Speaker 1: This might not be the best time for the left
Speaker 1: to keep thinking that they're living in twenty twenty when
Speaker 1: it comes to the LGBT issue. A lot of water's
Speaker 1: gone under the bridge. Between twenty twenty and now. Twenty
Speaker 1: twenty was sort of peak liberal insanity. I actually was
Speaker 1: reading this book, this book called When Harry Became Sally
Speaker 1: written by Ryan Anderson who he wrote it. I think
Speaker 1: it was published around twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, and he's
Speaker 1: describing sort of the state of the transgender movement in
Speaker 1: the late Obama era, and we all, I think we
Speaker 1: forget right now just what a dominant place the LGBT
Speaker 1: movement was in in twenty sixteen. It was right on
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen, it was right on the
Speaker 1: heels of the Obergia Fell Supreme Court decision, where the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decided, yes, there's a right to gay marriage,
Speaker 1: and the Constitution somewhere, yes it's right there. Definitely it's
Speaker 1: in there. So they found hidden somewhere in the contours
Speaker 1: of the Constitution or right to gay marriage. And it
Speaker 1: seemed like transgenderism was going to be the next cultural
Speaker 1: victory of the left. This inexorable cultural victory in the
Speaker 1: same way that gay marriage had been, and the transgender
Speaker 1: position was so dominant, I mean, people were resigning for
Speaker 1: jobs for saying like pro transgender things that weren't quite
Speaker 1: pro transgender enough. It was nuts. And the idea was
Speaker 1: basically anyone who held a contrary position on it was
Speaker 1: expected to be shunned from society. And so that that,
Speaker 1: I mean, that was basically the attitude. Well, a lot
Speaker 1: of waters come under that bridge since then, to the
Speaker 1: point where nowadays it's really people have started to recognize.
Speaker 1: Oh the lead, the guy who won the president and
Speaker 1: see in twenty twenty four made one of his central
Speaker 1: campaign ads a campaign ad about you know, I'm for us,
Speaker 1: she's for they them. The idea that transgenderism actually transgenderism
Speaker 1: specifically has very little public support. This leads me to
Speaker 1: what I think is an opinion that fit better in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty than it does now. This is from Tad
Speaker 1: Weber in the Fresno be who is calling for the
Speaker 1: mayor of Maderra to resign. Why because she did not
Speaker 1: want to do a formal Maderra City Council recognition for
Speaker 1: the Madera High School gay Straight Alliance Club. Here's what
Speaker 1: Tad Weber rights. A basic rule of politics is that
Speaker 1: an elected official should not shun the constituents he or
Speaker 1: she represents. Yet Madera's new mayor is guilty of that
Speaker 1: very thing. Is that really a basic rule? I mean,
Speaker 1: you probably got to shun some of them. I mean,
Speaker 1: what if Nazis. What if there's you know, five Nazis
Speaker 1: who live in Madera and they come out to see
Speaker 1: the mayor, should the mayor shun them? Probably that she
Speaker 1: should do some shunning. Now, obviously that's an extreme example.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying gay people are Nazis, et cetera. However,
Speaker 1: you don't have to not shun people if you're an
Speaker 1: elected official. Yes, you are supposed to work for the
Speaker 1: good of everyone who lives in the city. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you have to have sit down meetings with every single
Speaker 1: person in the city or be seen as supportive of
Speaker 1: every single group that exists within the city. This idea,
Speaker 1: Oh she, how dare she so? Basically what happened is
Speaker 1: the mayor of Madera Cci Gayegos, walked out on a
Speaker 1: formal Madera City Council recognition of the Madera High School
Speaker 1: Gay Straight Alliance Club. She has been avoiding all Pride
Speaker 1: Month honors made by the council since twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: reports b staff writer Eric Galicia. The latest shunning was
Speaker 1: particularly obvious, as Galicia reports, the Madera Council last week
Speaker 1: conducted several formal recognition ceremonies during its meeting. One was
Speaker 1: a group photo with members from the Madera County Museum,
Speaker 1: which Gayegos took part in. However, when it came time
Speaker 1: to recognize the high school group, Gayagos was not to
Speaker 1: be found, but she came back to the council afterward
Speaker 1: for a Juneteenth proclamation. Galicia said. Gayegos, formerly a Democrat
Speaker 1: and Madera's District one council member, became a Republican a
Speaker 1: little over two years ago. She was elected mayor last November.
Speaker 1: So Tad Weber is furious at this. He's furious that
Speaker 1: Gayegos has basically avoided for the last the four years.
Speaker 1: It looks like, and he quote Pride Month recognitions, including
Speaker 1: for the A High school Gay Straight Alliance group. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe Gagos takes this crazy position. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: haven't talked to her. I'd love to talk to her.
Speaker 1: Maybe Gegos takes this crazy position that I like to
Speaker 1: call Christianity. Some of you may have heard of this,
Speaker 1: this carpenter from Nazareth. He was actually God, and he
Speaker 1: died for our sins, and he established a church and
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah blah, et cetera. One of the
Speaker 1: tenets of this religion, Christianity you may have heard of,
Speaker 1: following up on the ethical tenets of this other religion
Speaker 1: you may have heard of, called Judaism. And by the way,
Speaker 1: some of these ethical traditions were upheld by this other
Speaker 1: religion you may have heard of, called Islam, all of
Speaker 1: which religions constitute about half of the global population. Is
Speaker 1: that sexual reproduction is reserved for marriage, That sexual reproduction,
Speaker 1: the use of our sex organs, is oriented towards family,
Speaker 1: that it is oriented towards the beginning of life, which
Speaker 1: is in fact also their biological function. And that therefore
Speaker 1: sex between sexual activity between persons of the same sex
Speaker 1: is morally wrong. That is a belief of Christianity, and
Speaker 1: a belief of Juism, of historic Judaism, and a belief
Speaker 1: of Islam. Again, only several billion people believe these things.
Speaker 1: So maybe c cigae Goos, holding this radical, strange foreign belief,
Speaker 1: takes the position that she does not want herself to
Speaker 1: be seen as endorsing sexual activity of that kind, sexual
Speaker 1: activity of a kind that she believes to be unethical.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the arguments against the same sex
Speaker 1: marriage don't have to be restricted to religious arguments. That
Speaker 1: one can make natural law based ethical arguments separate from
Speaker 1: the specific religious revelation of Christianity or Judaism or Islam.
Speaker 1: And furthermore, maybe they're just individual things. Maybe individual different
Speaker 1: people might have different objections. To quote Pride month. Maybe
Speaker 1: there are people who think that the L and the
Speaker 1: G and the B are totally fine, but they're like,
Speaker 1: you know what, this t thing that's a bridge too far.
Speaker 1: I don't support that. I don't think children are born
Speaker 1: in the wrong body. I don't think it's ethical to
Speaker 1: provide and this is specifically a high school group. By
Speaker 1: the way, I don't support the idea of children being
Speaker 1: so sexualized that they that they give to give themselves
Speaker 1: a concrete sexual identity prior to their adulthood. I don't
Speaker 1: want children to be subjected to surgeries. I don't want
Speaker 1: children to be subjected to hormonal therapy treatment. Pride Month
Speaker 1: has wrapped its elf completely in the transgender movement, and
Speaker 1: so maybe mayor Gayegos says, I don't want to participate
Speaker 1: in that. I don't want to do that. I think
Speaker 1: that's also could be a perfectly legitimate reason. Furthermore, the
Speaker 1: idea you know Weber in his column he seems to
Speaker 1: think it's particularly egregious that she didn't recognize a high
Speaker 1: school gay Straight Alliance club. If anything, I would think
Speaker 1: it's more problematic that it's a high school club. There
Speaker 1: are more reasons to object to this as a high
Speaker 1: school organization rather than some group of adults. It's not
Speaker 1: even about us adults. Angela Brooks, a Maderra resident who
Speaker 1: is LGBTQ plus, told Galicia, which one is it? That's
Speaker 1: the thing? Elle means one thing. This is someone named Angela,
Speaker 1: so presumably not G could be B though, which you know,
Speaker 1: how sure are we about that T could be T?
Speaker 1: I guess or just Q that This is Another thing
Speaker 1: that started happening is celebrities calling themselves queer who have
Speaker 1: no actual discernible sexual inclinations towards persons of the opposite sex.
Speaker 1: And in fact, there's a couple of celebrities who had
Speaker 1: proclaimed themselves to be lesbian or bisexual or queer who
Speaker 1: are now marrying or dating men, like Demi Levado. Demi
Speaker 1: Levado went through this big phase where she was like,
Speaker 1: I think she wanted to go by different pronouns. Now
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, she's just marrying a guy. There's
Speaker 1: this other entertainer, her name is Jojo Siwa, who is
Speaker 1: very oh, just totally draping herself in the pride, Like
Speaker 1: now she's dating a dude and she's like, yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not a lesbian, which is making me think that a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff that's happening among celebrities is some
Speaker 1: combination of I don't know, pure pressure, societal pressure, desire
Speaker 1: to be popular, desire to have some kind of recognition
Speaker 1: that you have some kind of ooh, some kind of
Speaker 1: interesting identity as opposed to anything that's actually different about you. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it's not even about us adults. Angela Brooks, a Madera
Speaker 1: resident who is LGBTQ plus, told Galicia they gave that
Speaker 1: award to kids. What are you telling these kids that
Speaker 1: they don't matter? Well, I guess, if I may raising
Speaker 1: my hand, I don't think kids should be recognized and
Speaker 1: given an award based on the fact that they have
Speaker 1: a sexual orientation, or are acclaimed sexual orientation or or
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know. I liked girls. I didn't
Speaker 1: expect anyone to give me an award for it when
Speaker 1: I was in high school. Furthermore, I think the idea
Speaker 1: of defining children based on their sexual preferences seems weird.
Speaker 1: Children who are not supposed to be having sex. According
Speaker 1: to these little laws in California known as statutory rape laws,
Speaker 1: kids aren't supposed to be having sex. So maybe miss Gegos,
Speaker 1: the mayor of Madera, who refused to be present for
Speaker 1: a Madei City Council honoring of a high school gay
Speaker 1: Straight al Alliance club, maybe that was part of it.
Speaker 1: That the whole enterprise of gay straight alliance clubs in
Speaker 1: high schools is em It seems like an ify proposition.
Speaker 1: Are you telling these kids they don't matter? This is
Speaker 1: all the more ironic given that Gayegos is a teacher
Speaker 1: in the Maderia Unified School District. So every teacher in
Speaker 1: the Maderia Unified School District has to be thrilled about
Speaker 1: the Gay Straight Alliance club. That's what it has to be,
Speaker 1: every teacher in Maderia unified. Sorry, you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: have any opinion different from this orthodoxy that tad Weber
Speaker 1: is enforcing here. How does she reconcile her actions, he writes,
Speaker 1: with her position as mayor and the teacher of local youth,
Speaker 1: I can answer how she would recognize how she could
Speaker 1: reconcile her actions. She thinks that this kind of sexual
Speaker 1: activity is wrong. She thinks that children self identifying with
Speaker 1: a sexual preference is maybe not the healthiest thing. She
Speaker 1: thinks that acknowledging honoring June as quote Pride Month is
Speaker 1: wrong given all of the different kinds of things that
Speaker 1: Pride Month stands for, policy proposals, et cetera. That she
Speaker 1: probably doesn't believe in. That I don't believe in. We
Speaker 1: don't know whoever, writes she did not respond to Galicia's
Speaker 1: requests for an interview, which itself is a problem. Elected
Speaker 1: officials have a duty to answer journalists inquiries. No, they don't.
Speaker 1: They do not have a duty to answer journalists inquiries.
Speaker 1: What Bologney is this? She doesn't have a duty to
Speaker 1: answer the Fresno bee's inquiries. Maybe you can make some
Speaker 1: broad based democratic idea that she has to let her
Speaker 1: constituents know what she thinks about stuff. Maybe she has
Speaker 1: a duty to explain it in a press conference. Maybe
Speaker 1: she has a duty to it. She has no Maybe
Speaker 1: she has a duty to explain it to a different
Speaker 1: reporter at a different outlet. She has no duty to
Speaker 1: explain herself to the Fresno b Maybe there's a Maderra
Speaker 1: outlet she'd like to speak to, maybe CASEY twenty four
Speaker 1: or CBS forty seven or MPH Fox or ABC thirty.
Speaker 1: She has no obligation to answer. What is this? Who
Speaker 1: died and made you? Guys? Pope Diegos would do well
Speaker 1: to learn from the example of Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer
Speaker 1: and his recognition of Pride Month in his city. Then
Speaker 1: it goes to tell the story of how Jerry Dyer
Speaker 1: completely buckled on this issue and folded to full on
Speaker 1: support of the whole LGB Pride Month, et cetera. What
Speaker 1: Cci Guyagos must do? We'll return with Tad Weber's thoughts
Speaker 1: on what Ceci Giago's must do. That's next on The
Speaker 1: John Jubardy Show. Tad Weber from the Fresno Bee columnist
Speaker 1: that the Fresno b demands demands that the mayor of Madera,
Speaker 1: Cci Guyegos, resign. Why because she doesn't want to be
Speaker 1: present when the Madera City council does various kinds of
Speaker 1: Pride Month honors and apparently the straw that broke the
Speaker 1: camel's back. The example he thinks is most egregious is
Speaker 1: the fact that Gayego's didn't stick around for the city
Speaker 1: council to honor a high school gay Straight Alliance club, which, again,
Speaker 1: I would take the position of that that seems particularly
Speaker 1: like a thing I would avoid. I think a high
Speaker 1: school club centered around the alleged sexual preference of children
Speaker 1: is a little weird, and maybe such a club, you know,
Speaker 1: does the thing Tad Weber's like, And she's a teacher
Speaker 1: in Materia Unified. How dares she not want to honor
Speaker 1: a high school group when she's a teacher at Materia Unify.
Speaker 1: She's telling these kids they don't matter. Maybe she knows
Speaker 1: more about the club than you do, Tad. Maybe she
Speaker 1: really doesn't like it. So he writes, there is power
Speaker 1: in recognition when politicians do it. It shows a marginalized
Speaker 1: group that its members are worthy and important. Yeah, like
Speaker 1: when Joe Biden recognized traditionalist Catholics by telling the FBI
Speaker 1: to go spy on them. Yeah, that was really that
Speaker 1: was really great. Marginalized groups you mean the marginalized group
Speaker 1: the LGBT movement, the marginalized group of the LGBT movement. Exactly,
Speaker 1: how in California are they marginalized? They have the full
Speaker 1: support of three quarters of the state legislature, the governor,
Speaker 1: every elected official. They have the support of most of
Speaker 1: the Fortune five hundred, the enormous amount of the Fortune
Speaker 1: five hundred, which was falling over back tripping over itself
Speaker 1: to institute pro LGBT DEI policies. In what sense is
Speaker 1: this group marginalized? They are not legally marginalized, They are
Speaker 1: not culturally marginalized. This idea, the marginalized LGBT community, Get
Speaker 1: over yourselves, geez luis like there's no group on whom
Speaker 1: more corporate government legal concern has been lavish than the
Speaker 1: LGBT world. It shows a marginalized group that its members
Speaker 1: are worthy and important. Okay, that's fine, Maybe she just
Speaker 1: doesn't agree with it. What do you want from her.
Speaker 1: When Gayegos refuses to even acknowledge gay members of her city,
Speaker 1: she does the opposite and communicates that they are not valued. No,
Speaker 1: it's more than acknowledging that they exist. It's giving them
Speaker 1: a city commendation, a positive affirmation of what they're doing. No,
Speaker 1: that is a different thing. It used to be that Republican.
Speaker 1: This is a thing I love about liberal commentators who
Speaker 1: say I thought Republicans were about, and it's usually either
Speaker 1: strict libertarianism or strict libertarianism weber rights. It used to
Speaker 1: be that Republicans stood for strong individual rights, that what
Speaker 1: a person did in their private life was up to
Speaker 1: them as long as it did not break laws or
Speaker 1: hurt anyone else. No, that isn't what Republicans have always
Speaker 1: been about. It's what libertarians have been about, but Republicans
Speaker 1: have not been. Have you heard of the war on drugs?
Speaker 1: Republicans frequently, and I think in many cases rightly try
Speaker 1: to restrict private conduct at the state level and at
Speaker 1: sometimes even the federal level when such conduct is wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, No, that is not what Republicans have always
Speaker 1: stood Oh, I thought Republicans always stood for. No, Republicans
Speaker 1: have opposed gay marriage for I don't know, for decades.
Speaker 1: Prior to a Bergefel. It used to be the Republican No,
Speaker 1: Republicans never stood for this stuff. Republicans have never supported
Speaker 1: pride month. Republicans have never supported the t in LGBT.
Speaker 1: It used to be Republicans didn't support the LMG and
Speaker 1: the b either. How far the GOP has fallen from
Speaker 1: that ideal? How far the GOP has fallen? You really
Speaker 1: want Bob Dole back As far as what people's LGBT
Speaker 1: views are, George W. Bush was getting every state in
Speaker 1: the Union to pass laws declaring marriage to be between
Speaker 1: a man and a woman. What is this phony presentation
Speaker 1: of all Republicans? Or she she's failing her Republican ideals. No,
Speaker 1: she's not. If Coya Goos is truly going to be
Speaker 1: the mayor of Madera, she must represent all its people.
Speaker 1: That is part of the mayor's job description. She cannot
Speaker 1: pick and choose. No, representing all the people doesn't mean
Speaker 1: agreeing with all of them. She's a Republican, she doesn't
Speaker 1: have to agree with all the Democrats in the city. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I mean she was elected to be a Republican mayor.
Speaker 1: She's not going And by the way, what she's elected
Speaker 1: to represent all its people. Representing means a lot of
Speaker 1: things work for the good of all the people of Madera.
Speaker 1: Sure initiate all of their policy preferences. No, and impossible.
Speaker 1: It's impossible for a mayor to represent and enact the
Speaker 1: viewpoints of people who disagree with each other. Gayego's probably
Speaker 1: was elected by a lot of Christians, a lot of
Speaker 1: Catholics who don't support Pride Month in that sense, in
Speaker 1: the sense of affirming same sexual activities, affirming transgenderism. So
Speaker 1: she is representing those people, and she would be not
Speaker 1: representing those people if she flip flopped her position. And
Speaker 1: by the way, those people were seemingly in the majority.
Speaker 1: As mayor, Giegos does not have to understand or even
Speaker 1: agree with personal choices made by her city's residents. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: if she's gonna give commendations to groups, it's an affirmation
Speaker 1: of them. And again, this is children. I don't want
Speaker 1: to affirm the personal choice of children with regards to
Speaker 1: sex issues. If Giagos is unwilling, so he ends with
Speaker 1: She doesn't have to understand or even agree with personal
Speaker 1: choices made by her city's residence. But she does have
Speaker 1: to champion the corporate cause of making Madera a stronger,
Speaker 1: better community for all. Maybe she thinks that's what she's doing.
Speaker 1: If Giagos is unwilling to do that, then she is
Speaker 1: unfit to be mayor. The only There's only one thing
Speaker 1: left for her to do. Resign. That is ridiculous. This
Speaker 1: is a ridiculous column. She doesn't want to affirm Pride Month,
Speaker 1: or affirm to a grow up of high school kids
Speaker 1: anything about sexual preferences. She should resign. A twenty twenty
Speaker 1: idea stuck in twenty twenty five when we return the
Speaker 1: ridiculousness of the California State Assembly Democrats. Next on the
Speaker 1: John Jrardy Show, an incident happened at the California State
Speaker 1: Capital yesterday, but I think really demonstrates the total power
Speaker 1: and control that Democrats have in the state legislature. So
Speaker 1: California State Assembly Member Carl Demeyo was up to speak.
Speaker 1: De Mayo is a Republican. He is also a openly
Speaker 1: gay man. Carl the Mayo's openly gay man. The Democrats
Speaker 1: introduced a resid allusion to honor a Pride Month and
Speaker 1: Demeyo is up and he's speaking in opposition to it, specifically,
Speaker 1: I think he's speaking in opposition to the transgender part.
Speaker 1: And there are a bunch of very aggressive left wing
Speaker 1: policy proposals that de Mayo does not support. Demo does
Speaker 1: not support boys participating girl sports, he does not support
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff relating to transgenderism, et cetera, even
Speaker 1: though he is a gay man. So DeMeo is up speaking,
Speaker 1: and then this happens.
Speaker 2: Is it goes much further than that to endorse very
Speaker 2: controversial and extremist policy positions, which is very unique.
Speaker 3: Mister Demio, it's very mister Demio. Yes, please, mister raiding clerk,
Speaker 3: can you hold mister Demayo's time? Sorry, I have a
Speaker 3: very important announcement today, mister Juan Carrio. I understand it's
Speaker 3: your birthday today. Members, will you join me in pushing
Speaker 3: mister Carrillo a very happy birthday today?
Speaker 1: Okay? So he gets interrupted. The Democrat who was leading
Speaker 1: the assembly floor that day interrupts him to say that
Speaker 1: so and so is having a birthday that day. So
Speaker 1: he interrupts to Mayo, he holds his time. He has
Speaker 1: a certain amount of time on the floor to speak
Speaker 1: about the resolution. De Mayo waits, They applaud for someone's birthday.
Speaker 1: De Mayo goes on, and then this exchange happens.
Speaker 2: Hey, but you chose not to, I offered the author.
Speaker 3: Mister Demio's just one moment, please, just a moment we're
Speaker 3: gonna happen, mister excuse me, mister Demayo, just a moment,
Speaker 3: mister reading clerk, can you hold mister Demayo's time? Members,
Speaker 3: You'll have to forgive me. But on Thursday last week,
Speaker 3: I forgot it was Damon Connolly's birthday. Can you please
Speaker 3: join me in welcoming very happy birthday for mister Damon Connolly.
Speaker 1: Okay, so he gets interrupted again for a different assembly
Speaker 1: member's birthday. This continues, and then guess what in this resolution.
Speaker 3: Mister Demaia, I'm going to have to interrupt you one
Speaker 3: more time if you don't mind, sir, if you wantn't
Speaker 3: mind waiting, mister reading clerk, can you hold his time? Remember,
Speaker 3: I'm unsure if you're aware, But tomorrow is mister Gibson's birthday.
Speaker 3: Can you all join me in wishing mister Gibson a
Speaker 3: very very happy birthday.
Speaker 1: You get the idea. So, here is a Republican on
Speaker 1: the floor of the California Assembly. They are debating a
Speaker 1: Assembly resolution. He gets a certain amount of time to speak.
Speaker 1: It's not forever. I think he probably gets somewhere around
Speaker 1: five minutes to speak. They interrupt him completely unnecessarily, to
Speaker 1: give birthday wishes to four different people in the Assembly.
Speaker 1: They interrupt him four times. The Democrats do the Democrat leadership,
Speaker 1: who's controlling the campaign, who's controlling the proceedings on the floor,
Speaker 1: Because they have this level of control, It's insane. This
Speaker 1: is something that would never fly in DC. The amount
Speaker 1: of respect and decorum that the two parties demonstrate to
Speaker 1: each other in Washington, d C. Between the Senate and
Speaker 1: the House, when Republicans are in the majority, they give
Speaker 1: great deference to the Democrats. When Democrats are in the majority,
Speaker 1: relative to this, certainly they give great deference to the Republicans.
Speaker 1: Why well, because in both DC, well, excuse me, in
Speaker 1: both the House and the Senate in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: At the federal governmental level, it's pretty close Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 1: When they get majorities, they usually get pretty narrow majorities,
Speaker 1: and those majorities are not enduring. Okay, Democrats prior to
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four had held the House for you know,
Speaker 1: a really, really, really long time, but it's bopped back
Speaker 1: and forth since nineteen ninety four. Control of the House
Speaker 1: and Senate has bopped back and forth between Republicans and
Speaker 1: Democrats multiple times. And both parties know if we establish
Speaker 1: bad precedents with our conduct while we're in the majority,
Speaker 1: those same bad precedents will be inflicted on us when
Speaker 1: we get into the minority. So it's this sort of
Speaker 1: self enforcing golden rule within the House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: and when that golden rule gets broken, it often leads
Speaker 1: to disaster. So Democrats started filibustering George W. Bush's judicial nominations.
Speaker 1: Then Republicans started philibustering Barack Obama's judicial nominations, and Harry
Speaker 1: Reid changed the Senate rules to say no, Republicans are
Speaker 1: not allowed to filibuster Democrat presidential president's judicial nominations, and
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell on the floor of the Senate told Harry Reid,
Speaker 1: you're going to live to regret this, and what happened.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump gets elected in twenty sixteen, and Republicans shove
Speaker 1: more Republican judges down the Democrats' throats, including three Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices in four years, shove more judges down Democrats'
Speaker 1: throats than anyone thought was possible. So the lesson is
Speaker 1: learned and severely learned. Don't screw around with the rules
Speaker 1: because you're going to be in the minority. I think
Speaker 1: that both Republicans and Democrats have learned that almost too much.
Speaker 1: I think Republicans have learned that lesson too well that
Speaker 1: there's no debate on the republic concide even about reforming
Speaker 1: the filibuster rule in the Senate. I think Republicans should
Speaker 1: examine getting rid of the philibuster rule in the Senate
Speaker 1: because the Democrats tried to get rid of it last time.
Speaker 1: They were two votes away from eliminating the filibuster rule
Speaker 1: in the Senate so that they could pass nationwide legal
Speaker 1: abortion and nationwide changes to voting laws, basically try to
Speaker 1: export California's voting laws to the whole rest of the country.
Speaker 1: So thank god that didn't work. But beyond that example,
Speaker 1: there is at the very least a level of decorum
Speaker 1: between the two sides in Washington, d C. In Sacramento,
Speaker 1: no Republicans have had control of the California State Assembly,
Speaker 1: I think for a grand total of four out of
Speaker 1: the last like sixty years. I don't know that they've
Speaker 1: ever had control of the State Senate. Maybe there was
Speaker 1: one two year stretch where they had control of the
Speaker 1: State Senate, but that was it. Democrats have controlled the
Speaker 1: California State Legislature for decades beyond that. Democrats don't just
Speaker 1: control the state legislature. They completely utterly dominated. They don't
Speaker 1: just have a majority. And even there's certain things within
Speaker 1: the State Assembly and the state Senate that you can
Speaker 1: do if you have a two thirds majority. If you
Speaker 1: have a two thirds majority, you can increase taxes, if
Speaker 1: you have a two thirds majority, you can introduce state
Speaker 1: constitutional amendments that then go on the ballot before the
Speaker 1: voters to be ratified in a vote. And you can
Speaker 1: do that with just a two thirds majority. Democrats don't
Speaker 1: have a simple majority. They don't even have a super majority.
Speaker 1: They have a super duper majority. They have fully three
Speaker 1: fourths of all the seats in the Assembly and the
Speaker 1: state Senate. Right now they're at exactly three fourths of
Speaker 1: the seats. There are eighty seats in the State Assembly
Speaker 1: Democrats have sixty of them. There are forty seats in
Speaker 1: the state Senate. Democrats have thirty of them, perfect three
Speaker 1: quarters for both houses. So they can do whatever they
Speaker 1: want and they have no fear. They have no fear
Speaker 1: of repercussions. What are the Republicans going to do to
Speaker 1: them to the point where they're willing because I think
Speaker 1: they despise Carl Demeyo. Here's Demeyo, a gay man who
Speaker 1: is opposing their pride resolution, and so I think they
Speaker 1: look at him as a blood trader basically, And I
Speaker 1: don't think it's any mistake or coincidence that they're doing
Speaker 1: this ridiculous, childish, petty interruption of his floor speech with
Speaker 1: four different birthday birthday acknowledgments that they didn't have to do.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's any shock that they do it
Speaker 1: during his speech. I think they view him as a
Speaker 1: blood trader. I think they view him as the lowest
Speaker 1: of the low, and they have total contempt, total disdain,
Speaker 1: and a complete don't give a crap attitude because they
Speaker 1: know there will be no consequences. Not one of them
Speaker 1: is going to face a consequence. Frankly, I'm still I
Speaker 1: mean people keep asking me, you know, what's gonna take
Speaker 1: for Democrats in California to wake up clearly more than
Speaker 1: what we've had so far. I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: did the wildfires are the wildfire is gonna move the
Speaker 1: political needle? I don't know. They happened right after the
Speaker 1: last election. Are people in November of twenty six gonna
Speaker 1: remember them still? Maybe the people whose homes burned down,
Speaker 1: and that is a lot of people. But guys, they've
Speaker 1: been running this state into the ground for two decades
Speaker 1: and they've faced no political ramifications for it. They just haven't.
Speaker 1: They're continuing to be completely emboldened in their views. I
Speaker 1: think in their eyes, twenty twenty four did not happen.
Speaker 1: They continue to think that. Let me just affirm for
Speaker 1: you guys, in the rest of the world, it's twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five and Donald Trump won an election, and the
Speaker 1: transgender movement is not as is not very popular, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people think California is in bad shape.
Speaker 1: You go through those doors into the state legislature, into
Speaker 1: one of its buildings, and you're back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: You're back in twenty twenty and Joe Biden's elected president
Speaker 1: or twenty twenty one. Joe Biden is the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, and the transgender movement is ascendant and
Speaker 1: dominant and the only orthodoxy there is and blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, and that's what one party rule achieves.
Speaker 1: It's these kinds of procedural, ridiculous stunts. And this isn't
Speaker 1: This is far from the worst thing Democrats have done.
Speaker 1: I mean, they deliberately throw Republicans into the worst office spaces.
Speaker 1: They'll deliberately do all kinds of petty, ridiculous nonsense. Kick
Speaker 1: Republicans off of committees because they just don't want to
Speaker 1: hear from them, which is another irregular thing. You would
Speaker 1: The only time we saw it in Washington, DC was
Speaker 1: with the January sixth Committee. When we return, does California
Speaker 1: have bad pollution or not? I'm now confused. Next on
Speaker 1: the John Girardi Show, I'm now confused. Does California have
Speaker 1: bad air quality or good air quality? So for years
Speaker 1: I've heard, oh, the Central Valley of California is the
Speaker 1: worst air quality in America, And yeah, it seems pretty
Speaker 1: darn bad. We have high levels of asthma, we have
Speaker 1: you know, low visibility because of bad air quality, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But here's a story from KTLA News in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: says that this survey was done, saying that California has
Speaker 1: the sixth best air quality in America after Colorado, Hawaii,
Speaker 1: New Mexico, Maryland, Nebraska. So what is it? The American
Speaker 1: Lung Association says that nine of the top fourteen worst
Speaker 1: counties in America for lung health are in California, including
Speaker 1: Los Angeles County at number fourteen, which feels like that
Speaker 1: should drag everything down just because of how many people
Speaker 1: live there. So do we have bad air quality or not?
Speaker 1: Is it because of pollution or not? Is this more
Speaker 1: liberal environmentalist nonsense that'll do it? John Gilady shows see
Speaker 1: next time on Power Talk