Speaker 1: Democrats are in a bit of a pickle right now,
Speaker 1: because a lot of them still think we're living in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one and it's twenty twenty five. A lot
Speaker 1: of them still think, believe very sincerely that the kinds
Speaker 1: of woke canceling, as much as I hate just mindlessly
Speaker 1: restating those terms, that the sort of woke canceling priorities
Speaker 1: that we're at there really at their zenith in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, that everyone believes in them, That the election
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden in twenty twenty signal that the American
Speaker 1: people had really embraced us, that they had won, and
Speaker 1: that they had won, just like the way they won
Speaker 1: on gay marriage, they won on a bunch of other things.
Speaker 1: They won on the trans issue, they won on you know,
Speaker 1: defunding the police. They they have won, and they were
Speaker 1: able to sort of do their liberal thing where they
Speaker 1: declare victory by means of changing the language of things, artificially,
Speaker 1: getting the expert class to anoint a certain range of
Speaker 1: worldviews as true and correct, and thereby allowing the media
Speaker 1: to write about those things as if those things were
Speaker 1: default true. All right, That's how they went about gay marriage.
Speaker 1: They won on the gay marriage fight by you know
Speaker 1: that basically, the force of media, the force of ten
Speaker 1: years of Modern Family being on ABC resulted in the
Speaker 1: American people sort of shifting their views and saying we're
Speaker 1: all okay with gay marriage, and then the media starts
Speaker 1: to write about it as if it's normal. Well, it's
Speaker 1: passed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says gay
Speaker 1: marriages is legal sea to shining sea. So therefore we
Speaker 1: just talk about marriage as if it's normal, and we
Speaker 1: declare victory. And they thought they could do the same
Speaker 1: thing with transgenderism. They thought they could do the same
Speaker 1: thing with biological boys playing women's sports, with biological men
Speaker 1: being in women's prisons. With well, they don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about biological men and women's prisons very much because
Speaker 1: that's where the rubber meets the road of the insanity
Speaker 1: of their ideology. When actual biological women get raped by
Speaker 1: male cellmates. They don't want to talk about that anyway.
Speaker 1: But they thought that they could sort of declare victory.
Speaker 1: And the twenty twenty four election, they thought even maybe
Speaker 1: they could get around to the defund the police movement.
Speaker 1: And the twenty twenty four election was a resounding reminder
Speaker 1: to them that Nope, not so when the most effective
Speaker 1: messaging Trump had, some of the most effective messaging Trump
Speaker 1: had was his messaging about hell for for you, she's
Speaker 1: for they them, you know, talking about transgender surgeries for inmates,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah blah. And we've shift. We've shifted
Speaker 1: as far as the national conversation. There is a shift
Speaker 1: where a lot of these sort of intersectional ideologies about race,
Speaker 1: about sex, about transgenderism, we've now realized that at the
Speaker 1: very least these are hotly disputed topics, if not ideologies.
Speaker 1: The left's ideologies on these topics are being outright rejected.
Speaker 1: So we went from in twenty twenty one thinking this
Speaker 1: was just the new culturally accepted norm that everyone was
Speaker 1: gonna embrace, just the same way that everyone embraced game
Speaker 1: marriage eventually, to today in twenty twenty five. Nope, a
Speaker 1: lot of people reject this stuff. They reject the defund
Speaker 1: the police. The defund the police movement is pretty much
Speaker 1: totally dead. Left wing criminal law enforcement basically, well, the
Speaker 1: common thread I feel like I'm rambling a little bit,
Speaker 1: but I think the common thread that has lost is
Speaker 1: the DEI principles, the idea of equity as our governing
Speaker 1: moral compass. The idea of equity is that if outcomes
Speaker 1: don't match the share of the population as a whole,
Speaker 1: then there must be racism, sexism, homophobia, et cetera in
Speaker 1: the system, and therefore we need to change the system.
Speaker 1: That was the root of defund the police, that was
Speaker 1: the root of the criminal approach to left wing law enforcement.
Speaker 1: It underlies a lot of stuff with pro transgenderism, where
Speaker 1: well the assumption that, like, they look at transgenderism and
Speaker 1: they look at the explosion in the number of kids
Speaker 1: identifying as transgender, and their conclusion is not, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this must be social contagion. The reason why this huge
Speaker 1: number of people are identifying as trans now all of
Speaker 1: a sudden is obviously social contagent. The idea has gone
Speaker 1: out and now a bunch of teenagers have convinced themselves
Speaker 1: somehow that they're transgender. No, their interpretation of it was,
Speaker 1: we had millions of trans people for years and they
Speaker 1: were all closeted because of evil anti trans stereotyping within
Speaker 1: American culture. That's the conclusion they get to. So a
Speaker 1: lot of this DEI stuff fundamentally is grounding them. So
Speaker 1: they are losing that fight on a nationwide scale. But
Speaker 1: on the coasts, in the halls of power in state governments,
Speaker 1: on the coasts California, the Northeast, they're still living like
Speaker 1: it's twenty twenty one. They don't. They have not had
Speaker 1: the kind of crushing electoral losses that the Democrats had
Speaker 1: in the twenty twenty election. Democrats are doing just fine.
Speaker 1: In Sacramento. Democrats still have three quarters of all the seats,
Speaker 1: so from their perspective, they're still living in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: They still think the principles and ideologies of twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one are very much there. And this is applied to
Speaker 1: the controversy du jour in the state capitol over Shannon
Speaker 1: Grove's efforts to classify sex trafficking of sixteen and seventeen
Speaker 1: year olds specifically as a felony. And the Democrats are
Speaker 1: finding themselves because they have to remain true to their
Speaker 1: dei criminal law enforcement positions, they don't want to do it.
Speaker 1: Why why don't they want to do it? For two reasons.
Speaker 1: One is, in general, Democrats in the California state legislature
Speaker 1: have for years just taken the posture of we're not
Speaker 1: increasing any criminal punishments for anything. We're going to decrease
Speaker 1: some criminal punishments. The ratchet only goes one way. We're
Speaker 1: not increasing criminal punishments. Sorry, not doing it. Why, Well,
Speaker 1: it's an equity thing. It's a dei equity thing, a
Speaker 1: racial equity thing for most kinds of criminal law, all
Speaker 1: provisions punishments for criminal law. They will look at the
Speaker 1: stats of who gets arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned, and they
Speaker 1: will find that some minority group gets arrested, charged, convicted,
Speaker 1: imprisoned for it at a disproportionate rate, often African Americans,
Speaker 1: but as we'll discuss, sometimes other groups like gay people,
Speaker 1: and because of that disproportionality, they assume that it's because
Speaker 1: of racism that actually it's not. They assume it's pretty
Speaker 1: much a dogma that I don't know, has a ton
Speaker 1: of evidence behind it. They take it up, they take
Speaker 1: it kind of on faith. They dogmatically believe that it
Speaker 1: must be because of racism. So they take this sort
Speaker 1: of default approach of Nope, no increase in criminal justice
Speaker 1: punishments whatsoever. Now, the specifics the specifics of this, it's
Speaker 1: dei in general, but some of the specifics of this
Speaker 1: sixteens and seventeen year old thing goes to the LGBT cause.
Speaker 1: All right, and now we bring in the worst politician
Speaker 1: in America. It's not Kamala Harris. The worst elected official,
Speaker 1: I should say in America. It's not Kamala Harris, it's
Speaker 1: not AOC, it's not anyone the man that I would
Speaker 1: almost I would practically campaign for a Democrat to stop him,
Speaker 1: Like there are rumors that he and Christine Pelosi are
Speaker 1: going to pursue Nancy Pelosi's seat in Congress when she retires.
Speaker 1: I would practically campaign for Christine Pelosi over him. And
Speaker 1: that is California State Senator Scott Wiener. Scott Wiener, openly
Speaker 1: gay man who marches in gay pride parades as a
Speaker 1: sitting California state senator wearing leather bondage gear. Scott Wiener, who,
Speaker 1: in seeing certain provisions of California law that would basically
Speaker 1: punish gay men for child abuse but not heterosexual men,
Speaker 1: proposes to solve the problem by not punishing gay men
Speaker 1: for child abuse and certain or lessening punishments for gay
Speaker 1: men for child abuse. Scott Wiener, who consistently supports some
Speaker 1: of the most depraved things humanly imaginable. Scott Wiener in
Speaker 1: the California State Senate is getting angry at Shannon Groves
Speaker 1: bill for categorizing sixteen and seventeen year olds as basically
Speaker 1: for increasing penalties on people who buy sixteen and seventeen
Speaker 1: year olds for sex. So he's got this tweet or
Speaker 1: this is something you posted on blue Sky, which, for
Speaker 1: those who don't know, Blue Sky is like liberals who
Speaker 1: are so mad at Elon Musk owning Twitter that they
Speaker 1: created a new social media platform that's basically the exact
Speaker 1: same thing as Twitter, only it's just not owned by
Speaker 1: Elon Musk. So it becomes this insane liberal echo chamber,
Speaker 1: as opposed to x Today, which is actually fairly evenly
Speaker 1: split between conservatives and liberals. Blue Sky is just one
Speaker 1: hundred percent of liberals anyway, he posts on his blue
Speaker 1: Sky account sending an eighteen year old high school senior
Speaker 1: to state prison for offering his seventeen year old classmate
Speaker 1: twenty dollars to fool around. Isn't smart criminal justice policy,
Speaker 1: yet that's what some people are effectively advocating in this
Speaker 1: misleading debate. You know what's a little prostitution among friends.
Speaker 1: You know how high schoolers are. The kinds of things
Speaker 1: that Scott Wiener keeps revealing that he doesn't think are
Speaker 1: a big deal are astounding. Here's another clip from the
Speaker 1: Illustrious Senator. This is Scott Wiener discussing Shannon Groves bill
Speaker 1: talking discussing, well, I think this might be a different bill.
Speaker 1: He's discussing the Sex Offender Registry and how it quote
Speaker 1: unfairly targets the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 2: You know that the sex Offender Registry contains a massive
Speaker 2: array of crimes including don't know, having sex in a
Speaker 2: car or in a park that gets you in the
Speaker 2: sex offender Registry. We also know that LGBTQ people have
Speaker 2: been massively and disproportionately targeted and subjected into being slammed
Speaker 2: onto the sex offender Registry. That's the whole history of
Speaker 2: the Sex Offender Registry. So this aspect of the bill
Speaker 2: is incredibly overbroad and discriminatory.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot packed into that. That was only
Speaker 1: a thirty one second clip. There's a lot packed in. First,
Speaker 1: he's trying to make the point that this that the
Speaker 1: kinds of crimes that place someone on the sex offender
Speaker 1: on the sex offender registry is too broad, so he
Speaker 1: tries to give an example of things that he thinks
Speaker 1: aren't really that big of a deal. Having sex in
Speaker 1: a car, well, that would presumably be in some kind
Speaker 1: of public place. Having sex in a park, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Call me crazy when I go to a park. You
Speaker 1: know what I am gonna do. If I see two
Speaker 1: people having intercourse in a public park, I'm gonna call
Speaker 1: the cops. And frankly, I think I'm okay. If people
Speaker 1: having sex in a park, you know, get on a
Speaker 1: sex offender registry. You're in a public place. So what
Speaker 1: the heck are we doing? Like literally they're so it's
Speaker 1: not a great kids seed. But there was this Will
Speaker 1: Ferrell movie called The Other Guys where one of the
Speaker 1: he has this Toyota Prius. It's Will Ferrell and Mark
Speaker 1: Wahlberg who are buddy cops, and it's a really funny
Speaker 1: movie and one of the running jokes is how not
Speaker 1: very manly Will Ferrell's character is and he has a
Speaker 1: red Toyota Prius. That's sort of a running joke throughout
Speaker 1: the series. The prius gets stolen and a bunch of
Speaker 1: homeless guys have group sexual activity in the prius, and
Speaker 1: they say, called a soup kitchen. It's winning a bunch
Speaker 1: of homeless guys. Pa. Anyway, go look up soup kitchen
Speaker 1: the other guys. It's really really fun. Scott Wiener, apparently
Speaker 1: totally fine with a soup kitchen, doesn't think it should
Speaker 1: put you on the sex offended registry. Dirty Mike and
Speaker 1: the boys. That was the guys who were doing that
Speaker 1: in the in the Other Guys movie. Anyway. Now, first
Speaker 1: he's like, those aren't big deals. Oh, what's a little
Speaker 1: you know, what's a little sex in a public park?
Speaker 1: You're gonna say you're a sex offender for that? Hey,
Speaker 1: come on, boys will be boys. Huh. Hopefully we're not
Speaker 1: talking about boys. Good God. Anyway. Uh. He then goes
Speaker 1: on to talk about the whole idea, well that the
Speaker 1: you get slammed onto the sex offender registry, that LGBT
Speaker 1: persons have been slammed onto the sex offender registry, that
Speaker 1: it targets them. Well, all right, nobody gets slammed onto
Speaker 1: the sex offender registry. It's not like people are just
Speaker 1: walking down the street and all of a sudden, bang,
Speaker 1: you're on the sex offender registry. You get on the
Speaker 1: sex offender registry by being convicted of a criminal sex act,
Speaker 1: convicted in a trial as being guilty beyond a reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt by a jury of your peers, or that you
Speaker 1: pled to because clearly they had evidence for a lot more.
Speaker 1: No one's getting slammed. It's not like someone's walking down
Speaker 1: the street. You get on the sex offender registry when
Speaker 1: you're convicted of a sex crime. Do we really like
Speaker 1: this idea? That? And so, of course the dei assumption
Speaker 1: the LGBTQ community, when probably it's just gay men are
Speaker 1: disproportionately convicted of sex crimes. Ergo, the only possible explanation,
Speaker 1: The only possible explanation, says the guy who apparently thinks
Speaker 1: having sex in a park is not a big deal
Speaker 1: and doesn't merit being on a sex offender registry, is
Speaker 1: that police prosecutors all up and down the state of
Speaker 1: California are just a bunch of homophobes. There is, of course,
Speaker 1: another conclusion to draw, namely, and by the way, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it about all gay people. Maybe, though, there's
Speaker 1: another conclusion to draw that if they're being convicted at
Speaker 1: a higher rate still today in the enlightened halcyon Days
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty one, that the California state legislatures still
Speaker 1: living in that maybe they're getting convicted more because they're
Speaker 1: doing it more. I mean, logically speaking, you would have
Speaker 1: to acknowledge that those are the two options. It's either
Speaker 1: homophobia that they're being persecuted, or they're just doing it more.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I guess I just don't necessarily think
Speaker 1: that in the state of California, with California judges and
Speaker 1: California lawyers. By the way, you know, you hang out
Speaker 1: with people in the Fresno County DA's office, it's not
Speaker 1: like all a bunch of right wingers, and Presne County's
Speaker 1: DA office probably much more conservative than a lot of
Speaker 1: other counties. I don't think there are all these prosecutors'
Speaker 1: offices from Seed, from all up and down this Golden
Speaker 1: State that they're all a bunch of raging homophobes. Just
Speaker 1: don't believe it. When we return more on State Senator
Speaker 1: Scott Wiener that's next on the John Jrwardy Show. The
Speaker 1: one person watching this debate in the state legislature between
Speaker 1: Democrats who apparently don't think we should make it a
Speaker 1: felony to purchase sixteen or seventeen year olds for sex
Speaker 1: and Democrats who are apparently okay with it. Clearly, Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom has made it known that no, I am not
Speaker 1: okay with sixteen seventeen year olds being pover sex, and
Speaker 1: I'm not okay with Democrats in the legislature's stone walling it.
Speaker 1: So Newsom has kind of made it clear he wants
Speaker 1: he is tired of the rest of his party's positioning
Speaker 1: on law enforcement. Why because Gavin Newsom is like the
Speaker 1: only Democrat in California who's actually living in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five and actually responding to the signs of the times.
Speaker 1: Why Well, because he's the only Democrat right now in
Speaker 1: California other than Kamala Harris who wants to run for president.
Speaker 1: That's why Newsom has his sights on a national prize ergo.
Speaker 1: He has to be responsive to these massive nationwide trends
Speaker 1: in a way that Scott Wiener doesn't have to. Scott
Speaker 1: Wiener his political ambitions are he wants to run for
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi's seat in the House of Representatives, that's what
Speaker 1: he wants, or he wants to run for some maybe
Speaker 1: California statewide office at some point someday. He doesn't need
Speaker 1: to moderate, he doesn't need to stop living as if
Speaker 1: it's twenty twenty one. He can keep living in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one as long as he wants, because until it's
Speaker 1: politically painful for Democrats, they're going to keep doing it.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing, like the Democrats still, you know,
Speaker 1: why is the governor of Maine still stubbornly insisting the
Speaker 1: biological men play women's sports and fighting the Trump administration
Speaker 1: tooth and nail well, Because she's the governor of Maine,
Speaker 1: and she kind of feels like well, which is surprising
Speaker 1: because Maine is a bit more of a swing state
Speaker 1: than most Northeast Blue Democrats stronghold. They've had Republican governors before,
Speaker 1: like Paul la Page, not Paula Paige, Paul la Page.
Speaker 1: But she's just like, well, I'm not I'm almost certainly
Speaker 1: not going to face a political repercussion. And some of
Speaker 1: these people, they're still true believers. And I think for
Speaker 1: a lot of Liberals in the Northeast, especially liberals in
Speaker 1: d C, they view Trump winning and coming into town,
Speaker 1: coming into d c and upsetting their whole apple card
Speaker 1: is like, how dare they well, he rejects all these
Speaker 1: principles of equity, Like they view it as this illegitimate
Speaker 1: storming of the castle, in part because they don't realize
Speaker 1: that the country has shifted its views, or you know,
Speaker 1: maybe there's this maybe the country didn't really shift its
Speaker 1: views much. I think the country was never on board
Speaker 1: with this trans stuff. Joe Biden got elected in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty more so I think because people were you know,
Speaker 1: Trump had had a lot of stuff piling up, a
Speaker 1: lot of media narrative scandals piling up. The economy wasn't
Speaker 1: doing well, and we were in the midst of COVID
Speaker 1: and so, and they were getting tired of him, and
Speaker 1: so they voted for Joe Biden. Then under Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: they realized the economy stunk and a lot of this
Speaker 1: woke stuff is silly, so they elect Donald Trump again.
Speaker 1: There was never, I think, some great nationwide embrace of
Speaker 1: the zenith of woke nonsense that again reached its peak
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one. But a lot of Democrats are
Speaker 1: still living there all right. When we return the Rorshach
Speaker 1: test of Trump is Trump funny or is he not
Speaker 1: so totally depends on kind of how you feel about
Speaker 1: him politically. That's next on the John Girardi Show. There's
Speaker 1: a news story that's a real Rorshach test. It's among Catholics,
Speaker 1: where a Rorshack test is basically the thing, this thing
Speaker 1: where it's kind of a I guess, a tool for
Speaker 1: psychoanalysis or psychiatry where you present someone with a kind
Speaker 1: of ink blot image of a kind of ambiguous shape,
Speaker 1: and you ask the person what does this look like?
Speaker 1: And different people, allegedly with different kinds of issues look
Speaker 1: at it, and we'll see different kinds of things. And
Speaker 1: I guess the idea is that this can be revelatory
Speaker 1: about certain aspects of their mental state. So being presented
Speaker 1: with the same image, you get multiple outcomes, multiple responses
Speaker 1: for what this means. There's been a news story among
Speaker 1: US Catholics that I shouldn't say news story, stupid Twitter
Speaker 1: controversy among US Catholics that I think is very revelatory
Speaker 1: though about the broader viewpoints of the American public with
Speaker 1: regard to Trump, and that is this silly AI image
Speaker 1: that somebody produced and that Trump retweeted or posted on
Speaker 1: truth Social and then it made its way to the Internet.
Speaker 1: A silly AI image someone made of Donald Trump as
Speaker 1: the Pope. It's wearing the white pope outfit. He's got
Speaker 1: like a bishop's hat on. Donald Trump as the Pope.
Speaker 1: Someone made a silly AI image of Donald Trump as
Speaker 1: the Pope. The Pope Francis passed away. The cardinals, starting
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, are gonna begin the process to elect a
Speaker 1: new pope. And oh, Donald Trump as the Pope. All right,
Speaker 1: it's a real rorshack test. A bunch of liberals and
Speaker 1: liberal leaning Catholics, Catholics and non Catholics have looked at
Speaker 1: this with deadly seriousness, including embarrassingly the National Catholic reporter
Speaker 1: that did this whole thing. It's not even theoretically possible
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump to be pope, which is like, we
Speaker 1: all know he's not a Catholic. Oh no, it's because
Speaker 1: he's not in his right mentals. He's he's clearly insane
Speaker 1: and therefore, like like this whole like almost serious article
Speaker 1: about how Donald Trump wouldn't be eligible to be pope
Speaker 1: because he's not compost mentis or something. It's like, all right,
Speaker 1: first of all, kind of a bold claim to say
Speaker 1: Trump is senile after what we had the prior four years.
Speaker 1: You say what you want about Trump, I I he's
Speaker 1: compost mentis like, he's clearly directing things. He's clearly pretty
Speaker 1: sharp for a seventy eight year old guy, like, you know,
Speaker 1: for all his flaws whatever. Anyway, and all these left
Speaker 1: wingers are taking this super seriously.
Speaker 3: And they're like, this is a grave act of disrespect
Speaker 3: to the Pope for Donald Trump to post this while
Speaker 3: Catholics worldwide are mourning the passing of Pope Francis.
Speaker 1: This is a mockery of the Catholic religion. Whereas I
Speaker 1: looked at it and I'm I mean, I don't I
Speaker 1: didn't think it was the funniest thing in the world.
Speaker 1: I mildly chuckled only because of and I think Trump
Speaker 1: plays into this. Trump knows he's a self aggrandizing kind
Speaker 1: of guy, like like, you know, there aren't very many
Speaker 1: people in the world who literally put their own name
Speaker 1: in gold letters on the front of massive skyscrapers, Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's his stick is. He plays into this grandiose idea
Speaker 1: that he's he's Donald Trump, He's the coolest, you know,
Speaker 1: blah blah, blah blah blah. So I I mean I
Speaker 1: thought it was mildly funny. I mean it's again. The
Speaker 1: problem is that anyone can generate these AI images now
Speaker 1: anytime they want. People made jokey images of a gorilla
Speaker 1: being elected pope. You know, people have made jokey images
Speaker 1: of all kinds of People are making all these jokes
Speaker 1: lately about Marco Rubio. So Mike Walls, the National Security Advisor,
Speaker 1: got demoted basically to be the UN representative, the UN
Speaker 1: ambassador for the United States, and the role of the
Speaker 1: role of National Security Advisor got given to Marco Rubio,
Speaker 1: even though he's Secretary of State. So people have joked
Speaker 1: that Marco Rubio is now currently the Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: the National Security Advisor, the Archivist of the United States,
Speaker 1: and the administrator for USAID, like he's personally overseeing administration
Speaker 1: for USAID. So people are joking that Marco Rubio, now
Speaker 1: all of a sudden he has all of these roles
Speaker 1: within the president's administration. Oh well, why don't we make
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio the pope too? You know, hey, he's a
Speaker 1: Catholic male. Jd Vance made that joke. I kind of
Speaker 1: viewed the Trump AI pope images sort of along those lines.
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's not like the idea that it's, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a grave offense against the Catholic Church. Calm down.
Speaker 1: First of all, Pope Francis died like two weeks ago.
Speaker 1: And you know, look, I recognize that news cycles change,
Speaker 1: and that the duration of what an appropriate news cycle
Speaker 1: or period of mourning for a pope should be that
Speaker 1: has changed a lot over the ages. Maybe you know,
Speaker 1: in Italy one hundred years ago, everyone would still be
Speaker 1: going around dressed in black when the pope had passed
Speaker 1: away two weeks prior. Okay, well that's not Donald Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't have to do that. Donald Trump went to the Vatican,
Speaker 1: He went to the pope's funeral. He ordered all American
Speaker 1: flags to be at half staff for the pope's funeral.
Speaker 1: He and Vice President Vance said very complimentary things about
Speaker 1: Pope Francis. You know, I think they were perfectly respectful.
Speaker 1: And he's not talking about Pope Francis as dead. He's
Speaker 1: talking about, hey, well the Catholic Church needs a new pope.
Speaker 1: Like it's a prospective thing. So I did not at
Speaker 1: all take it as like, oh, this is you know,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump trying to, you know, throw dirt on Pope
Speaker 1: Francis's grave. No, it's a joke. It's a silly jokes.
Speaker 1: Is it the funniest joke in the world? Now, isn't
Speaker 1: it the funniest joke in the world? Is it a little? Like?
Speaker 1: I thought it was a little boomery, like baby boomery,
Speaker 1: sort of cringey a little bit, but whatever, I mean.
Speaker 1: I saw it and I was like, yeah, okay, well
Speaker 1: Donald Trump posted a picture of himself as Pope whatever.
Speaker 1: I moved on immediately. But there are all these left
Speaker 1: leaning Catholics who are like, this is this is outrageous.
Speaker 1: This is that we are still mourning Pope Francis and
Speaker 1: he is whoa And I think all it is. More
Speaker 1: broadly speaking, people on the left have a refusal to
Speaker 1: it at this stubborn refusal to admit that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is actually pretty funny. He is intentionally funny, sometimes he
Speaker 1: is more often than not unintentionally funny. I just think
Speaker 1: he is hilarious the way that he reacts to things.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't that is different from my views on
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and policy. I have certain things where I
Speaker 1: substantively real disagreements with Donald Trump. I think his promotion
Speaker 1: of IVF is a terrible idea, and now how that
Speaker 1: will actually express itself in actual policies he promotes remains
Speaker 1: to be seen. But I mean, I was very consistently
Speaker 1: critical of President Trump during the campaign for his sort
Speaker 1: of turn, his moderating turn on the abortion issue and
Speaker 1: moderating turn on IVF. I have plenty, and these are
Speaker 1: coming from my Catholic priors. By the way, I'm not
Speaker 1: some unqualified Trump cheerleader. I think if Trump's wrong, I'll
Speaker 1: say that he's wrong. So it's not like I'm this
Speaker 1: obsessive Trump fanboy where I think I firmly believe that
Speaker 1: every single thing President Trump has ever said and ever
Speaker 1: done is one hundred percent right and wonderful and the
Speaker 1: greatest thing ever. You know, I don't know that his
Speaker 1: tariff sort of or the way he's applying tariffs, or
Speaker 1: the rates at which he's applying tariffs and against whom
Speaker 1: he's applying tariffs, I don't know that that's been entirely successful.
Speaker 1: I'm a little lear to talk about that stuff too much.
Speaker 1: Just I don't feel like I'm I've got a firm
Speaker 1: enough hold on economics all that to say, though I
Speaker 1: can disagree with Donald Trump while still acknowledging he's pretty funny. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I still use I use Donald Trump
Speaker 1: memes as jokes with my friends all the time. Wow,
Speaker 1: you're telling me that for the first time. He has
Speaker 1: so many little things he has said and done that
Speaker 1: I just think are funny that have entered the lexicon,
Speaker 1: saying things like how many such cases like that? There
Speaker 1: are all these little phrases, you know, there are all
Speaker 1: these little phrases that have entered the lexicon fake news
Speaker 1: because he said them. Objectively speaking, he's very funny, i'd say,
Speaker 1: and people on the left just have this really stubborn
Speaker 1: refusal to acknowledge that, and they just wind up interpreting
Speaker 1: everything he says as like this shocking thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: even the stuff about Canada and Greenland. I've mostly thought
Speaker 1: all that stuff was hilarious and all these people are
Speaker 1: super serid. Well, if he's gonna militarily invade Greenland, it
Speaker 1: would be an unauthorized active He's not gonna militarily invade Greenland.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about. No one's invade No one's
Speaker 1: invading Greenland. Sound like Tony soprano, Hey, Tony Soprano. There
Speaker 1: was one scene where Tony sopranos someone suggested that another
Speaker 1: character in the show, a mob boss who was revealed
Speaker 1: to be a homosexual. Someone suggested he had AIDS, and
Speaker 1: Tony Soprano said, nobody's got AIDS. Nobody's invading Greenland. And
Speaker 1: then but then sometimes here's the thing with Trump, like
Speaker 1: the Greenland thing. When you go one surface level deeper,
Speaker 1: it would be massively beneficial to the United States if
Speaker 1: we owned Greenland, like enormous national resources, would be a
Speaker 1: huge boon national security wise, to the United States of America,
Speaker 1: if not to own Greenland, but to have some kind
Speaker 1: of relationship with whatever, and it's you know, it's in
Speaker 1: our hemisphere like anyway. But the idea that we are
Speaker 1: going to militarily invade Greenland and march the Danish citizen
Speaker 1: residents of Greenland on a you know, by the way,
Speaker 1: the entire island of Greenland has a population less than Clovis,
Speaker 1: So it's about like half of Clovis. It's like less
Speaker 1: than Maderra practically, you know, it's like fifty thousand people
Speaker 1: who live in Greenland. I think, don't hold me to
Speaker 1: that I'll look it up during the break anyway. Again,
Speaker 1: I think so much of our politics is being governed
Speaker 1: by just what is your attitude towards Trump. If you
Speaker 1: just decided you just hate him and all of his
Speaker 1: works and all his pomps and all of his empty promises,
Speaker 1: then the way you react to him is just going
Speaker 1: to be a certain way. If you either like Trump
Speaker 1: or feel like you can actually be sort of objective
Speaker 1: about it, you react a different sort of way. And so,
Speaker 1: I mean, I am just inclined to think he is funny,
Speaker 1: and again, in spite of the fact that there are
Speaker 1: many things that I just don't agree with, but I
Speaker 1: think I'm at least able to acknowledge that he's funny
Speaker 1: when we return. Why are Catholics getting upset about that?
Speaker 1: When you know one state just passed a law to
Speaker 1: abolish the Seal of Confession that's next on the John
Speaker 1: Girardi Show. All these left leaning Catholics, they're all upset
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump posting a picture of himself as the Pope. Hey,
Speaker 1: the Catholic Church needs the new pope? How about Trump?
Speaker 1: They're all angry and upset about that, and it's I
Speaker 1: think they're being ridiculous. It's a joke. Is it the
Speaker 1: worst joke in the world, even if you think it
Speaker 1: was inappropriate, which I don't know that it was that inappropriate.
Speaker 1: It's like the idea that people are getting their knickers
Speaker 1: in a not over. It is ridiculous to me, especially
Speaker 1: for Catholics to get upset about it when literally right now,
Speaker 1: the state of Washington just passed a bill that would
Speaker 1: require priests to violate the Seal of Confession, basically to
Speaker 1: tell something that they hear during the Catholic Sacrament of Confession, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, the Orthodox have the Sacrament of Confession,
Speaker 1: certain kinds of Anglicans and Episcopalians have the Sacrament of Confession,
Speaker 1: and religious groups of all kinds enjoy under most states
Speaker 1: most forms of American law, a clergy penitent confidentiality privilege
Speaker 1: that you can't force a pastor who, in a one
Speaker 1: on one setting with someone is counseling them or whatever,
Speaker 1: and that person reveals to them some kind of crime
Speaker 1: they made. You cannot compel a pastor in that of
Speaker 1: any faith, not just a Catholic priest, to testify about
Speaker 1: whatever that criminal activity was. The State of Washington altered
Speaker 1: basically its mandatory reporter laws to say that if priests
Speaker 1: hears something like that, they have to report it, which
Speaker 1: would violate the Catholic confessional seal. You notice that they're
Speaker 1: not making lawyers break attorney client confidentiality. This is just
Speaker 1: targeted at Catholicism, targeted at religion. This is a violation
Speaker 1: of the First Amendment. I believe it has consistently been
Speaker 1: true in America that religious groups have this confessional function
Speaker 1: to it. To violate that violates our free exercise. This
Speaker 1: should be fought. That'll do it. John Girardi Show, See
Speaker 1: you next time on Power Talk