Speaker 1: I was laughing last week that I was imagining this
Speaker 1: dream scenario, this imaginary scenario where the two people maybe
Speaker 1: who were secretly happiest about Kamala Harris losing, were Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom and Joe Biden. And I liked to imagine the
Speaker 1: idea that maybe Gavin came to visit Washington and was
Speaker 1: hanging out with Biden, sitting on a couch in the
Speaker 1: Oval office with the TV on, and that they were
Speaker 1: both you know, popping bottles of champagne after Fox News
Speaker 1: called Wisconsin for Trump. And I joke about this because
Speaker 1: the path is more or less clear for Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: to run for president. If Kamala had won, then he
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been able to run presumably until at least
Speaker 1: he's twenty thirty two. God knows what Newsom would have
Speaker 1: done with his time for the for the rest of
Speaker 1: that you know, timeframe. God knows he's not very interested
Speaker 1: even in being our governor right now and now though
Speaker 1: the path is clear now actually not only is the
Speaker 1: path clear, but if you think about it, I mean,
Speaker 1: Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate, they don't
Speaker 1: have a majority in the House. Who is the most
Speaker 1: prominent Democrat in the country. I mean, it's not a
Speaker 1: crazy thing to think that the governor of California is
Speaker 1: the most prominent elected official, is the most prominent elected
Speaker 1: official if you don't have, you know, someone as Leader
Speaker 1: of the Senate or Leader of the House, Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House, anything like that. I mean, Newsom is by
Speaker 1: default now with Biden Harris gonna go away on January twentieth,
Speaker 1: I think Newsom is kind of, in some ways almost
Speaker 1: the default de facto leader of the Democrat Party, and
Speaker 1: he's clearly trying to position himself that way. Here he
Speaker 1: is he's calling for a special session of the California
Speaker 1: State Legislature to come up with ways to combat Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It's amazing how the principle of federalism gets discovered when
Speaker 1: Trump gets elected president. Now, what are Gavin Newsom's prospects
Speaker 1: for the next four years? What is Newsom going to
Speaker 1: be looking at? What's Newsom going to be doing. Newsom
Speaker 1: has some clear advantages if he wants to run for
Speaker 1: president in twenty twenty eight. The timing all makes sense
Speaker 1: for him. It all works out. He will conclude eight
Speaker 1: years as governor of California in January of twenty twenty seven,
Speaker 1: perfect timeline for him to start revving his engines for
Speaker 1: the Newsom twenty twenty eight campaign. So he's got two
Speaker 1: more years as governor of California. Maybe he thinks he
Speaker 1: can put a couple more Trump pelts on the wall.
Speaker 1: Maybe he thinks he and the state legislation can do
Speaker 1: a couple of things to block Trump legislative or regulatory moves. Clearly,
Speaker 1: he is full bore into resistance mode. One of the
Speaker 1: things that California did pretty consistently when Trump was first elected,
Speaker 1: and that was the first two years of that were
Speaker 1: under Jerry Brown and then the second two years were
Speaker 1: under Gavin Newsom was then Governors Brown or Newsom and
Speaker 1: Attorney General Javier Basera were consistently constantly challenging Trump regulatory
Speaker 1: moves in court. So basically what would happen, Well, Trump
Speaker 1: would issue some immigration regulatory policy or this regulatory policy,
Speaker 1: that regulatory policy that impacts the whole country, and Newsome
Speaker 1: or really Javiersiah, the attorney general, would sue, and usually
Speaker 1: he would sue in the Northern District of California. So
Speaker 1: the federal court system is broken up into regions each,
Speaker 1: so the district courts are all broken up into regions,
Speaker 1: So California has a bunch of different regions. A small
Speaker 1: state might just be one whole region. So you know,
Speaker 1: take Wyoming, for example, might be the Federal District Court
Speaker 1: of Wyoming and it's just all of Wyoming. All the
Speaker 1: federal cases are heard sort of by one court, one
Speaker 1: sort of division, one sort of unit of a federal court.
Speaker 1: The Northern District of California is full of Federal District
Speaker 1: Court judges who were appointed by Democrats. It is the
Speaker 1: most consistently left one of the most consistently left wing
Speaker 1: courts in the country. And so Jabier Bassera would bring
Speaker 1: lawsuits against the Trump administration in front of these ultra
Speaker 1: left wing judges and get a favorable ruling. And what
Speaker 1: they would try to do is get a nationwide injunction
Speaker 1: against any Trump policy they were fighting against. Get one
Speaker 1: of these Federal District Court judges in the Northern District
Speaker 1: of California to issue a nationwide injunction to stop nationwide
Speaker 1: some Trump policy with which they disagreed. Republicans were trying
Speaker 1: to do similar kinds of law fair things against the
Speaker 1: Biden administration bringing lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas,
Speaker 1: which is maybe the most conservative court in the country.
Speaker 1: I think it only has one judge and he's a
Speaker 1: super right wing Trump appointee. So Newsom is signaled I'm
Speaker 1: going to do that again. I'm going to be leading
Speaker 1: the Democrat resistance. He's doing the special session of the legislature.
Speaker 1: It seems like the idea of the special session of
Speaker 1: the legislature is to give more money to Rob Bonta,
Speaker 1: the attorney General. Empower Rob Bonta so that he can
Speaker 1: file more and more and more lawsuits against an incoming
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Now I read this column that I really
Speaker 1: want to recommend to you all. I've got to retweet
Speaker 1: it from my Twitter account Twitter dot com slash Fresno
Speaker 1: Johnny at Fresno Johnny. And it's written by this guy,
Speaker 1: David Mastio, whom I hadn't heard of before. I guess
Speaker 1: he's really just a newspaper guy. He worked for the
Speaker 1: Washington Times, and he's the founding editorial page editor for
Speaker 1: the Washington Examiner. And he he has a really insightful,
Speaker 1: great column about Newsom. And every so often someone writes
Speaker 1: a column giving the overview on Newsom that just it's
Speaker 1: always so devastating, just how terrible things are in California.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to try to read through this without
Speaker 1: repeating things too much that you already know. But let's go.
Speaker 1: Let me go through this. Presido B published this to
Speaker 1: their credit. I think I think this was probably in
Speaker 1: the Sunday edition. He writes, Newsom in the Golden State,
Speaker 1: standing athwart the Trump train tracks yelling stop is about
Speaker 1: the best news Republicans could get. California is everything that
Speaker 1: the nation just voted against in a convenient package. To
Speaker 1: put things in perspective, Democrats completely dominate the state, from
Speaker 1: the governor's mansion and the Attorney General's office to supermajorities
Speaker 1: in the state legislature that run roughshot over the paltry
Speaker 1: number of Republicans who fight back, and local governments where
Speaker 1: Trump loyalists are nearly non existent. The state is progressivism
Speaker 1: in its purest form. Take the top three issues in
Speaker 1: the election to start Inflation, immigration, and crime. So he
Speaker 1: goes through each of these issues one by one. Inflation,
Speaker 1: California has the nation's most expensive housing because state and
Speaker 1: local laws make it increasingly impossible to meet growing demand.
Speaker 1: He gave this stat that blew my mind. The Dallas
Speaker 1: area of Texas, which I assume means Dallas for Worth Arlington,
Speaker 1: the Dallas area of Texas builds more housing annually than
Speaker 1: the entire state of California. Let me repeat that the
Speaker 1: Dallas area of Texas builds more housing annually than the
Speaker 1: entire state of California. Building is so difficult that this
Speaker 1: year the state legislature had to exempt itself from its
Speaker 1: own environmental laws to build new offices. That's been going
Speaker 1: on for a while. So at the state Capitol and Sacramento,
Speaker 1: they have this very expensive project to renovate the State
Speaker 1: Capitol building. Basically, you have the old historic State Capitol
Speaker 1: building and then they had attached to it all of
Speaker 1: the Assembly members, state senators' offices, and it was all
Speaker 1: attached to the old historic building. And it's that attached
Speaker 1: part that they're redoing, and it's costing a gazillion dollars
Speaker 1: and they have to pass laws to exempt themselves from
Speaker 1: normal environmental laws. Probably sequi I'm imagining the California Environmental
Speaker 1: Quality Act. Basic. He keeps going. Basic housing for the
Speaker 1: homeless costs several times as much as an average home
Speaker 1: in the rest of the country. See this is an
Speaker 1: This is why the only kinds of housing that builders
Speaker 1: can actually really afford to build is either high end
Speaker 1: housing housing that's going to be like high end apartments,
Speaker 1: high end condos, or quote lower income housing units because
Speaker 1: if you build the quote lower income housing units registered trademark,
Speaker 1: the state gives you a subsidy to do it. But
Speaker 1: those are the only two things that builders can afford
Speaker 1: to build. Pretty much. There's very little middle class home
Speaker 1: new home building because you can't make enough off of it.
Speaker 1: You can make if it's high end apartments where you're
Speaker 1: getting high end rent or people pay top dollar for it,
Speaker 1: or if it's something where the state of California is
Speaker 1: going to subsidize you, then you can make some money.
Speaker 1: Other than that, there's no way you can make money.
Speaker 1: They continue continuing just with the theme of inflation. California
Speaker 1: is a top ten oil producer among US states, but
Speaker 1: has the nation's most expensive gasoline. And by the way,
Speaker 1: this is a new recent story about the California Air
Speaker 1: Resources Board, a state regulator. The Air Resources Board is
Speaker 1: about to impose new climate change rules that will boost
Speaker 1: the cost of gas another fifty cents a gallon. By
Speaker 1: its own low estimate, this will cost consumers one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty billion dollars. A previous round of environmental rules
Speaker 1: passed by the legislature led one of the state's few
Speaker 1: oil refineries to announce it is shutting down. Perhaps that's
Speaker 1: because it would cost the company a fortune to comply.
Speaker 1: Less gas means higher prices. Two other refineries are considering
Speaker 1: their options. It's unbelievable how expensive gas is going to
Speaker 1: get going to get on top of how expensive it
Speaker 1: already is between these new regulations that are going to
Speaker 1: make gas fifty cents a gallon more expensive. Plus if
Speaker 1: more of these oil refineries go away, as Chevron flat
Speaker 1: out threatened that, like, if you keep passing these insane regulations,
Speaker 1: we will not keep investing here. It costs US hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars to invest keep our refineries here.
Speaker 1: And again that's because California is a gas island. We
Speaker 1: have our own specific blend of California compliant gasoline that's
Speaker 1: different from gasoline you can sell in Arizona and Nevada
Speaker 1: and Wyoming and Oklahoma and Texas and Michigan or wherever,
Speaker 1: so gas companies have to set up a separate refinery system,
Speaker 1: sort of sort of production chain just for California compliant
Speaker 1: refined gas. That's why our gas is more expensive. It's
Speaker 1: that in taxas. It's it's not a it's not some
Speaker 1: secret why gas is more expensive here. Everyone understands why.
Speaker 1: It's environmental regulation that creates this gas island that we
Speaker 1: have in California. In spite of the fact that we
Speaker 1: got tons of oil, we could produce gas like the idea,
Speaker 1: it's this would be like if Saudi Arabia were charging people,
Speaker 1: you know, eight dollars a gallon for gas or whatever.
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia doesn't do that. Gas is cheap in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: They pump they got it right there, pump it out,
Speaker 1: refine it and there you go. But no, we would
Speaker 1: rather import gas from Saudi Arabia to California than actually
Speaker 1: produce it here ourselves, because we hate because we hate
Speaker 1: ourselves and we think that we're helping the environment. There's
Speaker 1: more stuff in here. You know, I'm gonna save the
Speaker 1: rest of this piece, but again, this is fantastic piece.
Speaker 1: You can read it int my Twitter account Twitter dot
Speaker 1: com slash President Johnny uh California special session of the
Speaker 1: Legislature to fight Trump is a gift to Republicans by
Speaker 1: David Mastio's published in The President b this weekend. We're
Speaker 1: going to keep going through it. That's next on the
Speaker 1: John Girardi Show. A great column that the President will
Speaker 1: be published a couple of days ago, great op ed
Speaker 1: piece written by David Mastio's editorial writer for The Washington
Speaker 1: Examiner and a number of other conservative outlets talking about
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom trying to set up California as Trump's chief
Speaker 1: foil over the next four years. Newsom calls this special
Speaker 1: session of the legislature. He's giving more money to Rob Bonto.
Speaker 1: He's loading up again for California to be the legal
Speaker 1: resistance movement to the federal government, to the Trump administration. Basically,
Speaker 1: if Trump says black, Newsom will say white. If Trump
Speaker 1: says up, Newsom will say down. They will use the
Speaker 1: Attorney General's office to fight every Trump regulatory posle, every
Speaker 1: Trump law, whatever they can tooth and nail. And David
Speaker 1: Masio is pointing out, what a gift to Republicans because
Speaker 1: they'll get to see that all this opposition is coming
Speaker 1: from this state. That is absolutely everything the country voted against.
Speaker 1: So he went through inflation, housing costs, gas prices. Now
Speaker 1: let's go to immigration. While the Biden Harris administration was
Speaker 1: desperately trying to end a wave of millions of undocumented
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants at the southern border, California's legislature was adding
Speaker 1: new incentives for them to come. Since it's so hard
Speaker 1: for poor undocumented immigrants to buy houses at the inflated
Speaker 1: prices of the Golden State, this year, the legislature made
Speaker 1: them eligible for six figures worth of taxpayer finance downpayment
Speaker 1: assistance that might never have to be paid back. A
Speaker 1: new law allowed state universities to use public funds to
Speaker 1: hire undocumented immigrants students for jobs at the schools, in
Speaker 1: violation of federal law. Delightful crime. The state's crime problem
Speaker 1: is so bad after passing laws that turned some felonies
Speaker 1: into rarely prosecuted misdemeanors and opening the doors to state
Speaker 1: prisons that Newsom had to call out the National Guard
Speaker 1: to fight drug crime and assist with local prosecutions in
Speaker 1: multiple cities in one of the nation's most liberal states.
Speaker 1: An initiative to tough in laws back up specifically for
Speaker 1: drug crimes and theft pass with over seventy percent of
Speaker 1: the votes. So that was Prop thirty six. So again,
Speaker 1: why does Newsom think that California is a great winning
Speaker 1: representative of who should be fighting against Gavin Newsom? Maybe
Speaker 1: let Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania lead this chart.
Speaker 1: Oh no, we don't want to do that. We don't
Speaker 1: want Josh Shapiro to run for president in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: We want Gavin Newsom to run for President's That's maybe
Speaker 1: what's happening here at Newsom wants see, that's what's going
Speaker 1: on here. Newsom is in such a bubble in California,
Speaker 1: and I think this this is true. I think Harris
Speaker 1: suffered from this bubble too. All Right, So how do
Speaker 1: you get elected to state white office in California. The
Speaker 1: way you get elected to state white office in California
Speaker 1: is if you have money. You get the money from
Speaker 1: the big time San Francisco Democrat donors. They anoint you,
Speaker 1: they decide they like you, sort of the Willie Brown
Speaker 1: magic circle. They decide that you're their horse that they're
Speaker 1: going to back. And with that money, you're able to
Speaker 1: fund big time ad buys in the Los Angeles market.
Speaker 1: That's how you win. That gets you the name recognition,
Speaker 1: that gets you in front of the voters in the primary,
Speaker 1: you beat out whatever other Democrat you hope that you
Speaker 1: fight against a Republican in the general election, because then
Speaker 1: it's going to be just a cake walk. And I
Speaker 1: think as a result, statewide California politicians aren't very tough.
Speaker 1: They don't get exposed, or their personal faults and weaknesses
Speaker 1: and failures don't really get exposed. Gavin Newsom's only ever
Speaker 1: had to run in San Francisco, ultra left wing place
Speaker 1: where he had all the advantages of again Willie Brown
Speaker 1: and friends money and backing. He ran for lieutenant governor again,
Speaker 1: a statewide thing where he and that's the thing with
Speaker 1: with governor's races or senator's races in California. You don't
Speaker 1: win on the strength of a debate. All right, Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff and Steve Garvey had a debate. They might as
Speaker 1: well have had it on the moon or something, for
Speaker 1: all it was worth. Nobody cares what you know, No,
Speaker 1: nobody really cares about the outcome of that debate. Steve
Speaker 1: Garvey wasn't going to be in front of the voters.
Speaker 1: I mean, Brian Dolly, God bless him. When he ran
Speaker 1: against Gavin Newsom, nobody knew who the guy was. And
Speaker 1: as a result, I think these California statewide politicians get
Speaker 1: in this little bubble where no one challenges them. They
Speaker 1: never have to actually fight for what they believe. They
Speaker 1: never take a punch to the mouth. And then when
Speaker 1: they get on a national stage where they have to
Speaker 1: sort of reveal themselves a little bit, and their faults
Speaker 1: and peccadillos could be shown to the world, everyone realizes
Speaker 1: what a putts they are if they are in fact
Speaker 1: the putts. We all saw it with Kamala Harris in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen when she was in the Democrat primary debates
Speaker 1: and Rose Tulci Gabbard absolutely skewered her and roasted her,
Speaker 1: and she look Harris was very well set up to
Speaker 1: win that twenty twenty primary process for the Democrats. She
Speaker 1: had all the money behind her, she had all this enthusiasm.
Speaker 1: Everyone was like, oh, she's the next Obama. And she
Speaker 1: did so badly in the primary, so badly in the debates,
Speaker 1: especially that her money dried up and everyone was like, nope,
Speaker 1: she dropped out of the race before they even got
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty. Then again, though she gets picked by
Speaker 1: the donors because she's their favorite child, she was their
Speaker 1: favorite black woman left after Biden sort of boxed himself
Speaker 1: in with that stupid pledge, and then in the presidential race,
Speaker 1: she continues to reveal herself to not be a very
Speaker 1: adroit politician. I think Gavin Newsom is similar. I think
Speaker 1: Gavin Newso thinks he's this brilliant politician. I think Gavin
Speaker 1: Newso thinks he's like really popular. I think Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: thinks that he's really well set up for running in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight and getting this national wave of support
Speaker 1: against JD Vance. Jady Vans, by the way, the only
Speaker 1: one of the four people from the two tickets trump Vance,
Speaker 1: Harris Walls, the only one of the four of them
Speaker 1: who now has a above water favorability rating after the election.
Speaker 1: By the way, I think Newso thinks he's like so beloved,
Speaker 1: and what he doesn't realize is no, you're not well beloved.
Speaker 1: You live in a media bubble in California where ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent of California media doesn't ever criticize you. You're
Speaker 1: in a state where politically you have no opposition. Really,
Speaker 1: there's no one to argue with, there's no one to debate.
Speaker 1: You knew some wishes he had a Republican fight against.
Speaker 1: He had to fly all the way to Flipping Florida
Speaker 1: to go debate Ronda Santis, to define Ronda Santis, to
Speaker 1: debate him. He's got nobody, He's had no actual reps,
Speaker 1: if you will, getting ready for a national state. And
Speaker 1: I think he thinks he's like hot, you know what.
Speaker 1: And yet he just had seventy percent of the voters
Speaker 1: demolish his favored positions when it came to criminal law enforcement,
Speaker 1: seventy percent of the voters. Clearly the state is sort
Speaker 1: of fed up with what he has wrought for the
Speaker 1: last six years his own state. And by the I
Speaker 1: think the Tim Walls experience shows you you probably shouldn't
Speaker 1: nominate someone for president whose home state is pretty anemic
Speaker 1: about him. It's not like Minnesotan's were like ready to
Speaker 1: crawl over broken glass to vote for their beloved governor
Speaker 1: Tim Walls. Look, I know Ron de Santis didn't win,
Speaker 1: but people in Florida love Ron de Santis just as
Speaker 1: they love Donald Trump, they love Ron de Santis. I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody in California feels that way about Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 1: I don't think Democrats feel that way about him at all.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna be very curious to see I'm gonna
Speaker 1: watch Gavin Newsom the next four years with great curiosity
Speaker 1: because he's clearly lining things up to run. He's gonna
Speaker 1: have all that Pelo c, Willie Brown, Kamala Harris money
Speaker 1: coming to him. I'm really interested to see his balloon
Speaker 1: get popped in the next couple of years when we return.
Speaker 1: Now comes the difficult business of governing. Some ideas and
Speaker 1: thoughts for the next Trump to next on the John
Speaker 1: Girardi Show. Trump has won. Now comes the difficult business
Speaker 1: of governing. It seems as though Trump is keeping a
Speaker 1: tighter lid, a tighter control, with more sort of hymn
Speaker 1: loyalists picking people for the next Trump administration. There's also
Speaker 1: a lot of there's a lot of infighting right now
Speaker 1: between the Trump camp and some of the old hardliners
Speaker 1: for sort of traditional governance in the Senate about the
Speaker 1: idea of recess appointments. So basically the problem one of
Speaker 1: the problems that plague the Trump administration in twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: was that it took years for the Senate to confirm
Speaker 1: all of these appointees that Trump nominated for the federal government,
Speaker 1: and basically Trump wasn't able to get his administration staffed
Speaker 1: in a very timely way. There were people who waited
Speaker 1: around two years before they could actually get appointed to
Speaker 1: their Trump jobs. And one of the things that Trump
Speaker 1: people want to do is they want to have the
Speaker 1: Senate be supportive of recess appointments, so the idea of
Speaker 1: a recess appointment. Obama did this. Obama did this occasionally,
Speaker 1: but basically, in the United States, a recess appointment is
Speaker 1: an appointment. Reading it off Wikipedia for the simple description,
Speaker 1: is an appointment by the president of a federal office
Speaker 1: when the US Senate is in recess, so the president
Speaker 1: is empowered to nominate. Usually, the President has to nominate
Speaker 1: and the Senate has to give their advice and consent, basically,
Speaker 1: vote for an appointee to some of the top people
Speaker 1: at various executive agency Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 1: and then several people lower on the totem poll to
Speaker 1: like the assistant secretary deputy secretary whatever. So a recess
Speaker 1: appointment is an alternative method of appointing officials that allows
Speaker 1: the temporary filling of offices during periods when the Senate
Speaker 1: is not in session. And there's already sort of a
Speaker 1: fight between Trump and the Senators of like Trump saying, well,
Speaker 1: will the Senate support recess appointments to allow me to
Speaker 1: get my people confirmed more quickly? I think it's kind
Speaker 1: of silly. And there's some older like people who are
Speaker 1: like trying to be protective of the Senate and think
Speaker 1: that this is a constitutional problem, or like, no, the
Speaker 1: Senate shouldn't recognize any recis appointment. They should be fighting
Speaker 1: against this idea of resais appointment. Trump should just nominate
Speaker 1: as people let the Senate confirm them. I think the
Speaker 1: whole argument's kind of silly. Frankly, because the Senate has
Speaker 1: fifty three Republicans, Trump should be able to get his
Speaker 1: people confirm much more quickly than in twenty seventeen and
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen there were only fifty one Republicans in the Senate,
Speaker 1: and two of them were Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
Speaker 1: So with fifty three senators and only really two of
Speaker 1: them are you know, only really two of them are
Speaker 1: pretty big libs, Murkowski and Collins. You should be able
Speaker 1: to get people confirmed pretty easily. So I'm hopeful that
Speaker 1: Trump camp can just get everyone confirmed. But that's a
Speaker 1: really important thing. Trump should get his people in quickly.
Speaker 1: That needs to happen. There were also Now let's think
Speaker 1: through other sorts of things that the Trump folks should do,
Speaker 1: could do, should do. It's still going to be hard
Speaker 1: to pass kind of comprehensive immigration legislation. I wonder if Trump,
Speaker 1: given the mandate he has, and given that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrat senators who you know, are looking
Speaker 1: towards their reelection someday. I'm thinking of, you know, Democrat
Speaker 1: senators who are in Republican states states that Trump just won.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of the two senators from Georgia and a
Speaker 1: number of others. Can Trump actually get some kind of
Speaker 1: legislative solution to the problems that plague our immigration system?
Speaker 1: Because I think one of the problems we see is
Speaker 1: this ping pong effect. A Republican's in office and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden we have more strict rules governing regulation
Speaker 1: how we regulate immigration. A Democrat gets into office and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, all the rules change. We like
Speaker 1: invite a basically, our rules are such that we're inviting
Speaker 1: these people in, and then Trump comes along and says, no,
Speaker 1: that was wrong. We need to deport all these people.
Speaker 1: And I think the thing that makes me upset is
Speaker 1: the human beings in the middle of all this. I
Speaker 1: understand that some conservatives have ill feelings towards people illegally
Speaker 1: immigrating into the United States, but you have to admit
Speaker 1: they have been getting some pretty mixed signals over the
Speaker 1: course of the last ten years, from a fairly porous
Speaker 1: border under the Obama folks, to the Trump administration shutting
Speaker 1: the border down largely, to the Biden administration wildly opening
Speaker 1: up the border, to the Biden administration sort of restricting things,
Speaker 1: to now re electing Trump. It's not exactly like the
Speaker 1: rest of the world has a clear picture of what
Speaker 1: the United States is going to do, and you know
Speaker 1: how to solve it. Someone eventually someday has to pass
Speaker 1: an immigration law, an actual law, a thing that the
Speaker 1: House passes and the Senate passes and the President votes for.
Speaker 1: That's what has to happen, because if that happens, then
Speaker 1: it doesn't become a matter of executive enforcement year in
Speaker 1: and year out, administration in and administration out. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump has historically been a wheeler dealer. He
Speaker 1: was not a very successful wheeler dealer negotiator in his
Speaker 1: first term with Congress. But I do wonder now that
Speaker 1: he's got he's got more of a mandate now. And
Speaker 1: what does a mandate mean. I think a mandate just
Speaker 1: means that people are scared of him because they're scared
Speaker 1: for their own reelection chances. Again, as I said, there
Speaker 1: are Democrat senators in Wisconsin and Michigan and Georgia who
Speaker 1: all want to get re elected again someday. And they're
Speaker 1: in states that Donald Trump won. Pennsylvania. John Fetterman A, right,
Speaker 1: these are states Republicans won. Right. You gotta believe John
Speaker 1: Fetterman is looking around at Pennsylvania and thinking, well, Trump won.
Speaker 1: My colleague and the Senate Bob Casey Junior just got
Speaker 1: his rear end fired. I'm next unless what do I do? Clearly,
Speaker 1: my constituent, Clearly my constituents, not all of them are
Speaker 1: two jazzed about immigration. I really, you know, obviously it's
Speaker 1: a tall order, and really the tall order is the Senate. Okay,
Speaker 1: So how do you pass a law in Congress? You
Speaker 1: need a majority of the House, majority of the Senate,
Speaker 1: need the President to sign it. But really you need
Speaker 1: sixty of the one hundred senators for most pieces of legislation.
Speaker 1: In this stuff, at the very least, there's some things
Speaker 1: that are connected to the budget where you only need
Speaker 1: fifty votes. Presidential appointments to the Senate or to Executive
Speaker 1: branch appointments you only need fifty votes. Most other pieces
Speaker 1: of legislation you need sixty votes in the Senate. Effectively,
Speaker 1: the Senate can theoretically have debate forever on a given topic.
Speaker 1: You end debate with a sixty vote with sixty votes,
Speaker 1: and so effectively you need sixty votes to advance a
Speaker 1: piece of legislation. Can Trump get to sixty votes, I
Speaker 1: don't know if he's got fifty three? Maybe, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know again, maybe he can get the two Georgia senators.
Speaker 1: Maybe he can get Rafael Warnock and John Ossuf. Maybe
Speaker 1: he can get some of these senators from Wisconsin or
Speaker 1: Michigan or Pennsylvania. That's the effect of a mandate, all right.
Speaker 1: When fifty one percent of the country votes for a
Speaker 1: guy who said he wanted mass deportations of illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: Maybe Democrat senators work with him to get to a
Speaker 1: permanent solution, because that's that's the real thing. I don't
Speaker 1: even mind necessarily some pathway to legal residency, some pathway
Speaker 1: to whatever for people who came in during the Biden
Speaker 1: years under illegal or implausibly legal, quasi whatever corridors, anyone
Speaker 1: who committed a crime out one hundred percent. What's important
Speaker 1: is locking up the border so it doesn't happen again.
Speaker 1: And you don't really lock up the border through executive actions,
Speaker 1: why because another presidential administration can just come in and
Speaker 1: undo it. So you need to pass a law. You
Speaker 1: need to pass a law such that a future presidential
Speaker 1: administration can't allow all these people in any further. Now,
Speaker 1: the problem is that Republicans sort of get bamboozled into
Speaker 1: those kinds of alleged deals. Well, it's okay, we'll we'll
Speaker 1: let the people here now stay, but we won't let
Speaker 1: any more in. And then, of course that latter thing
Speaker 1: never actually happens. Certainly, I think there's a decent number
Speaker 1: of people whom we could very legitimately fairly deport people
Speaker 1: who just came here, who haven't settled down, haven't put
Speaker 1: down any roots, anyone who's committed any sort of crime,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I think all that would be consistent with
Speaker 1: fairness and justice. And the problem. The problem is, though,
Speaker 1: and I can hear myself falling into this trap with
Speaker 1: me saying, you know, look what I don't necessarily care
Speaker 1: so much about all the deportations. What I care about
Speaker 1: is securing the border permanently. And securing the border permanently
Speaker 1: needs a law, a law that has passed. Will Trump
Speaker 1: fight for that? I think he's got He's in a
Speaker 1: better position now than he's than he ever was in
Speaker 1: his first term to actually accomplish that, because I think
Speaker 1: he's getting closer to the votes needed in the Senate
Speaker 1: that he could pursue something positive. I think there are
Speaker 1: enough Democrat senators in swingy areas who could be willing
Speaker 1: to work with him. So we will see. Now when
Speaker 1: we return, I'll give just very quickly my pro life
Speaker 1: issues priority list for Trump. We'll see how many of
Speaker 1: these actually come to pass. Next on the John Girardi Show,
Speaker 1: what are the things Trump should do that I think,
Speaker 1: as you know, to write to Life Essential California pro
Speaker 1: life or what are things I think he should do?
Speaker 1: Let me give a quick list. First, he should do
Speaker 1: all the executive branch things that he did at the
Speaker 1: start of his first administration. He should immediately pass the
Speaker 1: Mexico City Policy, which is basically an executive branch action.
Speaker 1: All the Republican presidents do it, all the Democrat presidents don't.
Speaker 1: That cuts off federal funding for foreign aid that supports
Speaker 1: abortion providers. Cut off all that funding. He should cut
Speaker 1: off funding for the ridiculous program of military abortions that
Speaker 1: was launched under Lloyd Austin and Joe Biden. Paying for
Speaker 1: military service members who live in states where abortion is restricted,
Speaker 1: like Alabama or Texas, to fly them to a state
Speaker 1: where abortion is legal, give them extra leave, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Et cetera. Passes many of these kinds of executive actions
Speaker 1: limiting abortion. As you can look, why was embryo destructive,
Speaker 1: stem cell research and fetal tissue research. Why was that
Speaker 1: going on during the first Trump administration. It was going
Speaker 1: on in the first Trump administration because Trump didn't fire
Speaker 1: Francis Collins. You all remember Francis Collins the head of
Speaker 1: the National Institutes of Health, Anthony Fauci's boss, one of
Speaker 1: our lead COVID lockdown vaccine mandate tyrants. Trump should have
Speaker 1: fired him in twenty seventeen. I was calling for him
Speaker 1: to fire the guy in twenty seventeen, but he didn't.
Speaker 1: He didn't fire a lot of those people in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: Trump needs to clean house at the National Institutes of Health,
Speaker 1: at the FDA. He needs to clean house, getting rid
Speaker 1: of all of those pro abortion people who are there,
Speaker 1: and he needs to immediately work to defund fetal tis
Speaker 1: issue research using the bodies of aborted children and embryo
Speaker 1: destructive stem cell research, and then get someone in charge
Speaker 1: of the FDA who's willing to look seriously at stricter
Speaker 1: regulations of the abortion pill, which is the single biggest
Speaker 1: driver of abortion in the country. That would be my
Speaker 1: wish list. We'll see what he does. That'll do it.
Speaker 1: John Jolady shows you next time on Power Talk.