exactly sure. None of these people really it
doesn't seem like any of the names that are being floated. Some people are
floating Ben Carson, which I think is kind of ridiculous, like and it's
weird, like Carson is such an objectively impressive person just his career as a
surgeon, like he's this incredibly impressive doctor. But I have just thought as
a politician, I mean, he was the former secretary of HUD. He
just seems like he's not really adding anything fairly boring, unimpressive, and I
don't know, maybe that's what Trump wants. I mean, Trump picked Mike
Pence before. I think he wants kind of a straight man to play off
against, not like homosexual striving like a straight man, for him to play
off against, someone who seems normal in comparison to him being loud and colorful,
So someone serious Bergham would kind of fit that role, I think better
than anyone. I think Trump likes Vance a lot, but maybe he casts
Van says he needs to be my hammer in the Senate. He needs to
be one advancing my policies in the Senate. I think it's going to be
Burgham, and I think it's kind of a thing of he can credibly sort
of fulfill the role that Pence had. He's like the staid, serious,
you know, chief subordinate, responsible guy gives jittery more moderate Republicans sort of
a sense of calm that there's an adult in the room here. But there
is also this thing to think about why. I sort of hope he leans
towards Vance. Vance and Ruby are certainly the most Tim Scott is the other
sort of name in the bunch. A little less enthused about Tim Scott.
I'm not sure, just because I don't know how policy active he's been.
I like Tim Scott fine. I just think that Rubio and Bergham is sort
of a more interesting pick. And Rubio and Vance have demonstrated a lot of
intellectual interest and willingness to be sort of slightly different kinds of conservatives. I
think Scott is a fairly more conventional conservative. I guess the problem is that
none of these picks are delivering a state that's really a swing state anymore.
That's one thing I have some concern with. You know, you pick a
vice president either for governance Dick Cheney or to help you win a swing state
Al Gore, Al Gore and also Joe Biden. Okay, Joe Biden won
Barack Obama Pennsylvania two straight years in a row. That was valuable for Obama.
But we also see that there's a benefit of having a good vice president
as opposed to just a no load who's there to win you a swing state.
The thing is, though, that whoever is picked here, this is
one of the most most significant vice presidential picks in recent memory, because if
Trump wins, we know he's not getting another term. Who If Trump picks
somebody and wins, that person's the Republican nominee in all likelihood for twenty twenty
eight. So I hope Trump kind of goes into it with that sense that
this is not just someone who's an ornament for Donald J. Trump. This
is someone who we need to kind of acknowledge could be the next commander in
chief. Could be the future for both the country but also for the Republican
Party. You know, is Doug Bergham a boring guy from North Dakota?
Is Is he really the thing we want to put up against Gavin Newsom?
Maybe maybe he is. I don't know. I don't know enough about Burgham.
He doesn't strike me as the most exciting guy in the world. I've
heard him speak a couple of times, and he seems fairly impressive from what
I've read, and I think it's going to be him. I guess my
hope would be just for the ideological future of the Republican Party. I would
prefer advance above everyone else. That'll do what for John Girardi Show, See
you next time on Power Talk