Some of you may remember back in twenty twenty two, how there were two
different competing ballot initiatives on the ballot, propositions twenty six and twenty seven,
and both of them were dealing with the issue of sports gambling. And it
was basically the California Native American casinos going up against these national online sports betting
websites like FanDuel, Draft Kings MGM, I think is in on that action,
et cetera. And so basically the one ballot initiative that the one that
was promoted by the Native American casinos was talking about, Oh it's so gambling
is so terrible, Pete, You're going to allow kids to have access to
gambling, and they're right on their smart and in their video game devices.
Oh gambling, what a scourge. Let's just legalized sports gambling here at our
Native American casinos. And then the consortium of the national online sports gambling sites
they managed to get like a couple of Native American tribes on their side instead,
see, not all Native Americans support only having Native American casinos there.
If you support our proposition, we'll give so much money to these poor Native
Americans that aren't being supported by the Native American casinos. Oh and what was
this all about? It was basically just both sides were too stupid and greedy
to just kind of work together. Both sides were wanting to get one hundred
percent of the market share for sports gambling in California. The online sites didn't
want anyone to go to Native American casinos to gamble. They didn't want anyone
going to took chance through their table mountain or you know, the you know,
Tachie palace whatever. They just wanted people to gamble on sports online,
on FANDOL draftings, et cetera, and vice versa. The Native American casinos
wanted people to come just to their casinos to bout on sports. They didn't
want people gambling online. So if the two of them had just worked together
and found some way to have a decent split of the market share, both
sides would be richer. And today, guess what, sports gambling is not
legal in California. A similar kind of fight is happening in the California state
legislature this year right now. So there's a great piece, really interesting,
I learned a ton, very well reported written by Ryan Sabolo and Jeremiah Kimmelman
for Calmatters dot org, which is Dan Walter's really good California news website.
I've retweeted it at my Twitter account Twitter dot com slash Reresno Johnny, I
really recommend you go read it. And this is a fight that's apparently been
going on for years and years between the Native American casinos and smaller card rooms,
so not full blown casinos, but usually but these gambling establishments that have
various kinds of card table games. So I think it's kind of like the
Club one casinos of the world, like kind of entities like that. And
you see a couple of those, just to trying to think of one off
the top of my head in Fresno. So that's the kind of thing we're
talking about. You have the Native American casinos and then you have sort of
these card rooms. And card rooms are heavily regulated under California law. There
are certain kinds of things they are allowed to do. They're allowed to have,
for example, normal poker, but they're not allowed to have blackjack where
they themselves the entity that's hoasting it is the house that is taking the money,
all right. With normal poker, people are gambling against each other with
blackjack, you're gambling against the house. So under California law, that kind
of gambling is only allowed to take place at Native American caos. It's not
allowed to take place in these card rooms. However, these card rooms have
gotten around this provision of California law. And this is California law that goes
like all the way back to you know, when the forty nine ers,
you know, the action not the football team forty nine ers, like the
actual eighteen forty nine forty nine ers were coming to California and people were setting
up these card rooms and absolutely ripping off all of these guys who came for
gold mining. And so they put these laws in place. The new you
know, they put all these laws in place, the very young you know,
government of the state of California put all these laws in place to limit
the kinds of action that these card rooms could take. Well, a lot
of card rooms have now kind of gotten around it by hiring sort of a
third party contractor to be in the card room that's actually taking the role of
the house. So the card room itself is not the house. They have
some other third party that takes the role of the house, and the Native
American casinos don't like this. Native American casinos hate this, they think,
and again, it seems like this thing of like they're so both sides.
And I'm not specifically just picking on Native American casinos. I think everyone in
this game seems in this space, this gambling space, seems to be so
unbelievably greedy for a business where you're almost guaranteed to make money by based on
math, based on math and human vice. Where the Native American casinos are
so angry that these card rooms are offering the kinds of games that they think
they are the only ones legally entitled to have, that it eats into their
market share, and I guess I'm so. But the Native American casinos are
trying to do is they have proposed a law. They have a bill that's
been introduced into the California state legislature this year, Senate Bill five forty nine.
What this would do is it would allow Native American casinos directly to sue
card rooms for what they believe are violations of California law. The Native American
casinos take the position that the card rooms, by allowing blackjacking games like this
because they have a third party contractor in the casino to actually take the action.
Basically, the Native American casinos think they are violating the law which prohibits
card rooms from having table games where they are playing the role of the house.
The card rooms say, we're not playing the role of the house.
We've brought in this third party that is acting in the role of the house,
so we are actually in compliance with California law. And there's this there's
been this ongoing legal argument between the two sides, and basically the Native American
casinos are frustrated because various Attorneys General of California have declined to prosecute or try
to enforce, you know, whatever is the disputed California standard against the card
rooms. Rob Bonta has been getting campaign contributions sort of from both sides.
Wants to clearly Bonta has now has stated he wants to run for governor in
twenty twenty six, and so Bonta seemingly has been very slow, oh too
slow for the Native American casinos. Basically, the Native American casinos are tired
of waiting on Rob Bonta to take action against the card rooms. And here's
what's happened? Okay, card rooms and tribal governments have both been heavily donating
to Rob Bonta since he took office as Attorney General in twenty twenty one.
Card Rooms have donated two hundred and eighty seven thousand dollars to Bonta for his
various campaigns. Meanwhile, Native American tribes have donated two hundred twenty two thousand.
So Bonta's sort of caught in the middle. I don't think he wants
to act one way or another. So what the Native American tribes are proposing
with this new bill again, this is Senate Bill five point forty nine,
is to let Native American casinos sue card rooms for what they believe is violating
California law in this way and clarifying that. Well, let me talk a
little bit about standing to sue. All right, You're not allowed to sue
somebody unless you have legal standing. You have to show to the judge.
The first thing that j Just's gonna ask you, well, why are you
in my courtroom? Are you allowed to bring this lawsuit? Generally speaking,
to have standing to sue, you have to show that the person you're suing
caused you some kind of harm that you're authorized to be there. All right.
If someone is driving negligently and crashes his car into my house, I
have grounds to sue that person. He harmed me, he harmed my property.
But my buddy Jonathan Keller can't sue the guy for crashing into my house.
Jonathan wasn't hurt. Jonathan likes me and cares about my well being,
but that's not a cognizable legal harm that gives them standing to sue. And
basically what the Native American casinos want to do is say, we are going
to create legally standing for us to sue card rooms because they're taking this action
which we think, we think maybe is cutting into our bottom line because these
people are going to these card rooms to gamble when they should be coming to
Native American casinos to gamble. But can they actually demonstrate a direct dollar to
dollar showing that they lost money directly because people went to these card rooms rather
than to the Native American casinos. Maybe people wouldn't go to the Native American
casino all right, Again, just to use the Fresno example, and by
the way, this is not me sticking up for you know, the card
rooms of the world. If you have a card room in Fresno. Right,
none of the Native American casinos are in Fresno. They're all out of
town a decent drive. Maybe someone if he can't gamble on blackjack or whatever
at a card room in Fresno, he just won't gamble. It doesn't necessarily
mean that he will. Also, just because he gambles here doesn't mean the
Native American casino is losing out on that exact dollar amount. There's no It's
very hard to make that direct connection. So what the Native American casinos want
to do is just get around the normal rules that govern standing to sue people
when it's not clear and obvious that they have suffered a harm by the card
rooms, or or what exact harm they have suffered. In the case of
this one Native American casino wanting to sue this one card room, it's not
clear what exact, precise dollar harm they have suffered, and up to this
point, California law on this subject would have had to be enforced by some
state actor, the district attorney, the attorney general, someone like that.
So the Native American casinos are mad because district attorneys, the attorney general have
not enforced this law, so they're trying have not enforced their interpretation of this
law. Rather, so they are trying to sort of get around this by
passing a bill to allow them directly to sue card rooms to get them to
stop having some third party in the casino who can take the action as the
house for these various kinds of card games. But one of the things we
see is that both sides are spending just absolute big time bookoo bucks on lobbying,
on political contributions, and that these towns are like totally dependent on this
rect in ways that are just not healthy. When we return, I want
to talk about all those aspects of this. This is the John Girardi Show
on Power Talk. You can find it at my Twitter account, Twitter dot
com, slash Fresnojohnny at Fresnojohnny. A great piece from Calmatters dot org about
the fight that's going on in the state legislature right now between card rooms that
are offering certain kinds of card games that the Native American casinos say they're not
allowed to do. Native American casinos think that that is taking market share away
from them. If you can just play blackjack at the card room. Why
would you come to our Native American casino to play blackjack. The Native American
casinos argue that these card rooms are not allowed to offer blackjack. Cardrooms are
saying, yes, we are allowed to do it through this system we set
up where we have a third party inside the casino that plays the role of
the house. There's a bill Senate Bill five forty nine that's in fron in
the state legislature to try to allow Native American casinos to sue card rooms for
having these kinds of arrangements and offering games like pigau poker, blackjack, and
backarrat games where you have people gambling against the house. That's the problem current
California law. Native American casinos argue California law allows card rooms to host things
like poker where people are gambling against each other, but not where people are
gambling directly against the house. That is only the exclusive domain of Native American
casinos. Now, I'd have to imagine rather than duking this out constantly in
the state legislature, hiring gazillions of dollars of lobbyists and spending hundreds of thousands
and millions of dollars, maybe combined on political contributions. Maybe the two sides
could just kind of live and let live and everyone can make a lot of
money. But here's the thing to they're like huge stakes involved here, huh
for gambling, huge stakes involved. So one of the issues is that these
card rooms, these card rooms that are in various different cities, especially in
Los Angeles. There's a city in Los Angeles area called Hawaiian Gardens, California,
where there's a local card room that is apparently the only thing that's paying
for most municipal services. Tax revenue derived from that local card room is basically
the only thing sustaining the entire town. So basically, the Hawaiian Gardens casino
in Los Angeles, which is one of these card rooms, it alone spent
nine point one million dollars in lobbying costs just last year. Now, why
do local governments care about that? Nearly two thirds of the budget for the
city of Hawaiian Gardens is funded by this one card room. They have.
The tax revenue from this one card room is funding two thirds of the city
budget. Hawaiian Gardens, California. I guess it's a city in Los Angeles
County. They have this cardroom. Tax revenue from that cardroom funds two thirds
of the city's budget. The city of Commerce, California, also in Los
Angeles County, has a card room. The tax revenue from that card room
is funding half of the city's budget. Those games were very dependent on here
in the city, said Commerce s Mair Hugo Argumndo. They provide many of
the programs and services that we offer to the residents in our community. So
as an example, when the pandemic shut down gaming in Hawaiian Gardens, the
city was forced to lay off much of its staff and cut services. Yeah,
because the card rooms autstained two thirds of their operations. Of course they
had cut people off. So these Native American tribes are so like which these
Native American casinos, I should say, are so greedy to have one hundred
percent of this market share in their arms that they don't care. They're they're
gonna introduce this legislation to shut down all these card rooms. And by the
way, I'm not even necessarily on the side of these card rooms. I
don't think it's a very healthy arrangement that you have entire cities in California that
are basically gonna be. I mean, how can you not say that there
are at least these two cities in California that governed by their casino, by
their local card room. If the card room's tax revenue is funding two thirds
of the entire city budget, I don't think you have a representative government of
the people, by the people, for the people. You have a representative
government of the of the card room. Buy the card room, for the
card room. Two thirds of the city budget is funded by tax revenue from
gambling. That's a recipe for disaster. And I recognize there's no easy solution
to that. I can't just you know, switsch my magic wand and make
it not so for the City of Hawaiian Gardens, California, and for the
City of Commerce, California. But this is the thing. I constantly say
this about gambling and marijuana legalization. Why do state and local governments like them.
It's because it's a way to raise tax revenue without taxing people. It's
a way for the city for the local government to raise revenue without mandatorially taxing
anyone. No one has to go to the card room. No one has
to go to the casino. It's almost like it's your own fault if you
do. And guess what state and local governments cannot spend into the red the
way the federal government can't. They need sources of revenue. They're desperate for
sources of revenue. Like but here you have the mayor of Hawaiian Gardens,
California. This is a mayor of a California city who who's talking about like
if his if the card room in his city can't offer blackjack, he says,
quote, we're very, very limited in what we can do, the
mayor of Victor Farfan, the mayor of Hawaiian Gardens, California, said,
in an interview with Cal Matters at Hawaiian Gardens City Hall, with the card
room visible from the parking lot, and so we're fortunate enough to have a
revenue source that we do today. So I think I hate everyone. I
think I hate everyone in this entire story. I hate this idea that there
are cities in the state of California completely controlled by card rooms. I hate
the idea that basically this legislation, this SP five forty nine, is going
to be determined by Native American tribes have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to
all these legislators all up and down the state, regardless of political affiliation.
Meanwhile, card rooms have done the same dang thing. And by the way,
it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Republicans or Democrats. Republicans
and Democrats are both supporting this legislation. You got Democrats Republicans opposing it.
The whole thing is flushed with money on both sides. It is so crass.
It just seems so greedy. I hate both sides anyway. Read the
Calumetter's pieces Twitter dot com slash President Johnny at President Johnny. When we return,
I want to talk briefly about my dad and my gratitude for everyone's well
wishes. That's next on the John Gerardi Show. So the whole thing is
just absolutely flushed with money on both sides of it, which and the whole
thing seems to me so silly, this idea that these Native American casinos are
so greedy that they cannot bear the idea of having less than one hundred percent
of the market share for blackjack. When we return, my thanks to everyone
for well wishes following the death of my dad. I'll talk a little bit
about that next time. The John Girardi Show. I think Trevor discussed it
a bit, I think on Tuesday, and I've talked about it a bit.
But as many of you know, my father, doctor Joe Girardi,
passed away on Tuesday, March twelfth, due to complications from cancer. Doctor
Joe was a longtime surgeon thirty one years at Valley Children's Hospital. The head
of the department there estimated that my dad may have cared for as many as
one hundred and fifty thousand kids over the course of his time at Children's,
which is kind of staggering. And his funeral was this past Tuesday, and
I want to just say, first of all, there's so many people in
my kind of broader radio family, people who listen to the show, people
who support our work at Right to Life Radio and listen to Right to Life
Radio, who have expressed their love and care and concern for me. It
was really it was really gratifying to see a bunch of the iHeart team actually
at the funeral, Trevor and Agent Squires and our good buddy Steve Darnell.
So I just want to say to all of you who've offered prayers and condolences,
thank you. It's obviously it's an incredibly tough thing to lose your dad,
and for him to have died so young. He was a young,
healthy sixty three years ago. He was a healthy as a horse sixty four
year old who was a long distance runner and played thirty six holes of golf
every weekend, and to lose him is quite a blow. But the hope
I have, especially this sort of week of Holy Week and as we approach
Easter, just gives me a tremendous amount of comfort. And I just want
to express here my deep gratitude to everyone for their prayers and love and support
during this whole time. And when we return, as we're entering the triduum,
I think it would be a great way to cap things off radio wise
with a reading of the Passion of our Lord according to the Gospel of Luke,
and that will be next on the John Girardi Show. The Passion of
Our Lord Jesus Christ according to Luke. Now the feast of unleavened bread drew
near, which is called the Passover, and the chief priests and the scribes
were seeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people.
Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the
twelve. He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he
might betray him to them. And they were glad and engaged to give him
money. So he agreed and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in
the absence of the multitude. Then came the day of unleavened bread, on
which the passover Lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John,
saying, go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat
it. They said to him, where will you have us prepare it?
He said to them, behold, when you have entered the city, a
man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house
which he enters, and tell the householder. The teacher says to you,
where is the guest room where I am to eat the passover with my disciples.
And he will show you a large upper room furnished there make ready.
And they went and found it as he had told them, and they prepared
the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and
the apostles with him, and he said to them, I have earnestly desired
to eat this passover with you before I suffer, For I tell you I
shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And
he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said,
take this and divide it among yourselves, for I tell you that from now
on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of
God comes. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks,
he broke it and gave it to them, saying, this is my body
which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise
the cup after supper, saying, this cup which is poured out for you
is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him
who betrays me is with me on the table. For the son of man
goes as it has been determined. But woe to that man by whom he
is betrayed. And they began to question one another which of them it was
that would do this. A dispute also arose among them which of them was
to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, the kings
of the gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are
called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among
you become as the youngest and the leader, as one who serves. For
which is the greater one who sits at table, or one who serves?
Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you
as one who serves. You are those who have continued with me in my
trials. And I assign to you, as my father assigned to me a
kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom,
and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon Simon behold Satan
demanded to have you that he might sift you like wheat. But I have
prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned
again, strengthen your brethren. And he said to him, Lord, I
am ready to go with you to prison and to death. He said,
I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day until you
three times deny that you know me. And he said to them, when
I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack
anything? They said nothing. He said to them. But now let him
who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him
who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you
that this scripture must be fulfilled in me. And he was reckoned with transgressors,
for what is written about me has its fulfillment. And they said,
look, Lord, here are two swords. And he said to them,
it is enough. And he came out and went, as was his custom,
to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. And when
he came to the place, he said to them, pray that you may
not enter into temptation. And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw,
and knelt down and prayed, Father, if thou art willing remove this cup
from me, nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done. And
there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in
an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops
of blood falling upon the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he
came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow. And he said to
them, why do you sleep, Rise and pray that you may not enter
into temptation. While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and
the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He
drew near to Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said to him, Judas,
would you betray the son of man with a kiss? And when those
who were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall
we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the slave of the
High Priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said no more of
this, and he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to
the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come out against
him, have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs?
When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not
lay hands on me. But this is your hour and the power of darkness.
Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the High
Priest's house. Peter followed at a distance, and when they had kindled a
fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among
them. Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light,
and gazing at him, said this man also was with him, but he
denied it, saying, woman, I do not know him. And a
little later some one else saw him and said, you you also are one
of them, But Peter said, man, I am not. And after
an interval of about an hour, still another insisted, saying, certainly this
man also was with him, for he is a Galilean. But Peter said,
man, I do not know what you are saying. And immediately,
while he was still speaking, the cock crowed, and the Lord turned and
looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord how he had
said to him before the cock crows, today you will deny me three times,
and he went out and wept bitterly. Now the men who were holding
Jesus mocked him and beat him. They also blindfolded him and asked him,
prophesy, who is it that struck you? And they spoke many other words
against him, reviling him. When day came, the assembly of the elders
of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led
him away to their council, and they said, if you are the Christ,
tell us. But he said to them, if I tell you,
you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer.
But from now on the son of Man shall be seated at the right
hand of the power of God. And they all said, are you the
son of God? Then? And he said to them, you say that
I am. And they said, what further testimony do we need? We
have heard it ourselves from his own lips. Then the whole company of them
arose and brought him before Pilot, and they began to accuse him, saying,
we found this man perverting our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to
Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. And Pilot asked
him, are you the king of the Jews? And he answered him,
you have said so. And Pilot said to the chief priests and the multitudes,
I find no crime in this man. But they were urgent, saying
he stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to
this place. When Pilot heard this, he asked whether the man was a
Galilean, and when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent
him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When
Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to
see him because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see
some sign done by him. So he questioned him at some length, but
he made no answer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by vehemently accusing
him, and Herod with his soldiers, treated him with contempt and mocked him.
Then arraying him in gorgeous apparel, he sent him back to Pilot,
and Herod and Pilot became friends with each other that very day, for before
this they had been at enmity with each other. Pilot then called together the
chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, you
brought me this man as one who was perverting the people. And after examining
him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any
of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back
to us. Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him. I
will therefore chastise him and release him. Now. He was obliged to release
one man to them at the festival, but they all cried out together away
with this man and released to us Barabbas, a man who had been thrown
into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. Pilot addressed
them once more, desiring to release Jesus, but they shouted out, crucify,
crucify him. A third time. He said to them, why what
evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death.
I will therefore chastise him and release him. But they were urgent, demanding
with loud cries, that he should be crucified, and their voices prevailed,
so Pilot gave sentence that their demand should be granted. He released the man
who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for,
But Jesus he delivered up to their will. And as they led him
away, they seized one Simon of Syrene, who was coming in from the
country, and laid on him the cross to carry it behind Jesus. And
there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women, who bewailed
and lamented him. But Jesus, turning to them, said, daughters of
Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your
children. For behold the days are coming when they will say, blessed are
the baron, and the wounds that never bore, and the breasts that never
gave suck. Then they will begin to say, to the mountains fall on
us, and to the hills cover us. For if they do this when
the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry. Two others
also who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.
And when they came to the place which is called the skull. There
they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and one on the
left. And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do. And they cast lots to divide his garments, and the
people stood by watching, But the rulers scoffed at him, saying he saved
others, Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, his
chosen one. The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar
and saying, if you are the King of the Jews, save yourself.
There was also an inscription over him, this is the king of the Jews.
One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, are
you not the Christ, save yourself and I. But the other rebuked him,
saying, do you not fear God, since you are under the same
sentence of condemnation. And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due
reward of our deeds. But this man has done nothing wrong. And he
said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And he
said to him, truly, I say to you today you will be with
me in paradise. It was now about the sixth hour, and there was
darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun's light failed,
and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus,
crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands, I
commit my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last. Now,
when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said,
certainly this man was innocent. And all the multitudes who assembled to see
the sight, when they saw what had taken place, returned home, beating
their breasts. And all his acquaintances, and the women who had followed him
from Galilee stood at a distance and saw these things. Now there was a
man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of
the council, a good and righteous man who had not consented to their purpose
indeed, and he was looking for the Kingdom of God. This man went
to Pilot and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down
and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a rock hewn tomb,
where no one had ever yet been laid. It was the day of
preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him
from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then
they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath, they rested according
to the commandment. I hope you all have a truly blessed Triduum and a
holy and hopeful Easter as we remember our Lord giving his life so that we
might have eternal life. Thank you all so much for all of us at
John Girardi Show. May God bless you and your family. See you next
time on Power Talk.