Speaker 1: My wife and I went to the coast for the
Speaker 1: last couple of days. We took our whole family. This
Speaker 1: is one of the benefits of homeschooling is you can
Speaker 1: sometimes take vacations during off times. So, you know, yesterday
Speaker 1: I had the day off for the Bulldog football Coaches show.
Speaker 1: Tuesday the day off for the debate. So anyway, we
Speaker 1: went over to Monterey. My mom was already out there.
Speaker 1: She was there for a medical conference, and it was
Speaker 1: really fun. It was a really great time. My kids
Speaker 1: got to go to the beach. We went to the
Speaker 1: Monterey Bay Aquarium, which my kids had never seen, so okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: we got some educational stuff out of it for the kids.
Speaker 1: We went to one of the California missions. A great time,
Speaker 1: but we were in some kind of through through bougie
Speaker 1: expensive parts of the Central Coast. We were in Monterey
Speaker 1: and then we were bopping over to Carmel to see stuff,
Speaker 1: and it's obviously a super high income place. All the
Speaker 1: houses around. My mom was looking around, She's like, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, these houses are all like, you know, two million,
Speaker 1: five million, ten million dollars. I was noticing. One of
Speaker 1: the things I noticed was that the realtor. The realtor
Speaker 1: that was selling a lot of these houses was not
Speaker 1: like your normal realtor, you know, it was not oh,
Speaker 1: such and such properties. And this is Janie Smith, she
Speaker 1: is our realtor. She's helping sell this house. No, it
Speaker 1: was so the Bey's or South of Best however you
Speaker 1: pronounce it s O T H E. B y Apostrophes,
Speaker 1: which is the famous London based auction house that that
Speaker 1: sells this crazy expensive stuff. Apparently, house values in Monterey
Speaker 1: are so wildly expensive that so the Bees set set
Speaker 1: up up a whole office in Monterey just to sell houses.
Speaker 1: And it's one of the things I'm seeing. Holly and
Speaker 1: I were looking around and we both noticed this. My
Speaker 1: mom noticed this that basically there weren't a lot of
Speaker 1: cars like ours. I was driving around in our famili's
Speaker 1: you know, Dodge Durrango with you know, seven seats and
Speaker 1: every seat has. Every seat in our Dodge Durrango is filled. Me, Holly,
Speaker 1: five kids, so seven seat car, seven people. What I
Speaker 1: noticed was that essentially every car was either luxury car
Speaker 1: or beat up car doing some kind of service sector job.
Speaker 1: Tesla up truck for landscaping, Mercedes Benz pickup truck for
Speaker 1: auto mechanic shop you know Lexus yeah, BMW or pickup
Speaker 1: truck for some you know, the restaurant service sector thing.
Speaker 1: That was a hot much higher percentage of stuff on
Speaker 1: either end of the spectrum, and very little of the
Speaker 1: middle class signaling car yeah with our you know, our
Speaker 1: you know, ten year old Dodge Durango versus again super
Speaker 1: expensive or super beat up sort of service sector car.
Speaker 1: And this relates to the one insightful quote that Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom has ever made in his life, which I think
Speaker 1: is totally true. And this was sort of campaigning era
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom, which was to say when at one time
Speaker 1: he said that California is the wealthiest and the poorest
Speaker 1: state in the nation, and that is one true. I
Speaker 1: saw this total microcosm of it just going to Monterey,
Speaker 1: that we have the you've got homeless people on the streets,
Speaker 1: and you've got guys in you know, seventy thousand dollars
Speaker 1: BMW as you know elect you know, green SUVs, you know,
Speaker 1: electric powered SUVs driving past, you know, homeless guy living
Speaker 1: in a box. And this leads to, you know, our
Speaker 1: observations of this and this, you know, Monterey is not
Speaker 1: the only place in California where you see this. You
Speaker 1: go pretty much anywhere in the Bay Area you can
Speaker 1: see this phenomenon where all of the housing is crazily,
Speaker 1: crazily crazily expensive, and it's alongside people living in the
Speaker 1: most abject squalor imaginable. You see this in southern California,
Speaker 1: you see this in Orange County. You see this all
Speaker 1: up and down the state. Heck, you even see it
Speaker 1: in you know, you see it in Fresno, where you
Speaker 1: can be at you know, Shaw and van Ness and
Speaker 1: see an almost person just sort of walking by, and then
Speaker 1: you you know, turn north on van Ness and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden you're seeing some of the biggest, craziest
Speaker 1: mansions in the city. You Know, you can go on
Speaker 1: a fifteen minute walk from Old fig Garden see some
Speaker 1: of those old houses that are worth gazillions of dollars,
Speaker 1: and then within a ten or fifteen minute walk you're
Speaker 1: in the middle of the you know, the highest concentration
Speaker 1: of homeless people in the city of Fresno along Blackstone Avenue.
Speaker 1: This leads to some new numbers coming out from the
Speaker 1: Census Bureau about California poverty and a piece about it
Speaker 1: written by Dan Walters. Governor Newsom, he writes, is fond
Speaker 1: Dan Walters, by the way, who writes for Calumtters dot org.
Speaker 1: Dan Walters is the best commentator on California politics from
Speaker 1: a neutral perspective of anyone. He wrote for the Sacramento
Speaker 1: b for years. He's been covering Sacramento for a gazillion years.
Speaker 1: He is still the most insightful guy on California politics today.
Speaker 1: Governor Gavin Newsom, he writes, is fond of comparing California's
Speaker 1: economy to those of other states, particularly archrivals Texas and Florida,
Speaker 1: and even other nations. Unsurprisingly, however, there was no braggadocio
Speaker 1: from the Governor's office Tuesday, when California found itself in
Speaker 1: a number one economic position, having once again the nation's
Speaker 1: highest level of poverty. Actually, California's official poverty number, as
Speaker 1: calculated by the Census Bureau for the twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty three window, was not terrible, at eleven
Speaker 1: point seven percent of its nearly forty million residents, just
Speaker 1: slightly higher than the eleven point four percent national figure.
Speaker 1: But the official percentage calculated by a formula that hasn't
Speaker 1: changed in decades and assumes the underlying economic conditions are
Speaker 1: the same everywhere, is widely respected by academics. Responding to
Speaker 1: criticisms some years ago, the Census Bureau developed a supplemental
Speaker 1: measure that takes into account a broader array of factors,
Speaker 1: most importantly the cost of living. Okay, so the original
Speaker 1: thing says, Okay, California has the worst poverty, but it's
Speaker 1: eleven point seven percent of the population rather than eleven
Speaker 1: point four. Eh, that's not that bad. Hang on, that
Speaker 1: calculation's not taking into account cost of living. Let's take
Speaker 1: that into account. It's California's supplemental poverty score where you
Speaker 1: factor in cost of living. That sets the state of
Speaker 1: up part. Fifteen point four percent of our population is
Speaker 1: in poverty. Based on that metric, California is notoriously sky
Speaker 1: high costs for housing, energy, and other living needs clobber
Speaker 1: the incomes of working class families, driving them into poverty.
Speaker 1: And again, just so you understand that the federal poverty
Speaker 1: line is basically it's been a fairly consistent measurement over
Speaker 1: the last forty plus years, and it's basically it takes
Speaker 1: into account number of people in a household and income
Speaker 1: number of people in a household plus household income, so
Speaker 1: it factors those two things in. So if you're over,
Speaker 1: you need a higher amount of household income to get
Speaker 1: yourself over the federal poverty line if you have a
Speaker 1: household with six people rather than two people. So when
Speaker 1: you factoring costs of living, fifteen point four percent of
Speaker 1: Californians are poor. Now by an even broader measure, California's
Speaker 1: fifteen point four percent supplemental poverty rate under states its
Speaker 1: immense economic divide. The Public Policy Institute of California, again
Speaker 1: this is Walter's writing. Using a methodology similar to that
Speaker 1: of the Census Bureau, calculated that in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: thirty one point one percent of Californians were either at
Speaker 1: or near poverty. Thirty one percent of Californians were either
Speaker 1: at or near poverty. Deep poverty, defined as families with
Speaker 1: less than half of the resources to meet basic needs,
Speaker 1: was at three point four percent. At the other end
Speaker 1: of the scale, the average income of those in the
Speaker 1: top one percent is one point two million dollars. The
Speaker 1: calculation that nearly a third of Californians are in serious
Speaker 1: economic distress. Yes, comports with the fact that more than
Speaker 1: a third fourteen point five million are enrolled in medical
Speaker 1: the state's medical the state's healthcare system. So we've got
Speaker 1: almost a third. Thirty one percent of Californians are either
Speaker 1: at or near the federal poverty California the California calculation
Speaker 1: done by the California Public Policy Institute of Poverty, thirty
Speaker 1: one percent of Californians are living not just not just
Speaker 1: sort of a modest lifestyle, but like in a dangerously
Speaker 1: precarious lifestyle close to either definitely not having enough or
Speaker 1: close to not having enough. It then goes on to
Speaker 1: talk about Walter just goes on to talk about the
Speaker 1: racial component of California's economic inequality. Starkly, but regrettably, there
Speaker 1: is a distinct racial opponent to the California divide, as
Speaker 1: displayed in a new report that was also released this week.
Speaker 1: The Oakland based Maven Collaborative, which advocates for economic equality,
Speaker 1: issued the report entitled Living on the Brink The True
Speaker 1: Cost of Being Californian that explores vast economic inequality along
Speaker 1: gender and racial divides in the state, particularly for black
Speaker 1: and brown Californians with children. It found that the share
Speaker 1: of households quote barely scraping by increased by eight percent
Speaker 1: between twenty twenty one and twenty twenty three. That quote
Speaker 1: childless black households who are living paycheck to paycheck is
Speaker 1: nearly the same as white households with three children. So
Speaker 1: economically speaking, black households without children are doing about the
Speaker 1: same as white households with the additional burden the additional
Speaker 1: economic cost of three children. That economic inequality is highest
Speaker 1: in Bay Area communities with the highest costs of living,
Speaker 1: that nearly a third of college educated black women face
Speaker 1: financial instability, twice the percentage of white men with degrees,
Speaker 1: and that an adult with one child living in San
Speaker 1: Francisco an adult with one child living in San Francisco
Speaker 1: would have to work twenty two hours a day, seven
Speaker 1: days a week to cover basic living expenses. These findings
Speaker 1: show California's economic landscape is increasingly becoming one where only
Speaker 1: the white and wealthy can thrive. Maven's co founder and
Speaker 1: co president, Jumpa Batacharia said in a statement, lawmakers must
Speaker 1: take swift, decisive action to reverse these figures, which paint
Speaker 1: a clear picture black brown and Indigenous families are facing
Speaker 1: a near impossible financial battle to survive in our state,
Speaker 1: and Walters concludes it with this short paragraph. California is,
Speaker 1: of course a deeply blue state in which Democrats hold
Speaker 1: almost total political power, enacted multiple programs in declosing the
Speaker 1: economic divide. However, if anything, if anything, it has gotten
Speaker 1: wider in recent years, and the state now faces multiple
Speaker 1: years of budget deficits. It's California's most glaring conundrum. I mean,
Speaker 1: there you go. The Democrat policies for California economics have
Speaker 1: for economics, cost of living, housing, they have manifestly failed,
Speaker 1: complete and utter failure, and they have failed most egregiously
Speaker 1: for specifically for the minority communities that Democrats purport to
Speaker 1: care about the most. Okay, that that report I was
Speaker 1: reading from that, that's I'm pretty sure that's a super
Speaker 1: left wing entity that's talking about. And with this implication, oh,
Speaker 1: it's so much harder to be a black person, as
Speaker 1: if there's racism baked into the system. There's no racism
Speaker 1: baked into the system. Democrats have made this system. They're
Speaker 1: not racist, they're not doing this out of racism, and
Speaker 1: yet this is the outcome. I mean, what a what
Speaker 1: a colossal, unbelievable failure. And the thing that Walters talks
Speaker 1: about at the end, which is our constant state of
Speaker 1: budget deficits other than twenty twenty two. Okay, so twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two we had a big budget surplus and everyone thought,
Speaker 1: you know, we were heading for some era of sunshine
Speaker 1: and rainbows, that fat days were returned. But it was
Speaker 1: only because we had a bunch of big influx of
Speaker 1: federal COVID money. Twenty twenty three, though, big old budget deficit.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty four, big old budget deficit. And guess what
Speaker 1: the reason for those budget deficits is because in spite
Speaker 1: of the fact that we have all these absurdly wealthy
Speaker 1: people along with our absurdly poor people, a lot of
Speaker 1: the absurdly wealthy people, they're leaving a lot of them
Speaker 1: from twenty twenty to now, probably a ton of them
Speaker 1: left because of COVID, during COVID whatever. They're tired of
Speaker 1: the taxes, they're tired of the regulation, they're tired of
Speaker 1: all these different things. Because guess what, you can't just tax, tax, tax,
Speaker 1: sex tax super wealthy people. They will leave. They will
Speaker 1: they have the ability That's the thing about being wealthy
Speaker 1: is that you can just up and move. It's a
Speaker 1: lot easier for a super wealthy person to just pick
Speaker 1: up and move to Texas, pick up and move to Florida,
Speaker 1: pick up and move to Las Vegas. That's a lot
Speaker 1: easier for a wealthy person to do than someone who's
Speaker 1: barely scraping by and their income is not coming in anymore,
Speaker 1: their capital gains income, their work income, that's not their
Speaker 1: salary income. That's not coming into the state's coffers anymore.
Speaker 1: And that's why we're running deficit after deficit after deficit.
Speaker 1: We're not going to have the fun if we want
Speaker 1: to address all these problems. And you think there's some
Speaker 1: state funding solution for it, well, guess what, We're not
Speaker 1: going to have that funding when we return the vile
Speaker 1: political forces that keeps that keeps this system intact. Next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show, noticing all this crazy economic
Speaker 1: disparity in Monterey, My wife Holly and I were out
Speaker 1: there with our family for a trip and just noticing
Speaker 1: again this huge divide between Tesla Tesla, Tesla Tesla Tesla
Speaker 1: and then beat up service sector car, beat up service
Speaker 1: sector car, homeless person. And with these new reports coming
Speaker 1: out about how California when you adjust for cost of living,
Speaker 1: even if you don't when you don't adjust for the
Speaker 1: cost of living, California has the highest rate of poverty
Speaker 1: in the nation, but it's only by a little bit.
Speaker 1: When you adjust for cost of living, California blows the
Speaker 1: rest of the nation away in poverty. And especially when
Speaker 1: you look at the percentage of Californians who are at
Speaker 1: or near poverty, which is about thirty one percent of
Speaker 1: Californians are at or near poverty. Fifteen point seven percent
Speaker 1: of Californians are in poverty when you adjust for cost
Speaker 1: of living, and you think, why do people just keep
Speaker 1: voting for this? Why do people just keep voting for this?
Speaker 1: What is the madness that we see? How this state
Speaker 1: has gotten worse and worse and worse decade after decade
Speaker 1: after decade, the state just gets worse. Democrats have been
Speaker 1: in complete and utter control of state politics for at
Speaker 1: this point, you know, almost six years of Gavin Newsome,
Speaker 1: eight years of Jerry Brown. Before those fourteen years, they've
Speaker 1: been in complete control of the state legislature for much
Speaker 1: longer than that. Why do people just keep voting for
Speaker 1: the same people. Why do they keep voting for the
Speaker 1: same local politics. Why do they keep voting for the
Speaker 1: same local politics in San Francisco, which leads the way
Speaker 1: in poverty and including with racial disparities of it's far
Speaker 1: worse for African Americans and unracial minorities than for white people,
Speaker 1: particularly in these liberal enclaves that purport to want to
Speaker 1: help African Americans more than anybody else. I think that
Speaker 1: if there are any powers that be disproportionately, it's wealthy
Speaker 1: people who I think control the direction of politics. And
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a California exclusive thing. I think
Speaker 1: that's the case throughout the country. Wealthier people vote in
Speaker 1: I haven't seen the stats, but I assume this is
Speaker 1: true that wealthier people are more likely to vote than
Speaker 1: people who are living in poverty. Wealthy people are more
Speaker 1: likely to contribute to candidates than people who are living
Speaker 1: in poverty. Duh. Wealthy people are more likely to have
Speaker 1: business interests that can have a powerful influence on the
Speaker 1: direction in shape of politics than lower income people politics.
Speaker 1: You can say it's unfortunate. You can say, well, that's
Speaker 1: just a consequence of the First Amendment and money is speech,
Speaker 1: and they have more money. Whether it's right or wrong,
Speaker 1: fortunate or unfortunate. Wealthy people have a disproportionate impact on
Speaker 1: the direction of politics. And there's a lot of wealthy
Speaker 1: people in San Francisco, there's a lot of wealthy people
Speaker 1: all up and down the Central Coast. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of wealthy people in the various parts of LA and
Speaker 1: they I don't think they dislike it. I don't think
Speaker 1: they dislike the outcomes that we are seeing because they
Speaker 1: keep pushing the same policies, they keep voting for the
Speaker 1: same people, they keep putting the same people in power,
Speaker 1: and you can see certain ways in which yeah, it's
Speaker 1: directly benefited them. These are the people who own all
Speaker 1: these big fancy expenses. You know, as I was saying,
Speaker 1: Holly and I took this trip to Monterey and we're
Speaker 1: driving around. We see all these houses. They're not being
Speaker 1: sold by a normal realder. They're being sold by so
Speaker 1: the Bees, which is the famous London based auction house.
Speaker 1: They've got an office in Monterey just for selling these
Speaker 1: crazy expensive houses. You know, this little tiny house doesn't
Speaker 1: look like it's anything, and it's going for you know,
Speaker 1: five ten million Bucks. People who own real estate out here,
Speaker 1: they really don't mind the fact that housing is wildly
Speaker 1: disproportionately expensive. They don't mind the fact that housing is
Speaker 1: completely unaffordable along the Central Coast in the Bay Area.
Speaker 1: Their houses benefit, their investment in their homes benefits from
Speaker 1: housing being wildly unaffordable. They like it it directly. There
Speaker 1: are certain people that California's completely screwed up economy massively benefits.
Speaker 1: You know, it's really hard with economic regulation, with environmental regulation,
Speaker 1: rather to build new housing, new construction, there are people
Speaker 1: who massively benefit from that, from there being a scarcity
Speaker 1: of housing, because it makes the value of their property
Speaker 1: go up. So keep voting for the liberals who are
Speaker 1: never going to touch California's environmental policy. They'll keep voting
Speaker 1: for the politicians who keep making all these grand pledges
Speaker 1: of basically they're going to subsidize demand, they're never going
Speaker 1: to increase supply, because that allows their property values to
Speaker 1: stay super duper high. I'm convinced there are people who
Speaker 1: look at the totally screwed up nature of California where
Speaker 1: we're shoving out middle class, where everyone's going to be
Speaker 1: either poor or super rich, and the middle class is
Speaker 1: going to shrink and shrink and shrink and shrink. And
Speaker 1: there are some people, the people who are have the
Speaker 1: most impact on guiding the course of politics locally and statewide,
Speaker 1: who not only don't care, they actually in some cases
Speaker 1: directly benefit from it. When we return, are Haitians actually
Speaker 1: eating dogs? Maybe we're asking the wrong questions here. Next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show, let's get to the most
Speaker 1: important issue in election twenty twenty four? Are Haitians eating
Speaker 1: dogs or not? Didn't think this was something I'd have
Speaker 1: to debate, but it shows how I really think we're
Speaker 1: gonna Trump's gonna lose. I really think he's gonna lose.
Speaker 1: I might be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. I don't
Speaker 1: want Kamala Harris to win, but I think he's gonna lose.
Speaker 1: I think he's gonna lose because of crap like this
Speaker 1: this whole Are Haitians eating dogs? Is it bad that
Speaker 1: enormous unregulated numbers of immigrants are coming in where we've
Speaker 1: made a total mockery of the asylum system where we
Speaker 1: can't even make legit. Basically, Biden has so radically altered
Speaker 1: the system that we can't really make as meaningful distinction
Speaker 1: between illegal alien versus legal alien anymore, because Biden basically
Speaker 1: gave all these people who are coming in claiming asylum, said, okay,
Speaker 1: well come into the country and we'll set your court
Speaker 1: date for your asylum hearing, you know, four years from now,
Speaker 1: and we'll surely never see those people again. So these
Speaker 1: people basically have parole. So there are they technically illegal aliens?
Speaker 1: Not really, But we've added in millions and millions and
Speaker 1: millions of people, including not just people from Latin America
Speaker 1: but China, tons of Chinese nationals and people from all
Speaker 1: over the country realized that there was this free ticket
Speaker 1: into the United States as long as you came in
Speaker 1: through Mexico and did you know, X, Y and Z steps,
Speaker 1: you could get in with no vetting whatsoever. You know,
Speaker 1: here we are, we just you know, nine to eleven
Speaker 1: was yesterday. Here we are just relatively speaking, not that
Speaker 1: far from nine to eleven. It was, you know, twenty
Speaker 1: three years ago. And again I don't mind immigration, but
Speaker 1: you know what I like with immigration is doing as
Speaker 1: much of a criminal background check on someone coming into
Speaker 1: the country as their country's law enforcement system affords. We're
Speaker 1: not doing it, And there's no way that our immigration
Speaker 1: services have any measure of confidence that the people they're
Speaker 1: letting in don't have extensive criminal records aren't coming. And
Speaker 1: that's the thing with so much rhetorics surrounding immigrants, it's
Speaker 1: that conservatives this is probably a character of the conservative position,
Speaker 1: but conservatives basically can get painted into a corner. Say
Speaker 1: you think all immigrants are criminals, and you think all
Speaker 1: immigrants are criminals, All immigrants are you know, eating their neighbors, cats,
Speaker 1: All immigrants are terrible. But then on the left it's
Speaker 1: these people are hard working, they're just trying to chase
Speaker 1: the American dream, just like you. They just want a
Speaker 1: better life for themselves. And this country was built on immigration.
Speaker 1: And the reality is, yeah, the people coming in are
Speaker 1: probably a mixture of both. There are probably a lot
Speaker 1: of people coming in who want a better life and
Speaker 1: want to work and want to have better opportunity for themselves.
Speaker 1: But when you have absolutely no real being of the
Speaker 1: people coming in, you are certainly letting in at least
Speaker 1: a decent percentage of people who are here to do
Speaker 1: bad stuff, bad people who want to do bad stuff,
Speaker 1: and or who can't really meaningly contribute to our society.
Speaker 1: I mean, if, okay, if X number of people, which
Speaker 1: is this enormous number of people worldwide, want to come
Speaker 1: and live in America, and maybe it's ten percent of X,
Speaker 1: I'll just take a random number. Point one X is
Speaker 1: what we can actually sustain as far as social services, economically,
Speaker 1: having jobs available for them, you know, having housing for them,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah blah. Then maybe we can be
Speaker 1: too in who constitutes that point one x? But no
Speaker 1: we're not. We are letting people in on the basis
Speaker 1: of did you walk to a checkpoint? And this is
Speaker 1: what I hate about the way in which the debate
Speaker 1: went on Tuesday is Trump bringing up the immigrants eating
Speaker 1: cats thing, which is, first of all, the immigrants eating
Speaker 1: cats thing. You only know about it if you a
Speaker 1: listen to a ton of talk radio or are hanging
Speaker 1: out on Twitter all day, if you're not in that group.
Speaker 1: And guess what all the undecided voters in Pennsylvania, the
Speaker 1: twenty thousand stupidest Pennsylvanians that you have to convince to
Speaker 1: vote for you, And that's how our whole democracy will
Speaker 1: swing is on the twenty thousand, the opinions of the
Speaker 1: twenty thousand stupidest Pennsylvanians, who somehow are still undecided between
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, this figure that's been in American life for
Speaker 1: like fifteen years now, I'm pretty sure we should all
Speaker 1: know what we think about him. At this point. The
Speaker 1: twenty thousand stupidest Pennsylvanians are not listening to talk radio
Speaker 1: all day, and they're not on Twitter. They've never heard
Speaker 1: of this Haitian immigrants eating cats thing. So Trump brings
Speaker 1: it up, and then that becomes the argument that becomes
Speaker 1: the debate. Our Haitian's eating cats are not in some
Speaker 1: town in Ohio, and jd. Van says, I've gotten a
Speaker 1: bunch of calls to my office saying they're eating These
Speaker 1: people are saying there's no evidence that Haitians have higher
Speaker 1: rates of violent crime. Bla blah blah blah, And we
Speaker 1: get into this little nitpicky debate about something totally irrelevant
Speaker 1: to the central problem. And Trump is squandering this issue
Speaker 1: where up until now he's had much better favorability ratings
Speaker 1: than Kamala Harris, namely immigration enforcement. Whether Haitians are eating
Speaker 1: cats is totally irrelevant to this broader discussion The chief
Speaker 1: problem is the Biden administration changed the rules for how
Speaker 1: asylum seekers are being processed. He let in millions of
Speaker 1: people with basically no vetting whatsoever. Many of them are
Speaker 1: probably decent, okay people, but we have no way of knowing.
Speaker 1: And when you let people in with absolutely no vetting,
Speaker 1: criminals aren't stupid. Criminal organizations aren't stupid. They see a
Speaker 1: weakness like that and they exploit it. Of course, it's
Speaker 1: being of course that is being used by people hostile
Speaker 1: to the American way of life. But instead, and this
Speaker 1: is what drives me craziest, I think Trump is listening
Speaker 1: to taking advice from Laura Lumer. There's a video of
Speaker 1: her walking off of Trump's airplane that he flew to
Speaker 1: the debate with. There's reports coming out that she was
Speaker 1: helping him, coaching him up before the debate. Laura Lumer, who,
Speaker 1: for those who don't know who she is, is a
Speaker 1: total lunatic. This Twitter based Trump obsessive Trump fan girl
Speaker 1: who basically pumps out conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory after
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory, just for engagement, just for clicks. She's completely insane,
Speaker 1: And Trump is listening to people like this like this,
Speaker 1: is such a winnable election, and yet we pick these
Speaker 1: idiotic strategies of you know, we basically are able to
Speaker 1: please nobody. We picked the stupidest way possible of engaging
Speaker 1: on the immigrant stuff, which is to make some not
Speaker 1: one hundred percent substantiated claim about Haitians eating cats, which
Speaker 1: if that's happening, I mean it's bad. I guess it's
Speaker 1: symptomatic of maybe we're letting in too many people who
Speaker 1: aren't assimilating in certain communities, certain places. But that's not
Speaker 1: the main issue. The main issue is the tens of
Speaker 1: over ten million people who were let into this country
Speaker 1: with very little vetting. That's it. That's the beginning, middle,
Speaker 1: and end of the argument. It's indisputable. You just repeat
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris changed my administration's policies on
Speaker 1: admitting asylum seekers. They let in. I think the numbers
Speaker 1: are approximately twelve million people into this country with basically
Speaker 1: no vetting. We have story after story after story about
Speaker 1: people who are in the country unlawfully committing all kinds
Speaker 1: of crimes. This is unacceptable, This is a national security risk,
Speaker 1: and it needs to stop. Vote for me. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's all you got to say. But no, we turn
Speaker 1: it into some ven some like bizarre like some bizarre
Speaker 1: contest about whether or not Haitians ate a duck or
Speaker 1: ate somebody's cat in Ohio. I don't care, it's not real.
Speaker 1: I knew a grad student at Notre Dame who ate
Speaker 1: a goose. Like, yeah, it's bad, it's antisocial. But that's
Speaker 1: not the main problem with the immigration system. It's not
Speaker 1: with people eating cats, which, as weird as it is,
Speaker 1: as bad as it is, and maybe as criminal as
Speaker 1: it is, is not the main thing we're concerned about.
Speaker 1: What we're concerned about is maybe they're Chinese communist spies
Speaker 1: were let into this country. Maybe they're terrorists from al
Speaker 1: Qaeda or from the Taliban who waltzed into this country
Speaker 1: and are getting ready to set up the next nine
Speaker 1: to eleven. That's the thing we should be worried about,
Speaker 1: not Haitian immigrants eating cats. It's the stupidest news cycle ever,
Speaker 1: and the liberals want it to be the news cycle.
Speaker 1: They are loving the debate over Haitian cats. Why because
Speaker 1: it makes Trump look like a total lunatic eating cats?
Speaker 1: What are you talking about? And then and that's it.
Speaker 1: They won't report on it, they won't dig into it.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna do any journalistic work to show that
Speaker 1: Trump is right. If he is right, No, Trump's gonna
Speaker 1: look like a lunatic if he keeps talking about this crap.
Speaker 1: And again, he's taking advice during this campaign from total
Speaker 1: morons like Laura Lumer. Will compromise on all the pro
Speaker 1: life stuff because oh, those pro lifers, they're political dunces.
Speaker 1: They're such political, so politically naive, they don't realize their
Speaker 1: issues unpopular. Let me talk about eating cats like right,
Speaker 1: for God's sake, it's the stupidest jeez. Louise and I
Speaker 1: have to temper all of this by saying, again, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has won one more presidential election than I have,
Speaker 1: and I recognize I can kind of see his attitude
Speaker 1: as like I I gotta as me, I gotta run
Speaker 1: as me. Okay, I get it, but just get rid
Speaker 1: of loser idiots like Laura Lumer from your circle. Gosh,
Speaker 1: it just drives me nuts that because I see like
Speaker 1: he's making it more possible for Kamala Harris to be president.
Speaker 1: This feels more and more like the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: I don't know it completely frustrates me that whether or
Speaker 1: not Haitian immigrants ate a cat, that's a bigger issue
Speaker 1: in America now than twelve million people who got let
Speaker 1: into the country with no vetting. When we return, Fresno
Speaker 1: State is added to the PAC twelve starting in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. That is next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: So good news, bad news are into different news. We'll
Speaker 1: figure it out. In this segment, Fresno State is officially
Speaker 1: going to join the PAC twelve conference starting in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. The conference announced Boise State, Colorado State, San
Speaker 1: Diego State, and Fresno State are all going to join.
Speaker 1: So is this a good thing? I mean, obviously it's
Speaker 1: not as good a thing as it would have been.
Speaker 1: You know, three years ago, when the PAC twelve still
Speaker 1: had members like USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, et cetera. They
Speaker 1: all fled to the big ten. So I mean, what
Speaker 1: is the PAC twelve. I mean it's not I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not your grandfather's PAC twelve, is not your dad's
Speaker 1: Pack twelve. It's not the PAC twelve of last year.
Speaker 1: So is it a good thing? I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: it's a good thing. You know, certainly conferences are realigning
Speaker 1: a lot right now. The Mountain West was going to eventually,
Speaker 1: you know, I think this was inevitably going to happen.
Speaker 1: But I guess my thought is that this is much
Speaker 1: more a lateral move than a move up. The Mountain
Speaker 1: West conference. Basically, it's best teams, it's best programs, which
Speaker 1: are Fresno, Presno State, San Diego State, Boise State. They
Speaker 1: get added in, you know, so, and the PAC twelve
Speaker 1: is basically now all the worst teams that used to
Speaker 1: be in the PAC twelve's a couple of other people.
Speaker 1: And I think it's now at a point where there's
Speaker 1: the Big ten, the SEC, kind of the ACC and
Speaker 1: then everybody else and kind of the Big twelve and
Speaker 1: everybody else. So I don't know, I think the PAC
Speaker 1: twelve becomes a mid major conference basically, and so I
Speaker 1: think this is a bit more of a lateral move
Speaker 1: from frisenes State. But you know, good for them. I
Speaker 1: think this will be a slightly better conference than the
Speaker 1: Mountain West. So good for Fresen State. They're moving on up.
Speaker 1: That'll do it for John g already show see you
Speaker 1: next time on Power Talk.