Speaker 1: Much of the objections to the incoming Trump administration. I
Speaker 1: guess the objections from the left to the incoming Trump
Speaker 1: administration are nearly infinite. But one of the weird sort
Speaker 1: of attitudes that people on the left are adopting is
Speaker 1: this idea that there are certain kinds of institutions that
Speaker 1: they own and that they always should own, and that
Speaker 1: their ownership of those government publicly funded institutions should remain
Speaker 1: through time immemorial. This, mostly within the context of the
Speaker 1: Trump era, has applied to federal government bureaucrats, the career
Speaker 1: employees of the federal government, many of whom thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of whom stay on in their governmental roles regardless
Speaker 1: of who is president. So someone might have been hired
Speaker 1: under one president, but he keeps working through the next
Speaker 1: president and the next president the next president. Not the
Speaker 1: political appointees, but the career appointees. And the thing is,
Speaker 1: the career appointees are overwhelmingly left wing, and many of
Speaker 1: them have the ability to slow down, stymy, or even
Speaker 1: directly undermine the efforts of a Republican administration. When you
Speaker 1: get to the level of the FBI and the CIA
Speaker 1: and counterintelligence and intelligence agencies. They can even directly undermine
Speaker 1: a incoming or sitting president, as we saw with President
Speaker 1: Trump in the way that very very senior FBI officials
Speaker 1: tried to genuinely get him impeached and removed from office,
Speaker 1: conspired to get him removed from office because they politically
Speaker 1: disagreed with him. Another area where liberals sort of think
Speaker 1: they should own things, and I think this is relevant
Speaker 1: to our purposes here in Fresno is public education. And
Speaker 1: I'll start by talking about public university education. Certainly, liberals
Speaker 1: have thought they've owned, have owned public K through twelve
Speaker 1: education in a lot of places throughout the country, including
Speaker 1: in very red states that for some reason produce very
Speaker 1: left wing school districts. But K through twelve education has
Speaker 1: been worse here. You have, you know, deep red states
Speaker 1: like Texas, where the University of Texas at Austin is
Speaker 1: still a very left wing college. You have deep red
Speaker 1: states with very left wing colleges that keep pumping out
Speaker 1: incredibly left wing politicized educational programs that in many cases
Speaker 1: are so saturated with left wing thinking that they cannot
Speaker 1: see the forest for the trees. You know, that's one
Speaker 1: of the things about universities. It's really interesting how insular
Speaker 1: they are. How if you're living a kind of academic
Speaker 1: life as a college student or a grad student or
Speaker 1: as a professor, your world and your worldview is very
Speaker 1: much shaped by that institution, by its rhythms in ways
Speaker 1: that I don't think are true of a normal job,
Speaker 1: and you sort of lose perspective of what the rest
Speaker 1: of the outside world is like. You think that the
Speaker 1: norm of what people think, since you're at this thinkery,
Speaker 1: you're at this thinking institution, you think that the way
Speaker 1: everyone thinks in the thinking place is how the thinkers think.
Speaker 2: All of the world, And it's just not true.
Speaker 1: I may have lived in South Bend, Indiana for seven
Speaker 1: years going to college at Notre Dame, but you know,
Speaker 1: I can guarantee you that the thoughts, views, and opinions
Speaker 1: of the faculty, students, grad students at Notre Dame was
Speaker 1: not going to reflect in almost any way that of
Speaker 1: the broader South Bend populace. And because university has become
Speaker 1: so insular that they can't see the outside perspective of
Speaker 1: Wait a minute, you're teaching a whole semester long class
Speaker 1: on the anthropology of LGBT Latino artists in twentieth century
Speaker 1: hip hop. That doesn't seem like it should.
Speaker 2: Be a class.
Speaker 1: There are problems with the intellectual rigor of such a thing,
Speaker 1: but especially with the various aspects of left wing ideology
Speaker 1: that so many within the university system feel they need
Speaker 1: to bow down to. Otherwise intelligent people at the universities
Speaker 1: don't feel like they have the standing to say, especially
Speaker 1: if they're white or men, don't feel like they have
Speaker 1: the standing to say to.
Speaker 2: Maybe a young.
Speaker 1: Liberal professor who is from some you know, some kind
Speaker 1: of diverse group. Hey, that's a dumb class idea. That's
Speaker 1: a dumb idea for a semester long course. No, the
Speaker 1: department's not going to approve.
Speaker 2: You teaching this. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: If the department is not going to prove this person
Speaker 1: teaching this, why did they hire this person to begin with?
Speaker 2: They hired this person knowing the kinds of academic research
Speaker 2: they were into.
Speaker 1: Presumably they hired this person because they did academic research
Speaker 1: on LGBT, Latino twentieth century hip hop, or you know
Speaker 1: whatever it is for the Anthropology department or the Latino
Speaker 1: Studies department. The very existence of programs like a lot
Speaker 1: of the studies programs, women's studies, Latino studies, African American
Speaker 1: studies have often been hit with criticism that they lack
Speaker 1: intellectual rigor, lack academic rigor.
Speaker 2: But again, because.
Speaker 1: These are sort of shibleths of the left, these are
Speaker 1: things that are untouchable, uncriticizable, immune from all criticism. They
Speaker 1: just go on and on and on, and they go
Speaker 1: on and on and on at institutions that are funded
Speaker 1: with our money, with our taxpayer dollars, including in red states,
Speaker 1: funded with our taxpayer, funded with the tax. Here these
Speaker 1: ultra left wing programs who only exist because of the
Speaker 1: goodwill of the taxpayers of Florida or Texas or Alabama
Speaker 1: or whatever. So there's this whining article in the New
Speaker 1: York Times about this topic. Republicans target social sciences to
Speaker 1: curb ideas they don't like. Several years ago, to attract
Speaker 1: more students, Gene Muteba Rayhere spiced up the name of
Speaker 1: his Introduction to the Anthropology of Religion course. He called
Speaker 1: it myth Ritual and Mysticism. Now ray Here, a professor
Speaker 1: at Florida International University in Miami, believes the name was
Speaker 1: perhaps too provocative for higher education in the Sunshine State.
Speaker 1: Rayher's class, which was flagged as having unproven speculative or
Speaker 1: exploratory content, was one of nearly two dozen courses university
Speaker 1: trustees voted in September to remove from a course set
Speaker 1: of classes that students must choose from to graduate. The
Speaker 1: slashing of core classes across the state, which has often
Speaker 1: been based on course titles and descriptions, is meant to
Speaker 1: comply with the state law passed last year that curbed
Speaker 1: identity politics in the curriculum. The law also bars classes
Speaker 1: from the corps that quote distort significant historical events that
Speaker 1: include theories that quote systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege
Speaker 1: are inherent in the institutions of the United States. Florida
Speaker 1: has become a testing ground for a raft of conservative
Speaker 1: policies meant to limit or expunge what Republicans describe as
Speaker 1: quote woke indoctrination in the state schools and colleges. Faculty
Speaker 1: in student critics, I don't give a crap what the
Speaker 1: student critics say. They're students, they're dumb, have said. This
Speaker 1: latest effort infringes on university autonomy, infringes on university autonomy,
Speaker 1: the autonomy of this.
Speaker 2: University that we pay for.
Speaker 1: And could reduce students exposure to courses they believe are
Speaker 1: necessary for a well rounded education. Academic freedom advocates worry
Speaker 1: it marks a new, more organized approach, more organized approach
Speaker 1: to what. Rather than trying to regulate what a professor
Speaker 1: can or cannot say, a legally questionable tactic, the new
Speaker 1: strategy is taking aim at entire horses. See this attitude
Speaker 1: that they own it, that they should own it, that
Speaker 1: this is the divinely ordained. Well, you know, because God
Speaker 1: is a woman. All right, we'll we'll say divinely ordained.
Speaker 1: As long as God the woman, the divinely ordained, the
Speaker 1: goddessly ordained order of the universe and the minds of
Speaker 1: liberals is that a very Republican electorate in Florida that
Speaker 1: doesn't like all this woke crap must continue paying for
Speaker 1: with their taxpayer dollars or with their tuition dollars as
Speaker 1: they send their kids to this place, must continue paying
Speaker 1: for these people's mickey mouse classes to be taught forever,
Speaker 1: in perpetuity, with no questioning, no questioning whatsoever, that this
Speaker 1: threatens the autonomy of the universities. Oh, the autonomy of
Speaker 1: this state run university, the autonomy of Florida State University
Speaker 1: or the University of Florida or Florida International, these state
Speaker 1: funded colleges and universities that the taxpayers paid for, that
Speaker 1: they put every brick in place, that they should be
Speaker 1: autonomous from the democratically elected governor slash state legislature of Florida.
Speaker 1: That's the attitude that, in no way, shape or form
Speaker 1: should the university be answerable.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's threatening their autonomy.
Speaker 1: What is that? It's not an autonomous institution. When Florida
Speaker 1: International can stand on its own two feet without state
Speaker 1: funding and just become a private school, okay, then sure
Speaker 1: talk about that. And because by the way, these kinds
Speaker 1: of reforms, it's not like the state is mandating this
Speaker 1: of private schools within Florida.
Speaker 2: I think the universe. I think the University of Miami
Speaker 2: is a private school. I'm not sure. Let me see here,
Speaker 2: University of Miami. Is that a private school or a
Speaker 2: public school? Did it up?
Speaker 1: Private university? Yeah, University of Miami is not going to
Speaker 1: be touched by this. But yeah, University of Florida, Florida
Speaker 1: State Florida International. These are public schools, Yes, they're going
Speaker 1: to be impacted by this. So just just the arrogance
Speaker 1: of this is astonishing. And frankly, let's talk about how
Speaker 1: this relates to Fresno. Earlier this year, back in March
Speaker 1: and also back in November of twenty twenty two, a
Speaker 1: bunch of people in the orbit of Fresno State were
Speaker 1: pushing Measure E, and the idea behind Measure E was,
Speaker 1: you know, Fresno State is lagging behind with a number
Speaker 1: of building and physical improvements that it needs to make
Speaker 1: and cannot afford to make. President State's Athletic Department is
Speaker 1: lagging behind in certain ways of certain ways in which
Speaker 1: they want to renovate the stadium that they can't they
Speaker 1: don't have the funding for it. Necessarily, a lot of
Speaker 1: areas in President of State's life where they don't have
Speaker 1: the funding. So rather than wait for the state to
Speaker 1: pay for these things, which the state's never going to
Speaker 1: have the money. The state's facing all these budgetary problems,
Speaker 1: why don't we try to pass a county wide sales
Speaker 1: tax to help fund Fresno State. Some portion of it
Speaker 1: will go to stadium renovation and the rest of it
Speaker 1: will go towards improving physical structures within Fresno State, which
Speaker 1: will in turn increase the capacity for various Presno State
Speaker 1: programs to pump out more people in more professions that
Speaker 1: are needed throughout the San Joaquin Valley. A lot of
Speaker 1: the advertising for MEASUREY was saying, hey, we need more nurses,
Speaker 1: we need to expand the capacity of the nursing program.
Speaker 1: We need more engineers. Let's expand the capacity of the
Speaker 1: engineering program. This, that, and the other. Well, I think
Speaker 1: one of the problems is, look, Presno County is a
Speaker 1: red county. Clearly this presidential election shows it beyond just
Speaker 1: the simple difficulty of raising taxes in any context. I
Speaker 1: think among a lot of people on the right, there's
Speaker 1: a thought of, well, Fresno State is still an extremely
Speaker 1: left wing institution, extremely which we already are forced to
Speaker 1: pay for with our taxpayer dollars. Look, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of conservatives in the San Jauquin Valley who have a
Speaker 1: lot of affection for President of State who went to
Speaker 1: President State. Our alumni of President State give to certain
Speaker 1: select programs within Fresno State. Really like Presno State Sports
Speaker 1: support President of State Sports.
Speaker 2: We broadcast president State sports from here. But let's be real,
Speaker 2: Fresno State's got a whole.
Speaker 1: Swath of different academic departments that are crazy left wing,
Speaker 1: that are pumping out.
Speaker 2: Graduates who are super left wing.
Speaker 1: Presno State's student health department, as with the student health
Speaker 1: departments of every CSU, and you see throughout the state
Speaker 1: of California doles out the abortion pill, not the morning
Speaker 1: after pill. The abortion pill, well, they also deal out
Speaker 1: the morning after pill, but the abortion pill. You know,
Speaker 1: lyphi PRIs stone, the whole purpose of which is to
Speaker 1: cause an abortion up the ten weeks into pregnancy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't necessarily want more of my taxpayer
Speaker 1: dollars going to support it. And I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of conservatives who feel the same way in this area.
Speaker 1: And I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be this way. When we return some of the
Speaker 1: First Amendment related issues that touch on this problem of
Speaker 1: public schools being super left wing and conservative efforts to
Speaker 1: curtail that. That is next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: Liberals across the country are screaming bloody murder as certain
Speaker 1: red states are daring to mess with the nice gravy
Speaker 1: train they've set up in public universities. So for decades
Speaker 1: we've had these deep red states like Texas that have
Speaker 1: for some reason just allowed incredibly left wing universities to
Speaker 1: just exist and thrive funded by the taxpayer dollar, with
Speaker 1: no one really saying boo about it. And finally Florida
Speaker 1: is saying, actually, no, we're going to look at the
Speaker 1: academic rigor of a lot of these ultra left wing
Speaker 1: programs and we're going to cut some of these things. Basically,
Speaker 1: the curriculum is not something that is untouchable and unaccountable
Speaker 1: to the voters of Florida, working through their elected representatives,
Speaker 1: the governor and the state legislature, and we're going to
Speaker 1: look into this now. A bunch of the objection to
Speaker 1: this comes from kind of a First Amendment perspective. Professors
Speaker 1: within a public university, when they say something, can they
Speaker 1: be disciplined for it by the public university? Well, some
Speaker 1: First Amendment issues arise in that context. The university can't.
Speaker 1: The university is a government institution. The First Amendment, basically,
Speaker 1: as it's applied and as we accept it today, as
Speaker 1: we've received it today, basically says the government cannot censor
Speaker 1: core protected political speech. It cannot say, it cannot be
Speaker 1: picking winners and losers, has to be kind of content neutral.
Speaker 1: So if you had and this has been something that's
Speaker 1: been a shield to protect the few remaining conservative professors
Speaker 1: within public universities. Here's some conservative professor says something conservative.
Speaker 1: It ticks off his faculty or administration at his ultra
Speaker 1: left wing public university. They take adverse action against him,
Speaker 1: and he's able to sue in the context of a
Speaker 1: public university in a way that he can't in the
Speaker 1: context of a private university, to say, Hey, you're disciplining
Speaker 1: me because of my viewpoints. This is a violation of
Speaker 1: my First Amendment rights. This is the government hindering me
Speaker 1: in what I can and can't say. Now, how then
Speaker 1: is that going to suss itself out in the broader
Speaker 1: context of Look, we're the University of Florida. We don't
Speaker 1: want to present this government speech. What this is government
Speaker 1: funded speech advocated, you know, pushing certain kinds of academic programs.
Speaker 1: We want to change the curriculum, We want to change
Speaker 1: the program, the academic program within our publicly funded university,
Speaker 1: Our publicly funded universities Florida State, University of Florida, Florida International,
Speaker 1: and all the you know, I'm sure there are lots
Speaker 1: of other you know, University of Florida and Florida State
Speaker 1: campuses in different parts of Florida.
Speaker 2: So how are we able to do that?
Speaker 1: Frankly, it's I think it's kind of an interesting legal
Speaker 1: question because for the longest time it's been sort of
Speaker 1: taken that we look at the individual university professor, them
Speaker 1: saying something, them getting adverse consequences, and the defense as well,
Speaker 1: they're protected by the First Amendment. Well, maybe I'm been
Speaker 1: maybe people have looking at that kind of the wrong way,
Speaker 1: and I'll, you know, I'll freely admit that maybe I'm
Speaker 1: taking very conveniently shifting sides here when my side is
Speaker 1: in a different position now that conservatives are in a
Speaker 1: position of power in Florida to change the curriculum all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, I don't really care about these First
Speaker 1: Amendment arguments. Okay, maybe I'm I might be hypocritical here,
Speaker 1: and maybe I was too willing to just accept, you know,
Speaker 1: the professor has a First Amendment right, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you're talking about a university setting that
Speaker 1: university professor is a paid employee of the state government.
Speaker 2: Is that state speech?
Speaker 1: So one of the principles of First Amendment law is yeah,
Speaker 1: individuals can't be censored by the government for their speech,
Speaker 1: but the state is allowed to express the viewpoints it favors.
Speaker 1: I hate the fact that they do this, But California,
Speaker 1: for example, is allowed to push out messaging that's pro abortion.
Speaker 2: They're allowed to do that. That's state speech.
Speaker 1: Now they can't force private actors to endorse their speech.
Speaker 1: California got slapped on the wrist for that when they
Speaker 1: were trying to force pro life clinics to let people
Speaker 1: know where they could get abortions, But the state itself
Speaker 1: could have advertising that they pay for saying this is
Speaker 1: where you go to get abortions. In the context of
Speaker 1: a state university like University of Florida, like President State,
Speaker 1: is it legitimate for a conservative new university top executive
Speaker 1: administration to say the speech of these ultraliberal professors we
Speaker 1: don't like and that's not going to be our state speech.
Speaker 2: We're going to fire this person, We're.
Speaker 1: Going to get rid of their courses because that's not
Speaker 1: the speech we wish to promulgate. It's kind of an
Speaker 1: interesting First Amendment question, and I confess that I may
Speaker 1: have been inconsistent on this as far as my thinking
Speaker 1: about it, but I'm really pleased at the very least
Speaker 1: to see conservatives not lying down and just accepting as
Speaker 1: if this is the preordained reality that public universities have
Speaker 1: to be liberal for the rest of time forever. And
Speaker 1: it's sort of a sad thing here in California that
Speaker 1: that is going to be the case, including at Fresno
Speaker 1: State when we return. It seems to take a stolen
Speaker 1: House seat for National Republicans to see the insanity of
Speaker 1: the problems with California elections. What could National Republican funders
Speaker 1: do about it? Next on The John Girardi Show, the
Speaker 1: Adam Gray John Duarte race is slipping out of the
Speaker 1: GOP's fingers as every vote update.
Speaker 2: Is more and more and more in favor of Adam Gray.
Speaker 1: Duarte was winning by a couple of thousand votes shortly
Speaker 1: after election night, and here we stand twenty two days
Speaker 1: after the election. He is now I believe it's one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty votes behind per the last update, and Duarte, sorry,
Speaker 1: Adam Gray was picking up votes with every update and
Speaker 1: a couple of.
Speaker 2: Hundred votes here, a couple hundred votes here, a couple
Speaker 2: hundred votes closer, here, a couple hundred votes closer here.
Speaker 1: Why, well, it's through a system that I've talked about
Speaker 1: it a couple of times on my show and Trevor's
Speaker 1: show over the course of this week. But it bears
Speaker 1: repeating because now we've got like National Republican figures noticing it,
Speaker 1: and takes a stolen House seat for them to notice
Speaker 1: it is the ballot curing system in California. It's not
Speaker 1: on accident or through sheer incompetence that California takes a
Speaker 1: long time to count its votes.
Speaker 2: It's on purpose.
Speaker 1: This is deliberately how the system is set up, and
Speaker 1: it's set up to basically provide an institutionalized, legalized way
Speaker 1: for Democrats to cheat to win. Here's what happens. You
Speaker 1: have an election, it's really close. A lot of the
Speaker 1: people who voted voted by mail, because California does universal
Speaker 1: automatic you're opted in for vote by mail voting. A
Speaker 1: bunch of the ballots that are sent in via vote
Speaker 1: by mail don't follow the instructions or there's something otherwise wrong.
Speaker 1: Maybe they didn't put the signature on, maybe the signature
Speaker 1: doesn't match, et cetera. So in some way or another,
Speaker 1: that vote by mail ballot gets disqualified. What Democrats are
Speaker 1: able to do, well, what both parties are able to do.
Speaker 1: But Democrats obviously have more money in California, more infrastructure
Speaker 1: in California, more capacity to do this than Republicans will
Speaker 1: ever have for any close election of any sort of importance.
Speaker 1: Is they are able to go to that person who
Speaker 1: turned in that suspect ballot and have that person cure
Speaker 1: their ballot, fix whatever the problem was that caused that
Speaker 1: ballot to be disqualified in the first place. So this
Speaker 1: has been happening very aggressively. In the John Duarte Adam
Speaker 1: Gray race. Christine Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, is in fact
Speaker 1: heading up the effort to get as many Democrat votes
Speaker 1: cured in that race in that district as humanly possible.
Speaker 1: And of course this is shady. Of course, this is
Speaker 1: maximally shady, and it runs contrary to the whole tenor
Speaker 1: and spirit of American election law. From sea to shining sea,
Speaker 1: American election law is basically the norm in America, the
Speaker 1: way we exercise our vote is we vote in person
Speaker 1: in our local precinct on election day using a secret
Speaker 1: ballot voting booth. That is how we.
Speaker 2: Vote in California. That is how we vote in America.
Speaker 1: Rather, everything else is an extension of that is basically
Speaker 1: a concession from the state to deviate from that ideal,
Speaker 1: and we hold that up as the ideal because it's
Speaker 1: obviously the most secure way to do it. You've already
Speaker 1: registered in advance. We know you're eligible to vote. We
Speaker 1: know you're a citizen. You present In most states, you
Speaker 1: present your ID.
Speaker 2: Okay, we think.
Speaker 1: Driver's licenses are pretty secure things in America, pretty well
Speaker 1: relied upon system for proving identification. If you don't have
Speaker 1: an ID, maybe you have a passport. If you don't
Speaker 1: have a passport, maybe you have some other form of
Speaker 1: government issued identification.
Speaker 2: We trust most of our government issued IDs.
Speaker 1: We know that you've registered to vote, we know that
Speaker 1: you're eligible to vote. We know it's you that's voting,
Speaker 1: and we have perfect chain of custody over your ballot.
Speaker 1: And we know because you're voting in a secret voting station,
Speaker 1: a secret ballot station, we know that your vote hasn't
Speaker 1: been unfairly unduly influenced by someone else. No one can
Speaker 1: see who you voted for. No one can double check
Speaker 1: who you've voted for or how you voted. No one's
Speaker 1: intimidating you. No one's threatening you. There's no one going
Speaker 1: to grandma at the nursing home saying, oh no, no, no, grandma,
Speaker 1: you don't want.
Speaker 2: To vote for Donald Trump. There's no ballot harvester.
Speaker 1: Working for a pack or something, some left wing pack
Speaker 1: who says, oh no, missus mcgillicutt, you don't want to
Speaker 1: vote for that Donald Trump. It's Kamala Harris is who
Speaker 1: you want to vote for? Yeah, no, she's the good one.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Remember, Trump was bad. He wanted to do bad things
Speaker 1: for seniors. You know your hair's a Oh okay, sounds good, honey.
Speaker 1: There's none of that happening all right now. The various
Speaker 1: states will grant exceptions to that ideal norm. When I
Speaker 1: was a college student at Notre Dame, I was still
Speaker 1: to California, was still my permanent residence. I still listed
Speaker 1: my childhood home in Clovis as my permanent residence while
Speaker 1: I was an undergrad and in law school, so I
Speaker 1: would send in my absentee ballot back to California to
Speaker 1: vote in California elections. But to do that, I had
Speaker 1: to follow the rules. I had to send in my
Speaker 1: ballot by a certain date, I had to do all
Speaker 1: the proper signatures, et cetera. Well, California has sort of
Speaker 1: changed all that. California has sort of changed the assumptions
Speaker 1: the basics of what it means to vote and what
Speaker 1: it means to exercise the right to vote. California's sort
Speaker 1: of completely shifted reshuffle that entire deck. Because Democrats realized
Speaker 1: they could have huge strategic advantages through things like ballot
Speaker 1: harvesting stuff where they could leverage their far greater voting infrastructure.
Speaker 1: They've changed the whole rules of the game, and certainly
Speaker 1: COVID helped contribute to that. Now in California, there's no
Speaker 1: presumption that the norm is voting in person on election
Speaker 1: day at a secret ballot.
Speaker 2: And California certainly is not going to require anyone to
Speaker 2: show their ID. God forbid. So everyone's getting a vote
Speaker 2: by mail ballot.
Speaker 1: Everyone's getting one. The heck, there are.
Speaker 2: People getting one who are no longer eligible voters.
Speaker 1: There are people getting vote by mail ballots who maybe
Speaker 1: are dead, recently dead. All these vote by mail ballots
Speaker 1: are coming into the gazillions of people and then not
Speaker 1: everyone's using them. Okay, my wife and I we got
Speaker 1: vote by mail ballots mailed to our house. We both
Speaker 1: opted to vote in person. So what happens with those
Speaker 1: ballt You know that they tell us, so be sure
Speaker 1: to destroy that. But is that what's really happening with
Speaker 1: every single person's ballot?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know anyway.
Speaker 1: So California has just changed all the assumptions, and the
Speaker 1: assumptions in most states is again, you have the right
Speaker 1: to vote. You have the right to vote in this
Speaker 1: normative fashion. We will grant you an exception to that
Speaker 1: for some extraordinary circumstance. If you're a college student who's
Speaker 1: going to college in another state and you can't make
Speaker 1: it back to the state to vote. If you're a
Speaker 1: military service member serving overseas but you want to you know,
Speaker 1: you're serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you want to
Speaker 1: vote in your local election in Virginia, or in Georgia
Speaker 1: or in you know, in South Dakota. Okay, we'll send
Speaker 1: you your absentee ballot, but you gotta do it. You
Speaker 1: got to follow the rules to get your vote counted. Okay,
Speaker 1: you have to fill this out correctly, because we have
Speaker 1: to have sort of security measures in place for this extension,
Speaker 1: because we know a vote by mail ballot is just
Speaker 1: in apparently less secure than an in person, out of
Speaker 1: secret ballot vote. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch
Speaker 1: of national sort of new Trump orbit people are noticing
Speaker 1: how messed up California is, and this race is the
Speaker 1: one that's causing them to notice. The Adam Gray John
Speaker 1: Darte race where now John Darte is losing by about
Speaker 1: I think almost two hundred votes after he had been
Speaker 1: winning by I think a couple thousand votes on election night.
Speaker 2: Now you've got.
Speaker 1: Bruce call her Caitlin, if you know, Bruce having people
Speaker 1: call him Caitlyn Jenner tweeting about it this is messed up.
Speaker 2: You've got Richard Grinnell.
Speaker 1: The big Republican gay Republican activists, and now you've got
Speaker 1: Elon Musk tweeting about it about how messed up this is.
Speaker 2: When we return what I want.
Speaker 1: To propose for Republican political financiers. That's next on the
Speaker 1: John Girardi Show. A bunch of national Republican figures kind
Speaker 1: of in the orbit of Trump world. Have noticed that
Speaker 1: the John Duarte Adam Gray race is being stolen away
Speaker 1: by the Democrats, being stolen away by the built in
Speaker 1: Democrats system for stealing close elections, the ballot curing system.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom used this to great effect earlier this year
Speaker 1: when Democrats pass Proposition won something he wanted done. He
Speaker 1: has this huge war chest of campaign funds from the
Speaker 1: recall election, so that was done. Here's my proposal to
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, or to big time California Republican financiers. They're
Speaker 1: all of a sudden noticing that this happens, that this
Speaker 1: vote stealing mechan is set up and is happening here
Speaker 1: in California. Elon Musk, if you think California needs to
Speaker 1: reform its election processes, why don't you do something about it.
Speaker 1: And I say this not just to Elon Musk, but
Speaker 1: to he's far from the only mega rich Republican political
Speaker 1: donor who lives or lived in California. I think Elon's
Speaker 1: primary place of residence now is in Texas, but he's
Speaker 1: still got homes in California. Tesla was started in California.
Speaker 1: It's originally a California company. Basically a lot of Republican
Speaker 1: donors have been just asleep at the wheel with California politics.
Speaker 1: They've more or less given up. They've taken this prostra
Speaker 1: that we're never going to win anything in California. I'm
Speaker 1: going to focus my money nationally.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: I think this election, and particularly the success of Prop
Speaker 1: thirty six, shows that conservative policies can potentially be accomplished
Speaker 1: and affected through the ballot initiative system in California. If
Speaker 1: you take particular, specific, isolated things, and you fund it well,
Speaker 1: and you present it well, you can get stuff done.
Speaker 2: Prop thirty six just showed that.
Speaker 1: Prop thirty six showed the Californians are getting tired of
Speaker 1: certain aspects of liberal governance. Now, it's not so much
Speaker 1: that they're getting tired that they're you know, obviously they're
Speaker 1: still electing Adam Schiff to be our US Senator, you know,
Speaker 1: sixty to forty over Steve Garvey. But on specific issues,
Speaker 1: I think you could do it. Elon musk Is now
Speaker 1: by his own declaration, wants to be the Republican George Soros.
Speaker 1: He wants to be the one funding Republican efforts all
Speaker 1: over the place. Well, Elon, you know, you dropped forty
Speaker 1: million dollars per month on ad buys for President Trump's campaign.
Speaker 1: If you just drop forty million dollars in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six on a California ballot initiative to reform California's election processes,
Speaker 1: just to insist on voter id or get rid of
Speaker 1: this ballot curing thing mandate that all votes must be
Speaker 1: counted and accounted for whatever by you know, one week
Speaker 1: within the election happening, whatever it is, within a day
Speaker 1: of the election happening.
Speaker 2: God knows Florida is able to do it.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk could make that happen. He's got the money
Speaker 1: to make that happen. And I kind of wonder. I mean,
Speaker 1: the whole throughout the country, there was this massive shift
Speaker 1: in voter sentiment towards Trump, including in blue states that
Speaker 1: Harris won.
Speaker 2: Harris won New York, but Trump picked up like eleven.
Speaker 1: Points over twenty twenty. Harris won California, but Trump picked
Speaker 1: up a bunch of points. A bunch of counties in
Speaker 1: California that had gone for Biden and Hillary this year
Speaker 1: in California went for Trump, including Fresno, County. There is
Speaker 1: a shift happening here in California. There's a shift in attitude.
Speaker 1: There were a couple of ballot initiatives that Democrats wanted
Speaker 1: that didn't that ultra liberals anyway wanted and didn't get passed,
Speaker 1: and Prop thirty six that they didn't want that did
Speaker 1: get passed.
Speaker 2: So my thought to Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Is, for all manner of things that he doesn't like,
Speaker 1: California affords him more of a chance to make more
Speaker 1: of an impact on a bigger population of people than
Speaker 1: almost than any other state.
Speaker 2: I'd say, just as a pro lifer.
Speaker 1: By the way, hey Elon, you don't like late term abortions,
Speaker 1: why don't you pass a ballot initiative in California to
Speaker 1: ban them? Because, let me tell you, Elon would love
Speaker 1: to make all the liberals heads explode, and that would
Speaker 1: do it more than anything.
Speaker 2: That'll do it. John Girardi Show, Happy Thanksgiving, See you
Speaker 2: next time.