Speaker 1: Let's go back to the last Trump assassination attempt, which
Speaker 1: was less than seventy fewer than seventy days ago, when
Speaker 1: we all kind of said, hey, maybe we as a
Speaker 1: country we need to kind of tone down, we need
Speaker 1: to tone down the political rhetoric. And you saw people
Speaker 1: on both sides of the osslay, oh, I got to
Speaker 1: tone down the political rhetoric, right, B B B. And
Speaker 1: then five minutes after that, everyone proceeded to act as
Speaker 1: if the shooting in Pennsylvania didn't happen. And Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: goes on the debate and says that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: the biggest threat to democracy, that January sixth was the
Speaker 1: worst attack on American democracy since Pearl Harbor, which is
Speaker 1: completely insane. That no, actually, sorry, excuse me, she said,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump left us the worst attack on our democracy
Speaker 1: since the Civil War. Noel Barber nine to eleven. Those
Speaker 1: don't make the cut, Timothy McVeigh, You know, no, no,
Speaker 1: no January sixth, where the protesters did not kill a
Speaker 1: single person. Again, not saying January sixth with some wonderful,
Speaker 1: you know, flowering of democracy or anything. It was a
Speaker 1: dumb riot. But the the we we continue to ramp
Speaker 1: up the rhetoric to eleven that Donald Trump is this
Speaker 1: existential threat to American democracy, which he's simply is not.
Speaker 1: And what do we get. We get another guy with
Speaker 1: a gun almost able to pull off a presidential assassination.
Speaker 1: So we we didn't really believe anything we were saying
Speaker 1: at the time about you know, anything we were saying
Speaker 1: at the time regarding toning down our rhetoric, you know,
Speaker 1: conforming our rhetoric to a more modest place. No, the
Speaker 1: only reason Democrats, I think, kind of shifted some of
Speaker 1: their language was because they realized calling Donald Trump and jd.
Speaker 1: Vance weird was actually more politically effective for them than
Speaker 1: any of the January sixth stuff had ever been. Also,
Speaker 1: all the legal cases against Trump were kind of collapsing
Speaker 1: around them. I just want to really emphasize how dark
Speaker 1: this gets if Trump gets assassinated, and I one gets
Speaker 1: the sense from all of the kind of massive failures
Speaker 1: around the Pennsylvania shooting, some of which are so egregious
Speaker 1: that it makes you think they almost wanted him to
Speaker 1: get assassinate, Like there's a there's a conspiracy theory. Believing
Speaker 1: little part of me that I want to do a
Speaker 1: segment like that on the show are occurring segment the
Speaker 1: forty nine percenter. It means something that I believe forty
Speaker 1: nine percent. So I can, you know, disclaim any you know,
Speaker 1: accountability for actually believing it because I only forty nine
Speaker 1: percent believe it, but I kind of sort of sort
Speaker 1: of believe it. There's like a, you know, forty nine percent,
Speaker 1: maybe less than forty nine percent part of me that
Speaker 1: sort of could be convinced that the Secret Service let
Speaker 1: the guy shoot Donald Trump in Pennsylvania again. Don't actually
Speaker 1: believe it, but there's a part of me that could
Speaker 1: be convinced. I think maybe not forty nine percent, maybe
Speaker 1: smaller than that, but the fact that it's almost happened again,
Speaker 1: it clearly indicates that it could happen. And you had
Speaker 1: actually over the weekend this shocking quote from of all people,
Speaker 1: Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat senator from Connecticut, who over the
Speaker 1: weekend said actually this is a quote from September twelfth,
Speaker 1: not over the week so a couple of days ago.
Speaker 1: He said, quote, the forthcoming report on the Trump assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: Quote will absolutely shock the American people. I think the
Speaker 1: American people are going to be shocked, astonished, and appalled
Speaker 1: by what we will report to them about the failures
Speaker 1: by the Secret Service in this assassination attempt on the
Speaker 1: former president. I think they also ought to be appalled
Speaker 1: and astonished by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security.
Speaker 1: That's Richard Bloomenthal, a Democrat senator from Connecticut, reliable lefty,
Speaker 1: you know, lefty, blowhard extraordinaire. And here he is saying,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, the Secret Service is so wildly inept
Speaker 1: that Americans are going to be completely appalled. So clearly
Speaker 1: this could happen, and I just wanna I just wanna
Speaker 1: lay out what happens, what happens if Donald Trump gets assassinated.
Speaker 1: If Donald Trump gets assassinated, I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see mainstreamed political violence on a kind of terrifying scale.
Speaker 1: I really think you will. I think it will be
Speaker 1: extremely bad, and I don't think we're prepared for what
Speaker 1: government by mob is. Like. I don't want to talk
Speaker 1: about the Roman Empire only. I absolutely do want to
Speaker 1: talk about the Roman Empire, but that's kind of how
Speaker 1: the Roman Republic collapsed was you started to see violence
Speaker 1: and assassination and not assassination and necessarily directly coordinated from
Speaker 1: the top or anything. I'm not saying Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: like sending out goons to go take out Donald Trump
Speaker 1: or Barack Obama's or whoever pulls the puppet strings with
Speaker 1: the Democrats. These are clearly mentally unstable people who are
Speaker 1: doing this. The more we learn about the guy who
Speaker 1: this new assassin for President Trump, who was actually apparently
Speaker 1: able to be captured alive and is in custody, he's
Speaker 1: this weird like volunteered to go fight as a mercenary
Speaker 1: in Ukraine kind of dude. He's seemed is left leaning
Speaker 1: from what I can tell, but seems pretty crazy. New
Speaker 1: York Times did a story about him in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three about some of these kind of weirdos. Who are
Speaker 1: these weird people from all over the world signing up
Speaker 1: to fight in Ukraine, Which, of course, I think anyone
Speaker 1: who signs up to be a mercenary, a foreign military mercenary,
Speaker 1: probably has at least a couple of screws loose. But
Speaker 1: the Roman Republic kind of once you cross the line
Speaker 1: of having having assassination attempts be something that's kind of
Speaker 1: part of politics. It doesn't go away. It kind of
Speaker 1: ramps up the stakes for your politics and it kind
Speaker 1: of stays at that level. That's what happened with the
Speaker 1: Roman Empire. The reason why it transitioned from a Roman
Speaker 1: republic to a Roman rule by one person, the imperial system,
Speaker 1: or the principle, whatever you want to call it, whatever
Speaker 1: was that Augustus established. The reason it descended into that
Speaker 1: was because of violence, constant violence, and constant vying by
Speaker 1: extremely powerful Roman nobility, by which we mean Roman rich
Speaker 1: guys to want dominance within the state, power and money.
Speaker 1: And it started in kind of the late one hundred's BC.
Speaker 1: You are these two brothers, the Gracchi brothers, who were
Speaker 1: proposing all these kind of land reform bills. There were
Speaker 1: a lot of problems that Italians, especially Italians living in
Speaker 1: the countryside, were facing, where you had the Roman nobility
Speaker 1: swallowing up more and more land, You had dispossessed Romans
Speaker 1: who were losing their farms. You had as a result
Speaker 1: throughout Italy lots of problems with brigands and thieves and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. A lot of sort of shifty guys
Speaker 1: without much property and nothing to lose. And the Gracy
Speaker 1: brothers were these two brothers who in two succeeding decades
Speaker 1: introduced these different kind of land reform bills in ways
Speaker 1: that a lot of the more conservative elements within the
Speaker 1: Senate didn't like. They tried to introduce this legislation through
Speaker 1: kind of a novel approach within the Roman constitutional system,
Speaker 1: and because their approach was so novel, the Senate was outraged,
Speaker 1: and this led to situations in which both of the
Speaker 1: Gracchy brothers got assassinated, and once they were assassinated, that
Speaker 1: was it. Roman. The Roman Republic was on this death
Speaker 1: spiral where politics within the city was often governed by well,
Speaker 1: it was one hundred percent governed by bribery and by
Speaker 1: gangs of armed goons walking around the city, you know,
Speaker 1: competing gangs of goons walking around the city. By the
Speaker 1: time you get to the time of Julius Caesar, like
Speaker 1: Julius Caesar's got his guy who with his gang of goons,
Speaker 1: and some of his opponents have their gangs of goons,
Speaker 1: and that's how votes within the city are being conducted.
Speaker 1: At one point, Julius Caesar's elected consul and his fellow
Speaker 1: consul was trying to oppose Caesar, and then Caesar got
Speaker 1: mad at him, the guy was almost killed, and the
Speaker 1: guy just sort of stayed in his house for the
Speaker 1: rest of the year of his co consulship Bibulous, And
Speaker 1: the joke was during that year, Now, if you just
Speaker 1: stayed in your house, you know, it's not like with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, where Joe Biden can stay in his house
Speaker 1: or his beach house for some reason and continue to
Speaker 1: be president. No, and in the Roman system, you have
Speaker 1: to actually show up to the forum, show up to
Speaker 1: gatherings of the Senate, to actually do your legal acts.
Speaker 1: You can't just sit in your house. You have to
Speaker 1: actually show up. So this guy, Bibulous would write these
Speaker 1: angry missives from his house decrying stuff that Julius Caesar
Speaker 1: was doing, but it was completely ineffective. So people joked
Speaker 1: that that consulship was the consulship of instead of Bibulous
Speaker 1: and Julius Caesar, it was the consulship of Julius and Caesar.
Speaker 1: That was the joke. It was probably funnier in Latin anyway,
Speaker 1: But once you get violence introduced into the political system,
Speaker 1: it does not go away. And I feel as though
Speaker 1: Biden is like kind of taking this seriously, but not quite.
Speaker 1: I guess I don't know what needs to happen for
Speaker 1: President Biden or anyone involved with this to say, look,
Speaker 1: we know the normal regulations are that presidents get this
Speaker 1: level of Secret Service detail and former presidents or people
Speaker 1: who are candidates for president get this lesser level of
Speaker 1: security detail. Like that's the regulations, and that seems to
Speaker 1: be a fine set of regulations that the president gets
Speaker 1: a higher level of security detail than you know, a
Speaker 1: former president or someone who's one of the leading candidates
Speaker 1: for president. You need to throw that out because clearly
Speaker 1: there are people who want to kill Donald Trump. He's
Speaker 1: had two assassination attempts thwart. I wouldn't even say the
Speaker 1: first one was thwarted. The guy just missed. He got
Speaker 1: a shot off that hit Trump in the ear. Clearly,
Speaker 1: if this isn't dealt with, Donald Trump's gonna be assassinated.
Speaker 1: So I would say President Biden, if he's conscious, needs
Speaker 1: to just say, look, I don't care. I don't care
Speaker 1: what the regulations are for the Secret Service and how
Speaker 1: much Secret Service detail you give President Trump, the full shebang,
Speaker 1: the full complement of Secret Service protection, pulling submarines to
Speaker 1: help if you need or whoever it is, some black
Speaker 1: ops guys, whatever it is, you need, give Donald Trump
Speaker 1: the same level of protection that I have that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris has. I just think it's absurd because if if
Speaker 1: he gets assassinated, whatever was going on in the brains
Speaker 1: of the craziest guys on January sixth is gonna start
Speaker 1: going on in a lot more brains. Whatever was going
Speaker 1: on in the brains of the craziest people who are
Speaker 1: burning down buildings in Minneapolis and who were planning to
Speaker 1: start riots. If Joe Biden had lost the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 1: all those people, those people will all be ramped up. Also,
Speaker 1: we don't want to live in America where that happens.
Speaker 1: It The stakes are I think much higher than we
Speaker 1: realize because Trump so narrowly escaped the first time. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't feel like people fully appreciate the insanity that
Speaker 1: will ensue. How this would absolutely trigger people, not to
Speaker 1: use this liberal buzzword, How it would absolutely trigger people
Speaker 1: in these horrible ways where it would normalize. I think
Speaker 1: it would normalize violence on the right. I think it
Speaker 1: would normalize and amplify and reward violence on the left.
Speaker 1: It would make presidential assassination just a thing that is
Speaker 1: on the table, a thing that's on the table, something that,
Speaker 1: for crazies on either side, can appear to be doable.
Speaker 1: When we return all my forty nine percent theories. Next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show, all right, I'm gonna do
Speaker 1: this segment in light of two assassination attempts on one
Speaker 1: presidential candidate in sixty days, sixty plus days, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: do a little segment. I like to call the forty
Speaker 1: nine percenters. This is stuff. This is a segment that's
Speaker 1: gonna allow me to recklessly speculate without much, if any accountability,
Speaker 1: because I don't actually believe this stuff, but there's a
Speaker 1: tiny part of me that does, and it is not
Speaker 1: more than forty nine percent of me believes it. Okay,
Speaker 1: so I don't believe this stuff. Fifty one percent of
Speaker 1: me does not believe it. If asked, do you believe
Speaker 1: it or not? I will say no, I do not,
Speaker 1: but as much as forty nine percent of me kind
Speaker 1: of maybe does. So here we go my first forty
Speaker 1: nine percenters conspiracy theory. And again I do not believe this,
Speaker 1: but it's not totally crazy. Both of the Trump assassinators
Speaker 1: were intelligence community plants. Here's the evidence. First shooter, OH,
Speaker 1: a twenty year old with no social media presence, who
Speaker 1: we have tracking that he visited some FBI office at
Speaker 1: some point before GPS tracking showing that he visited some
Speaker 1: FBI office before the shooting. Hm hmm. The second shooter, OH,
Speaker 1: a guy who was profiled by a New York Times
Speaker 1: piece just last year and who was a mercenary fighting
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. Hmmmm, hm hmmm. Wild cartoony levels with the
Speaker 1: first assassination. Cartoonish levels of letting a guy with a
Speaker 1: gun crawl on top of a roof with a very
Speaker 1: decent angle on the president, letting the President walk on
Speaker 1: stage when you knew the guy was there, having known
Speaker 1: of the guy for tens of minutes before Trump even
Speaker 1: walked onto the stage, hours having this guy being reported
Speaker 1: to the Secret Service, hours before everyone knew. I heard
Speaker 1: about it, heard about it. No one took a shot
Speaker 1: at him, couldn't go on the roof because it was
Speaker 1: a slopey roof, and we let him take the shot first.
Speaker 1: We give this BS explanation of well, oh, we can't
Speaker 1: shoot unless we know he's got a gun. You see,
Speaker 1: he's got a gun, you gotta scope on him. You
Speaker 1: took him out within an instant of him shooting. Hmmm.
Speaker 1: Two assassination attempts on one guy within seventy days. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I believe any of this, and I
Speaker 1: genuinely don't. I think this is probably just an exercise
Speaker 1: of dot connecting, and these are insane levels of incompetence
Speaker 1: on the part of the Secret Service. I mean, God knows,
Speaker 1: there have genuinely been a lot of stories over the
Speaker 1: last ten years about incompetence by the Secret Service, scandals
Speaker 1: within the Secret Service, the head of the Secret Service
Speaker 1: that President Biden appointed being so concerned with DEI stuff
Speaker 1: within the Secret Service. But I'm just I guess my
Speaker 1: main position here is that if some conspiracy were revealed
Speaker 1: to have happened, I wouldn't be completely shocked. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be just because the level of incompetence that the improbability of,
Speaker 1: especially with the first shooting, maybe less so with the
Speaker 1: second shooting, given that it seems like it was caught,
Speaker 1: snuffed out, the threat was neutralized before the guy ever
Speaker 1: had in any opportunity to take a shot. I guess
Speaker 1: I mean that sort of makes me think maybe there
Speaker 1: isn't some inside job that the first one was so
Speaker 1: implausibly stupid the way the Secret Service was behaving as
Speaker 1: to make you think it just wouldn't shock you necessarily
Speaker 1: to learn that actually someone was in on it. So
Speaker 1: I don't believe it, but I'm saying if it were
Speaker 1: to be revealed, I wouldn't be shocked. And that's the
Speaker 1: beauty of the forty nine percenters segment is that I
Speaker 1: can say things like that. When we return, I want
Speaker 1: to give a few more thoughts about this stupid ongoing
Speaker 1: Haitian immigrants thing and Republicans finding the worst possible messaging
Speaker 1: for their positions. That's next John Girardi Show. All right,
Speaker 1: I want to talk about this Springfield Haitians thing, and
Speaker 1: I want to kind of run counter to everyone on
Speaker 1: talk radio, hopefully chart something of a novel idea with
Speaker 1: this topic, because it's not working for Republicans on the right,
Speaker 1: even just getting away from the central question of if
Speaker 1: is it true or not that Haitians were eating cats,
Speaker 1: which is this is what the media loves to do.
Speaker 1: Take a story where you're trying to illustrate some bigger
Speaker 1: point with a detail and then make the story about
Speaker 1: whether or not the detail is true. The bigger story
Speaker 1: is large numbers of incredibly lightly regulated immigration are changing
Speaker 1: the characters of American cities in ways that are socially
Speaker 1: undesirable in various respects. Large unregulated numbers of immigrants coming
Speaker 1: to certain cities in Colorado has led to proliferation of
Speaker 1: gang activity. And then the contention being made, which seems
Speaker 1: like was made without really one hundred percent rigorously fact
Speaker 1: checking it beforehand, going off of a couple of acclaimed
Speaker 1: reports by neighbors, gets put out by Trump during a
Speaker 1: debate and made sort of the centerpiece of you have
Speaker 1: these Haitian immigrants in Ohio who are eating cats and dogs.
Speaker 1: Now it seems like that wasn't really rigorously confirmed on
Speaker 1: the front end, and so now Republicans are rushing around
Speaker 1: trying to get confirmation for it. You've got Chris Rufo
Speaker 1: on Twitter, who Chris Ruffo is an interesting guy and
Speaker 1: I like a lot of what he says. But after
Speaker 1: the debate he does a post saying I'll give a
Speaker 1: one thousand dollars bounty to anyone who can provide me
Speaker 1: with solid evidence of Haitians eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't get it. He got some confirmation several
Speaker 1: years ago of some Haitians from some other town, possibly Barbie,
Speaker 1: And the fact that we're even discussing it just infuriates
Speaker 1: me because then it becomes a vendetta on Trump is
Speaker 1: stoking hate against Haitian immigrants. Trump is Trump is wildly
Speaker 1: accusing Haitian immigants of eating cats and dogs. There's no
Speaker 1: evidence they're reading cats and dogs, to which I want
Speaker 1: to just yell at both sides. Introducing some poorly fact
Speaker 1: checked story about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs is
Speaker 1: the dumbest way of approaching the immigration problem possible, especially
Speaker 1: when so two weeks ago there was a story about
Speaker 1: an illegal alien from the Dominican Republic from the Dominican
Speaker 1: Republic got into New York illegally, he was wanted for
Speaker 1: murder in the dr gets into the United States and
Speaker 1: he murdered a family of four mom, dad, two kids
Speaker 1: outside of Rochester, New York, murdered them. Was not in
Speaker 1: the country legally, was wanted for murder in his home country.
Speaker 1: Murders for people, and we're arguing about Haitian cats and
Speaker 1: dogs because it sounds shocking. For some reason, eating a
Speaker 1: category dog sounds more shocking to people than murders a
Speaker 1: family of four. There are a lot of problems with
Speaker 1: the Biden administration's approach to immigration, which has resulted in
Speaker 1: an influx of I don't know that we actually know
Speaker 1: the number, but somewhere around north of twelve million people
Speaker 1: into the country, some of them flat out illegally, some
Speaker 1: of them through President Biden's newly created very light vetting
Speaker 1: legal processes that he sort of created via executive order
Speaker 1: with unclear legal authority. That's going to cause a lot
Speaker 1: of problems where I think there's this attitude on the
Speaker 1: left of like any hesitation about any levels of immigration
Speaker 1: whatsoever is unpatriotic foolishness, when throughout American history there have
Speaker 1: been times of greater and then lesser immigration fluctuation, and
Speaker 1: liberals will point to the past, America's past history of
Speaker 1: welcoming immigrants and said, oh, you object to that, Well,
Speaker 1: if you would object to that, your great grandfather would
Speaker 1: have never come to America. It's unpatriotic of you to
Speaker 1: object to President Biden's letting in all these immigrants. They
Speaker 1: came here illegally some Okay, Well, first of all, the
Speaker 1: new Biden will quote legal immigration processes you've done. He's
Speaker 1: put in place involves this very light vetting process, letting
Speaker 1: people in on probation when they claim asylum at an
Speaker 1: asylum point, and then we give them a court date
Speaker 1: for their asylum hearing that's years and years and years out,
Speaker 1: and then we let them loose into the country. The
Speaker 1: key problem is the extremely light vetting of millions and
Speaker 1: millions of people who are effectively cutting the line. Now
Speaker 1: the claim is made, well you object to that, Well,
Speaker 1: what about your great grandfather who came on a boat
Speaker 1: from you know, from Italy. Oh you object to that? Well,
Speaker 1: actually kinda. I mean, like, yes, I recognize my last
Speaker 1: name is Girardi. I recognize my great grandfather came to
Speaker 1: America when he was I think thirteen or fourteen years
Speaker 1: old on a boat from South Italy from Calabria with
Speaker 1: my great great grandfather. But let's not act like we
Speaker 1: didn't have a pretty serious problem with Italian immigrant organized crime.
Speaker 1: You may have heard something about it. It was this
Speaker 1: thing called the Mafia. They made a couple of famous
Speaker 1: movies about it. Like I guess I don't know that
Speaker 1: we can call America's Italian immigration policies of the eighteen
Speaker 1: hundreds into the early nineteen hundreds. I don't know that
Speaker 1: we can call that an unqualified success. There are some
Speaker 1: qualifications there. Now, my family was that's a pretty good success.
Speaker 1: My great grandfather came to America as a boy. He
Speaker 1: was a shoemaker and a grocer. His son went to NYU,
Speaker 1: became a CPA, his son became a doctor, and his
Speaker 1: son became a lawyer who yaps on the radio. So
Speaker 1: I mean for that family, it worked out. But again,
Speaker 1: let's not act like Italian immigration from eighteen hundreds and
Speaker 1: nineteen hundreds was all sunshine and rainbows. Like. There were
Speaker 1: pretty serious problems with it, and it's not crazy for
Speaker 1: America to take some stock of that. Now, the focus
Speaker 1: on Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs, let's talk about that.
Speaker 1: Why was this brought up? Why did this become an issue? Well,
Speaker 1: it's because Trump talked about it during the debate, So
Speaker 1: it becomes an issue, and Trump talks about it because
Speaker 1: Americans are obsessed with pets. Americans are obsessed with dogs
Speaker 1: and cats. Frankly, I think more Americans get upset about
Speaker 1: puppy mills than they do about abortion clinics. It's kind
Speaker 1: of bizarre and astonishing, but there you have it, and
Speaker 1: I think Trump mention it to highlight how some of
Speaker 1: the again these adverse social conditions that can be caused
Speaker 1: by excessive influxes of immigrants. And I guess my thought is, like, okay,
Speaker 1: immigrants who have their home country standards of but to
Speaker 1: eat maladjusting to kind of how we do things in
Speaker 1: America to the extent of eating domesticated pets or geese
Speaker 1: from the pond. You know. I got to say, on
Speaker 1: the scale of problems with immigration, organized criminal drug trafficking
Speaker 1: and murder are sort of at the top of my list,
Speaker 1: eating cats and eating stray cats and dogs or a
Speaker 1: ghost from the local pond is like the four hundred
Speaker 1: and eightieth thing I'm concerned about with immigration, all right,
Speaker 1: And in between that you've got all the economic impacts
Speaker 1: of Okay, we're importing all these foreign workers, but meanwhile
Speaker 1: we've got Americans who are unemployed. I guess it just
Speaker 1: astonishes me Trump's ability to go off message like all
Speaker 1: he has to do, because the headlines of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: who have committed murders when they shouldn't have legally been
Speaker 1: in the country, or who have committed other crimes when
Speaker 1: they shouldn't have been in the country, or who were
Speaker 1: connected with drug cartels when they shouldn't have been in
Speaker 1: the country. He could if he wants a list of that,
Speaker 1: he could have a laundry list, and he could just
Speaker 1: go to the debate and say the Harris Biden immigration
Speaker 1: policies have resulted in the following murders. So and so
Speaker 1: killed by an illegal immigrant from the Dominican Republic who
Speaker 1: was able to come here unvetted even though he was
Speaker 1: wanted for murder in his home country, murdered a family
Speaker 1: of four outside of Rochester, New York. So and so
Speaker 1: murdered Lake and right, so and so, so and so so.
Speaker 1: He could just read a list when asked about it.
Speaker 1: And I guess that's what frustrates me is the lack
Speaker 1: of disciplined messaging from Trump where we were going off
Speaker 1: in Lalla Land and people, well, it's because the media
Speaker 1: is being unfair about it. You know the media is
Speaker 1: gonna be unfair. We all know the media is gonna
Speaker 1: be unfair about it. You need to deal with reality.
Speaker 1: As it is. Well, it was so unfair that ABC
Speaker 1: News was so such unfair moderators doing the debate, what
Speaker 1: do you expect? ABC News hired George Stephanopolis, who was
Speaker 1: a Clinton political hack every much of a bit as
Speaker 1: much of a hack as James Carrville was working right
Speaker 1: alongside James Carville in Democrat political hackery. Hired him as
Speaker 1: a straight newsman. That's what ABC News is. You get
Speaker 1: what you deserve if you do a debate on ABC.
Speaker 1: You don't get to come after the fact and just
Speaker 1: complain about it. That is what it is. Conservatives just
Speaker 1: seem to love complaining about the state of affairs rather
Speaker 1: than adjusting to it. So I guess my thought is, like,
Speaker 1: whatever this problem is with Haitian immigrant, a lleged set
Speaker 1: of problems are with Haitian immigration within certain towns in Ohio, Okay,
Speaker 1: you know, eating cats and dogs, seemingly maladjusting to American
Speaker 1: kind of standards of conduct and how we treat pets.
Speaker 1: All right, I guess it's not great. It's a little weird,
Speaker 1: but it's the kind of thing that other immigrant groups
Speaker 1: have adjusted to. I mean, I've heard I don't know
Speaker 1: if they're true. I'm not claiming it's true. I've heard
Speaker 1: urban legends of that sort about about the Among people
Speaker 1: when they came to Fresno. I don't actually know if
Speaker 1: that's true or not. But you know, yes, I could
Speaker 1: understand someone coming newly to America having kind of a
Speaker 1: different set of expectations about you know, the propriety of
Speaker 1: eating geese and ducks in a pond. But that didn't
Speaker 1: that that didn't render the settlement of Mongs in the
Speaker 1: San Joaquin Valley into something terrible. No, I think the
Speaker 1: story of the Mong people in San Juan Valley has
Speaker 1: been a relatively positive success story and something that enriches
Speaker 1: our community. Like it's that that's not that bad of
Speaker 1: a thing. Now, if there had been a decades long
Speaker 1: organized Mong crime ring, if they were recreating the mafia,
Speaker 1: that would be more concerning to me. And that's I
Speaker 1: guess My frustration is that there are real serious problems
Speaker 1: with the Biden Harris approach to immigration, where we've gone
Speaker 1: far beyond whatever is the noblest example of American openness
Speaker 1: to immigrants. The Biden Harris administration went way beyond it
Speaker 1: in ways that are socially deleterious and for Trump to
Speaker 1: focus on what is again like, and for the whole
Speaker 1: media now to be focused on the question of whether
Speaker 1: or not Haitians actually eight cats and dogs. It's got
Speaker 1: to this is such a minoring of the majors, and
Speaker 1: it makes the whole issue seem pointless, Like Harris has
Speaker 1: picked up points on this issue, seemingly because we've deviated
Speaker 1: from what's actually important, the economic repercussions of allowing this
Speaker 1: huge influx of immigrants, the criminal impact of allowing this
Speaker 1: huge influx of immigrants, the possibility of other people from
Speaker 1: China or from the Middle East, for or actors who
Speaker 1: wish us harm being able to get in because of
Speaker 1: the lax vetting at the border, people realizing from all
Speaker 1: over the world that Mexico was a point of entry
Speaker 1: to get into the United States. Did we let in
Speaker 1: what like? We let in millions of people without a
Speaker 1: lot of vetting. Were any of them from al Qaeda?
Speaker 1: Were any of them from the Taliban? Were any of
Speaker 1: them Chinese communist operatives? We can't fully securely say that
Speaker 1: we know that that didn't happen. That's the problem with immigration,
Speaker 1: not some chicken bleep argument about whether some Haitians in Ohio,
Speaker 1: ate a cat or a dog when we return. A
Speaker 1: brief synopsis of why the Fresno Bee has always been
Speaker 1: so silly? That is next on the Jean Gerardi Show.
Speaker 1: The Fresno Bee is more and more irrelevant. And I
Speaker 1: see today a little story in it that just reminds
Speaker 1: me why be only publishes now like a physical paper,
Speaker 1: a couple of days a week. And they gave their
Speaker 1: oh who is the Fresno Bee editorial board? Whom are
Speaker 1: they going to endorse for the elections this time around?
Speaker 1: Rudy Sallas or David Valadeo. This is the same song
Speaker 1: and dance they did two years ago. By the way,
Speaker 1: the Fresno b is not going to endorse a Republican
Speaker 1: in a genuinely tightly contested race unless the Democrat he
Speaker 1: is running against is guilty of multiple felonies. This is
Speaker 1: why the Fresno b endorsed Valadeo when he ran against T. J. Cox.
Speaker 1: But that was it the only second time. Once they
Speaker 1: realized Cox was incredibly up to no good, Valadeo voted
Speaker 1: to impeach Donald Trump, the president B should vote for,
Speaker 1: should endorse him every single time he runs. No, they're
Speaker 1: endorsing Rudy Salas. Why because they're just a left wing newspaper.
Speaker 1: That's all they are. That'll do it for John Gardy Show.
Speaker 1: See you next time on Power Talk.