I'm starting to get a little hobby horse of my own. And this hobby
that I'm starting to really dig into are these LGBT nonprofits, These LGBT nonprofits,
the resource centers for LGBT people. And you'll notice that there's sort of
an interplay sometimes between these LGBT resource centers, and then it seeps even into
city politics, like Jerry Dyer appoints an LGBT liaison for the city of Fresno,
which has always I've always thought was a ridiculous thing that he did.
Why do LGBT persons need a city liaison well to help them with oxocial services?
What is it about being gay or any variety of lergy or b or
t that means you need a special city representative to help you access services.
It's not like gay people speak a different language or something. Okay, Look,
if you want among liaison service for recent immigrants from Southeast Asia who don't
know English and need help navigating social services or something like that, Okay,
like for something for recent immigrants, all right, that makes sense. Spanish
language representative for again new arrivals coming from Mexico or whatever, all right,
that makes some sense. Anyway, one of these entities I've been talking about
is the Source LGBT Q Plus Center. It's another one of these LGBT nonprofit
quote resource providers that's located in Visalia. And one of the things I've been
noticed and sort of connecting the dots here, is how so many of these
LGBT nonprofits LGBT events like the recent you know, gay Pride thing that happened
at the Chaffee Zoo, is the interplay between them and various medical entities.
So one of the big entities supporting this LGBT resource centers in Vicealia is a
local federally qualified health clinic that offers transgender hormone treatments. Transgender hormone treatments,
which is a big business. It's a very profitable, lucrative service to offer
to LGBT persons. Why, well, doesn't take up a lot of provider
time, doesn't take up a lot of exam room time, and you get
a big fat reimbursement if you're the doctor providing it, if you're the clinic
providing it, you get a big fat re imbursement for the drugs for the
hormones. So it's very lucrative. So what I've noticed is okay. Yeah,
Let's say you're a medical clinic that offers stuff like that, and especially
inn FQHC, you're making money hand over fist because not only even if you're
getting a patient who's covered by medical you're getting way more than medical money because
you're supplemented by federal subsidization. That's what a federally qualified health clinic is.
It's basically a clinic that's designed to take Medicaid patients, but it gets additional
federal money to supplement the usually fairly paltry reimbursement that you would get from someone's
Medicaid in California medical coverage. So what I notice is all of these LGBT
entities, they're being sponsored and supported by local medical entities who want to get
in on the trans gender hormone game. And it makes sense. You're one
of these clinics. You give a ten thousand dollars donation to some LGBT quote
resource center, you get named, You set up a relationship with them.
Hey, if you know of someone who needs medical services, you can refer
them to us. We'll take care of them. So you spend ten thousand
dollars on a charitable donation to them, set up, you know, this
nice partnership, and they send you ten patients in a year. Guess what
you're gonna make that ten thousand dollars back? And then some Now there's this
interplay, I think, between medical entities, the cultural left, and these
different LGBT But basically, here's the thesis. When you scratch the surface of
the LGBT movement, and especially the transgender movement, but the LGBT movement more
broadly, why is it getting so much cultural purchase? Why is it so
widespread? I think this happens with a lot of altruistic liberal so called altruistic
liberal causes. You scratch that exterior surface a little bit, and what do
you find. They may have a flag with all the colors of the rainbow,
but you scratch that surface a bit, and what do you find underneath?
Green money, money, money, money, money, money, Guess
what. Healthcare for LGBT persons is often pretty expensive, and when healthcare is
expensive, medical providers make money. Here's the news about it, just a
gleaming story about it, with no sinister, sinister undertones at all, with
no questions asked from your Central Valley dot com. I think that's connected with
like KC twenty four and CBS forty seven. The source LGBT Plus Center in
Vicealia will receive a six hundred thousand dollars grant in over in over three years
and guessing that means over the course of three years, as part of an
innovative program to help stop the spread of HIV, Center officials announced on Friday.
Hmm, what is this plan to stop the spread of HIV? Center
officials say the grant was provided by the California Department of Public Health. Here
you go, your tax dollars at work as part of their PRP and PEP
Initiation and Retention Initiative, which will award over nineteen million dollars in grants to
twenty four organizations across the state. According to center officials, the initiative is
focused on increasing access to and utilization of pre Exposure Profile Axis pr EP and
post Exposure Profile Axis PEP among populations with the highest risk of HIV. So
what does that mean, mister Girardi, what these regimens of drugs are?
Let me explain what this is instead of telling let's be blunt oft in gay
men, Hey, maybe restrain yourselves. Maybe heck, maybe even only stick
to one sexual partner. Heck, maybe reduce your risky behavior in order to
lessen the chance that you'll get HIV. Instead, what we've decided to do,
what medical providers are deciding to do, and again this sounds like a
very expensive and lucrative process, is give gay men a bunch of drugs to
have them basically be constantly using pre exposure prophylactic drugs before you're being exposed to
HIV. Use a drug that is that could have a prophylactic measure, So
just constantly be taking antibiotics, just knowing that you're going to engage in very
health risky sexual behaviors. It's basically a way of saying gay men cannot exercise
or will not or certain percentage of game and just will not exercise the kind
of self control needed to live a healthy sexual lifestyle. So therefore we're just
going to load them up on so many drugs antibiotics to sort of help give
them some prophylactic protection against HIV. On the front end, here's the story
about it from The American Conservative. I talked about this a couple months ago,
written by Theodore Dalrymple. There's an easy way to eliminate death on the
roads prohibit all traffic. Unfortunately, such a policy would have effects other than
the elimination of death on the roads, but road safety experts might have difficulty
in appreciating this, As we saw during COVID Enthusiasts, who may be perfectly
honest and sincere, are sometimes blinded to other considerations by their enthusiasm. The
elaboration of public policy requires more than attention to narrow scientific findings. Important as
the latter are, policy rarely hits only its target. Trials of the old
and cheap antibiot doxycycline taken post exposure have been shown in trials to be effective
in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, at least among cisgender men who have unprotected sex
with men, as the scientific literature now delicately puts it, and among quote
transgender women. The CDC therefore now proposes to recommend the prophylactic use of doxycycline
by such persons in such circumstances. To enter the literature of what is now
known as doxi PEP is to enter a world in which acronymic medical bureaucretse confront
sodom and gomorrah. The paper published in April last year in the New England
Journal of Medicine as a good example. It describes a trial in which five
hundred one people in California were signed either to take prophylactic doxycycline after quote unprotected
sex, or to receive quote normal care. The five hundred one people were
of defined types. They were men who have sex with men and transgender women,
so men who have attempted to become and live as women who were taking
prep pre exposure prophylaxis to HIV or plwh's persons living with HIV infection, all
of whom had had Gonneria, chlamydia or syphalis infections within the last year,
and still practiced unprotected sexual relations. One might hope that even in California,
the five hundred and one persons who entered the trial were not representative of the
population as a whole, but the results of the trial were clearer and more
decisive than the results of clinical trials. Often are those subjects who took the
doxycycline immediately after having had perhaps I should say, experienced unprotected sex contracted considerably
fewer sexually transmitted diseases than those who did not. Among the preps, the
percentage of those who took doxycycline who developed STIs during follow up was ten point
seven percent compared with thirty one point nine percent of those who did not.
So basically, you're going to gay men are what the politically correct medical culture
is now recommending to gay men, because statistically speaking, we're seeing a lot
of gay men who are just not regulating their sexual lives in a safe way
at all. Is. Let's load you up with antibiotics pretty much, just
constantly before you've been exposed to sexually transmitted disease and therefore will lessen your odds
of getting a sexually transmitted disease sexually transmitted infection from thirty one percent to ten
percent, not eliminate your chances, not bring your chances down to one percent.
We're just going to reduce it from thirty percent to ten percent, meaning
that if you keep living this kind of sexual lifestyle, you're certainly going to
get all kinds of STIs, but this is just going to somewhat reduce the
likelihood of that. But at the same time, pharmaceutical and medical entities can
make money off of giving you all these drugs. By the way, the
persons who participated in this study that was written up last year in the New
England Journal of Medicine, and again State of California is giving a six hundred
thousand dollars grant to this Vicealia LGBT Resource Center to help them promote this practice
of just loading gay men up with antibiotics beforehand to lessen their odds of getting
sdis from like thirty percent to ten percent. The study from the New England
Journal Medicine that discussed this five hundred and one biological mail, the number of
sexual partners experienced over the past three months by this cohort varied between four and
seventeen, with lifetime figures being between one hundred and forty three and four hundred
and ninety one. Now this was self report, admittedly with its possible under
and overestimation. The median age for this group was thirty six for the preps
and forty three for the plwhs. So the first flush of youth cannot account
for the continued large number of sexual partners, or what, at any rate
to me seemed in my bourgeois conventionality a large number neither past infection nor the
prospect of future infection seems to have moderated behavior very much in this cohort of
people, not even to the extent of using condoms. So forgive me for
forgive me for maybe noticing this. There is evidence to indicate, I mean,
this study indicates, and I'm not this is a survey of five hundred
and one gay men. I don't think it was necessarily self selecting for gay
men with high numbers of sexual partners. But basically, I think the medical
industry that there is certainly a cohort of gay men who this is the lifestyle
they lead, is sexual activity with an alarmingly high number of people in ways
that are not regulated by any sort of sense of safety. And I think
the medical and pharmaceutical industries view them as a cash cow and this stuff is
coming and you see, so you have medical and pharmaceutical entities making money,
you have nonprofits getting grant money from the state to help fund more of this.
I'm sure that the FQHC that's funding the sore, that that's you know,
supporting the source is just you know, rubbing their hands into light over
the idea that let's get more and more of these gay patients that we're just
gonna load up on antibiotics pretty much constantly, and we're going to constantly have
this person as a patient. They'll have this. Oh well, oh that'll
lessen my chances of getting an STI. Yeah, it lessens it from thirty
percent to ten percent, which means, by the way, if you keep
having sexual encounters with you know, multiple, multiple, multiple people per year
with it. If you're if you're having sexual encounters with a dozen different people
every year, guess what, you're gonna get an STI, even if it's
a thirty percent to ten percent risk reduction. When we return the bizarre nature
of the local media coverage of these LGBT stories during June, that's next on
The John Girardi Show. If you look across the landscape of America and America's
views on quote issues relating to the LGBT question, okay, what you find
is not a united America. One of the interesting things is that over the
last ten years, support for gay marriage has actually decreased, and it's particularly
decreased among younger Americans. It's certainly a majority who still support gay marriage,
but it's a still very sizable minority of Americans who don't support gay marriage.
There's a large percentage of Americans, probably the majority, who don't think biological
males should compete in women's sports. There are large, significant numbers of Americans
who either not sure what they think or are negative about the whole concept of
transgender interventions, and especially when we're talking about transgender interventions for children. Liberals
do this thing of basically proclaiming victory well in advance and proclaiming victory so often
and in such a sustained way, And they've been helped in this by,
frankly, the Supreme Court. They were helped by the Supreme Court. On
the abortion issue, the Supreme Court just sort of ruled in nineteen seventy three.
Yep. Well, the national debate's over abortions. The constitutional right embedded
firmly fundamentally in the Constitution has to absolutely be legal law forty weeks of pregnancy
effect effectively, all forty weeks of pregnancy effectively, any reason. That's it.
The Court did the same thing in Obergafell. Sorry, gay marriage is
legal throughout the country. The debate's over, it's in the constitution fundamental right
for anyone to get married. For any two people to get married, why
it's any two people. I don't know what bigamy law is still out on
the books, you know. Well, no, no, there's definitely a
distinction we can make. Okay, sure, they sort of just proclaim victory.
And when you have the Supreme Court proclaiming victory or you have individual state
governments in different states, it just provides cover for corporate entities that are engaged
in litigation avoidance. And so all these entities government, corporate just proclaim June
is Pride month. June is Pride Month. And by the way, if
I were African American, I'd be royally ticked off about this that I've seen.
There is so much more Pride Month stuff. Then there is African American
History Month. I mean, February comes and goes, and I see,
you know one or two things about African America. You see some things,
Yeah, you go to Barnes and Noble or Borders. But for some reason,
this all encompassing Pride Month push every June where in Alexandria, Virginia.
Like we're permanently painting the street the crosswalks with rainbow flags and we're filing like
felony mischief charges against teenagers for doing donuts on the Rainbow flag with their motorized
scooters. It's this whole, all encompassing attitude of no that we just uncritically
support the L and the G and the B and the T and whatever else
that encompasses. And meanwhile, you know, I'm talking about this story about
this charity, this LGBT quote Resource Center in Visalia that's getting a six hundred
thousand dollars grand from the State of California for basically these regimens of STD mitigation.
It's not not STD prevention at all. It's it's purely it's purely mitigation
for gay men to basically be on a regime of constant, constantly being on
antibiotics, being on antiotics before you're exposed to sexually transmitted infections. So just
just be permanently on antibiotics to lessen your chances of getting an SDI from thirty
percent to ten percent, not eliminate it. And by the way, if
you continue having sexual partners at the numbers that some gay men do, you're
it doesn't matter if you reduce your risk from thirty percent to ten percent,
you're still gonna get an SDI like and it could be a very serious STI
undoubtedly, And yet this grant, so this is a grant to a Vicealia
area nonprofit for a very bizarre, very open to criticism regimen of treatment for
STIs that people with a brain would be like, hmm, not sure about
this. What's all the media coveras, Oh, you're's casey twenty four.
Oh, this wonderful grant. Every local media outlet I've seen talking about Pride
Month talks about it as if there's no controversy, as if there's no debate,
as if this is an obvious good citizenship thing that we as media entities
wholeheartedly must proclaim support. Oh, come to the Chauffee Zoo for their Pride
Day thing, ignoring the huge controversy that surrounded it. I think just last
year it was either just last year or the year before where they had a
drag story hour right after the Measure Z vote and you had all these local
politicians, including Gary Brettefeld, who were spitting mad that they had just you
know, stumped for Measure Z. And then the Chaffey Zoo turns around and
has a drag queen story hour there and by the way, what's it sponsored
by Local FQHC. Local FQHC wants to make money off of gay patients,
off of transgender patients, That's what And I'm more and more convinced with this
grant from the state of California. You scratch the LGBT movement, you scratch
the rainbow, and what do you find. Green? That's the only color
under that facade. Green. People making money, often at the expense of
the suffering of people who identify as LGBT. When we return, how curious
is it that no other states have joined Gavin Newsom and is called to amend
the Constitution, to amend the Second Amendment. Maybe it's not that curious at
all. That's next on the John Gerardi Show. So last year Gavin Newso
made some momentary headlines by calling for amending the United States Constitution for amending specifically
the Second Amendment in order to facilitate more regulations on guns. And part of
this, I think was in response to Supreme Court decisions. We've had a
couple of recent Supreme Court decisions about the Second Amendment and whether it is an
individual right and concealed carry laws being sort of a frankly very much at the
heart of the Second Amendment. If you have a right to keep end bare
arms, if you have a right to bear arms, that would mean presumably
that you can carry them outside of your house. And that's what concealed carry
is. You know, it's very squarely within the historical, you know,
definition of what keeping bare arms means. So anyway, Newsom has been very
upset about this, and he so he has proposed a constitutional amendment, an
amendment to the United States Constitution to give more leeway to gun control advocates to
pass restrictions on guns. And there's a part of me, as much as
I don't know that I don't think at all that I agree with the gun
control lobby. It's sort of a thing of it's kind of an all or
nothing. Either completely ban private gun ownership in the United States or don't keep
our regime that we have. I think those are the only two intellectually honest
positions, because all of the gun control restrictions that knew that the left is
proposing are things that would not really do much to actually reduce the supply of
guns in the country, and thereby doing anything to reduce the actual lart the
actual number of gun violence deaths. You know, let's have an assault weapons
ban, all right, Well, most gun violence in America is happening with
handguns. It's not happening with quote assault weapons, which again is kind of
a made up term that doesn't necessarily have any real world significance. Often something
can be deemed a quote assault weapon on the basis of sort of features and
add ons and stuff like that that are somewhat cosmetic in nature, rather than
actually things that impact the lethality of a gun. So there, I just
see the attempts at regulation on the part of the left as not really going
to be things that are going to impact gun violence. We need more mandated
background checks, Okay, well we already have a bunch of background checks.
Criminals necessarily are going to like, how is that going to stop a criminal
though, wants to kill people. Criminals are going to get guns illegally off
the black market. They don't need to go through a background check because they're
getting them illegally. Right. Usually, when you arrest a gang banger for
a gun violence crime, you can also tack on, you know, a
couple more years of sending another charge for unlawful possession of a firearm because ninety
nine times out of one hundred, or I don't know what the exact percentage
is, maybe it's nine times out of ten, whatever it is, they've
got that handgun illegally. They've got a handgun with the serial number sand it
off or whatever it is. And even like the attempts that all these states
make to restrict concealed carry, being able to get a concealed carry permit,
and that New York was doing the California does, and in California it's kind
of a it had been in New York, it had been kind of a
county by county basis, and the Supreme Court said, hey, you can't
have a county by county, you know, different regime. What a silly
way of reducing gun violence. Concealed carry permit holders are some of the least
likely people to actually engage in gun violence. Like, it's such a silly
thing. Here's the people who demonstrated the greatest willingness to jump through all the
legal hoops necessary to carry a gun safely, and we're going to restrict them.
They're not the ones doing the crimes. Now, the only thing I
could see, actually making a dent in the total number of gun violence incidents
that happen in this country would be a massive something where you need to pitch
out the Second Amendment almost entirely and say individual gun ownership is no kind of
a right whatsoever, and that the government can just basically confiscate all the guns,
put all the gun manufacturing companies out of business in America, and massively
drastically lessen the supply of guns throughout the United States. Now, that has
a lot of bad side effects to it also, which is why I'm not
advocating it. But I am saying, if you're being intellectually honest, I
think you have to either advocate for that or for the status quo. I
think most of the liberal gun control policies that are in the air right now
they're just sort of flim flamming around the edges of what would actually lessen gun
violence. Now, Newsome proposes this constitutional amendment, and when I heard it,
I it was like, Okay, this is refreshing. He realizes that
most liberal gun control policies are just flim flam around the edges of what can
we get away with. As far as interpreting the Second Amendment and allowing us
still to restrict guns, which is not much, which I think is half
you know what, you know, half budded. I'm not sure if I'm
allowed to say the actual word on the radio. Half you know what,
died restrictions on gun violence that are not actually gonna have a big impact.
So Newsom's like, all right, let's just have a whole new paradigm here
where we're not restricted by the Second Amendment at all. Let's let's just rewrite
the Second Amendment and let's really restrict the supply of guns in the Okay,
Like, again, I don't agree with it, but at least I found
I would find it intellectually refreshing. But then I actually hear the specific proposals
Newsom's offering, and it's more of the same. He wants to amend the
Second Amendment just to keep doing the same. Flimflam, Oh, just more
background checks, more of this, more more restrictions on on assault weapons and
dead do none of that's really impacting the gun violence rate. Why are you
going through the rigamarole of trying to interpret the Second Amendment, of trying to
amend the Second Amendment to refashion the Second Amendment, just to do that,
what's the point. And then I realized what it was. I realized what
it was because I saw a tweet from Gavin Newsom's personal Twitter account, not
his official State of Governor of California Twitter account, which is owned by the
state, which he can't use for campaign purposes. A tweet from his personal
account with an image leading to a link to his super pack. Super Pack
that he helped get started with all of his extra campaign money from his three
you know, gubernatorial elections, says, if you support amending the constitution to
allow for federal background checks and you know, restricting assault weapons and all this
sort of buzzword language that the pro gun control left always uses, click here
to sign the petition. And that's when I knew, all right, sign
the petition. Ding ding dinging ing ing ding. There goes John Girardi's BS
alarm. Any politician asking you to sign a petition unless it's an actual qualify
a ballot initiative for a ballot petition, that's that's that's the only thing I'm
excluding here that's an actual thing to get a ballot initiative on the ballot.
Other than that, if a politician is asking you to sign a petition.
This is a scam. This is a scam to get your email address and
get your your phone number so that that politician can email and or text you
donation, solicit solicitations come election time. That's all it is. So we
get this story from the La Times that it's been a year since Newsom introduced
this idea of amending the state constitution, and no other Blue state has taken
him up on it, No other Blue state, no other Blue state governor
has sort of joined him in calling for amending the constitution. The governor's pitch,
the story goes, inspired a round of media coverage last year that elevated
his national profile as a Democrat trying to do something about mass shootings and other
gun violence. Mass shootings are a very small minority of all the gun violence
in America. To call it mass shootings and other gun violence, it should
be the other way around, other gun violence and mass shootings whatever. Newsom
pointed to findings of a Fox newspol that found overwhelming voter support for the restrictions.
The gun initiative has given him another opportunity to reach out to voters outside
of California, ding Ding, Ding ding Ding. Gavin news I wants to
run for president. This is just about increasing his profiles. We can run
for president. It's just about tickling the fancy of the you know, two
hundred or so super wealthy people that he's hoping will bankroll his eventual run for
president, if not this year, than in twenty twenty eight. Yet Newsom
must still contend with the stubborn politics of the Second Amend. Oh, that's
stubborn Second Amendment. Many lawmakers at the national and state level are reluctant to
buck a powerful gun lobby. For god's sake, that there are so many
liberal lobbies that have more money than the NRA. It's this is idiotic and
risk being accused of trying to dilute the constitutional right to bear arms. I
mean, it wouldn't be being accused of it would be diluting it. If
you amend the Second Amendment to allow for more gun regulation, you would be
diluting the right to bare arms. The governor said he expected the slow pop
progress, adding that support for a constitutional amendment on gun control could take twenty
years to catch on. Come on, no one was naive about this.
K Newsom said in a recent interview with The Times, Actually, I think
he was banking on lots and lots of people being naive about this, because
again, this is not about actually amending the Constitution, which he knows is
wellnigh impossible to do, especially over a contentious issue like this. The point
of this, the point of Gavin Newsom proposing to amend the Constitution about gun
control, was to increase his profile, to tickle the fancy of the ultra
wealthy donors who watch MSNBC and love it when Newsom, you know, gets
in fights with Ron DeSantis and does this kind of performative stuff that's clearly to
entertain those people so that they will give him money for twenty twenty eight.
That's what this is all about. When we return, how do people propose
we talk about LGBT stuff with our kids next? On the John Girardi Show,
my wife and I were genuinely going through this, as you know,
it's June and there are lots of stores where the Pride Month merch is all
over the place, and we now have our kids are sort of getting older.
We've got nine year old, seven year old, five year old who
can all read four year old can't, baby can't, And it was down
to this thing of My wife and I are kind of at the point that
we basically refuse to go to Target during June. Target is maybe the of
all, like big store retailers, probably the most aggressively pro LGBT. They
have been for years. They were allowing biological men and women's restrooms long before,
long before anyone else was doing it. So my wife and I are
like we were. It's and it's not just that we don't want to support
it. It's also like our kids can read and they'll probably see this stuff
and ask us like, well, what's this about? And I guess I'm
just not sure. I how how is a Christian parent who believes that sexuality
is ordered in a certain way. I just feel as though, like I
find it difficult, and my wife finds it difficult just to take our kids
to places where they're so loudly proclaiming an ethic that is so contrary to what
we believe, and that's so loudly proclaiming an ethic that's contray to what not
just I believe, but a large percentage of the country. I just find
it difficult, and it saddens me that probably a lot of parents may struggle
with this, but it's just part of the air we breathe and it just
shouldn't be. That'll do it for John Girardi Show, See you next time
on Power Talk.