Don't Ignore Newsom's Trans Extremism

a sudden he's got like multiple different podcasts. Belatedly, he had a podcast with, of all people, Marshawn Lynch, the Seattle Seahawks, Buffalo Bills, Oakland Raider really was legendary only with the Seahawks, but former running back with all those teams won a Super Bowl with the Seahawks. Yes, he had with that Marshawn Lynch. He had a podcast with him, of all people. And now he's decided I'm launching the Gavin Newsom podcast because apparently he doesn't have enough to

do as governor of California. So his first guest on this newly launched Gavin news podcasts, he has Charlie Kirk. On. Charlie Kirk who's kind of conservative activist guy. He runs all the various turning point organizations to promote conservative stuff on college campuses. Kirk has sort of the line in with President Trump and he's gained more prominence, especially over

the last election cycle. So he's got Charlie Kirk on his little podcast and Newsom winds up talking with him about women's sports and has this news making break with the Democratic Party where Newsom comes out and says that he thinks it's unfair for biological men to play women's sports. And clearly that was the point of this interview, was Newsome to sort of set himself up to declare his opposition to transgender biological men claiming to be women playing

women's sports, claiming transgender identity playing women's sports. All right, now, we all know that Gavin Newsom is a weather vein. I don't know that he has very many really sincerely held beliefs at all. I think the classic example of Gavin Newsom being just a total, totally ungrounded, no principles

politically whatsoever. The greatest example of this was when he was running for governor and ran on a platform that he was going to enact single payer universal health care in California, and he literally during the campaign, he has quotes where he says, I I'm tired of these politicians who say they're gonna push for single payer, and then when the time comes, they say it's too expensive or not right now, or it can't be done. I'm tired

of these politicians kicking the can down the road. That's what he was saying as lieutenant governor when he was running on this idea in twenty eighteen. Then he becomes governor and that's immediately the position he adopts is it's too expensive, it's not the right time, and maybe there are other ways to do this. So even on this massive campaign pledge to pursue single payer healthcare, he completely flip flopped on it completely like like, could not have

been more blatant in his flip flop. So this is not a principled man. It recalls to me the Groucho Marx quote. Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, well I have others. That's Gavin Newsom. Those are his principles and if you don't like them, he has others. So I think most knowing this about Newsom, I think across the commentariat people are focusing on Okay, Well, Gavin Newsom is clearly trying to run for president in twenty twenty eight, and he is tacking hard to the center.

He sees that, I mean everyone one of the big takeaways from the twenty twenty four election is the transgender the pro transgender viewpoint, especially men playing women's sports, is not popular. It does not have popular support. The vast majority of Americans don't like it, don't agree with it, don't support it. And so Newsom, I think Newsom is trying to attack to the center to where the country is. And some people around the commentarator saying, well, maybe this

is smart of Newsom. You know, he's trying to track sort of a different way forward for the Democrats, and it is significant. I mean, Newsom is the most at this point. Who else is the leader of the Democrat Party nationally? Who else other than him, who's a more prominent elected official than Gavin Newsom? Right now? He's the

governor of the biggest state in the Union. Democrats don't have a president, they don't have a vice president, they don't have excuse me, they don't have a majority leader in Congress, and they're in the minority in both House and Senate, who is a more prominent figure than Gavin Newsom. I don't know. He's probably the most prominent elected official the Democrats have right now, So this is a significant change.

I don't think, though, Conservatives should sort of sit back and sort of say, well, you know, it's a good thing that Democrats are embracing reason on this issue, and you know, maybe we should be magnanimous and welcome him into the fold. Okay, if John Fetterman wants to do that. Maybe if other Democrats in the House and the Senate, who maybe don't have a long record on this issue, if they want to tack to the center on this, Okay, that's fine. Gavin Newsom shouldn't be allowed to do this.

Gavin Newsom should not be allowed to get away with this. I think he's going to try to act like I'm the moderate on this issue. I've tacked to the center. I am different and distinct from whoever else he's going to run against in the Democratic primary, and I think he's got a good shot of winning the Democratic primary the nominee in twenty twenty eight. I don't think we should let him get away with some kind of label as the moderate because he is moderate on the issue

of transgenderism. He is not. Why do I say that. I say this because Gavin Newsom has signed laws. He has signed laws plural in California that have enacted far more extreme legal regimes enforcing transgender norms on California, things that I think are far worse than boys playing girls' sports,

biological men playing women's sports. Newsom's trying to act as though he's picking the low hanging fruit, that the most obvious thing within the realm of the transgender You know, he's he's going to position himself as I'm in favor of trans people, their rights should be protected, their right to get the surgeries, blah blah, blah blah blah. But you know, I understand that it's not fair for biological

men to play women's sports. So he's trying to pick what he deems to be the low hanging fruit, ignoring laws he passed for far worse things. So let me talk about exhibit A example number one of far worse things that Gavin Newsom has signed into law that are far worse than biological men playing women's sports, biological men being housed in women's correctional facilities, jails and prisons in California.

Let's talk about that. Now. This is not me saying that biological men playing women's sports is not important or not unfair. It is important. It's very unfair, and in certain cases, as President Trump highlighted at his speech earlier this week, it can even be dangerous. It can be

physically dangerous for biological men to compete with biological women. Okay, biological men are bigger, stronger, faster, and they can because they're so much bigger, stronger, faster, they can do stuff that actually, depending on the sport, actually physically harms women. So I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying it's fair.

It's bad, it's unfair. We should oppose it. But I kind of think it's nuts that the issue of men playing women's sports gets so much more press and so much more ink than the issue of biological men claiming to be transgender being housed in women's prisons in jails. Worst case scenario when a man plays a woman sport is that he steals a spot or a championship, a metal whatever from a deserving woman, and or that someone gets injured, and you know the injury that was highlighted

during President Trump's spech was a very serious injury. You know what's the worst case when a biological man is housed in a woman's prison, rape murder. We don't talk about it very much, but I think out of all of the policies that are the logical conclusion of the transgender ideology, letting biological men who simply claim a transgender identity, and that's the other thing, it's just claiming a transgender identity. Part and parcel of this whole ideology is no, no

psychological examination is required. You just take it at the person's word. And it's almost that it's offensive to ask for a more in depth psychological evaluation because it's not a psychological illness to be transgender. If someone trust trans kids, that's the motto, trust trans kids, trust trans people, you don't.

It's actually deemed to be offensive to actually inquire into the ideation, to ask if the ideation, if this identity that someone is adapting for themselves is authentic or legitimate or just a phase, or if it's flat out pretending in order for you, as a biological male convicted felon so that you can be housed with women so you

can rape them. And before you think this is a theoretical concern, Sally Moreno, the District Attorney of Madera is right now in the process of prosecuting exactly someone like this, So right now, this is the story I talked about. I interviewed Sally Moreno again, the District attorney of Madera County. I interviewed her on the show a couple months ago. This is a story from December. This was a story from ABC thirty. Pronoun use at center of rape case

involving former Chouchilla prisoner. A convicted criminal who served time at the women's prison in Chowchilla is charged with raping fellow inmates. A Madera County judge ruled this week that fifteen to two year old state prisoner Tremaine Carol Tremaine, that's a boy's name, must be referred to with she her pronouns because Carol identifies as a woman. But the

district attorney believes the defendant is abusing the system. This is a person who is not a woman in any sense of the word, says Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno. In March, DA Sally Moreno charged Carol for rape allegedly committed while incarcerated at the Central California Women's Facility in Chauchilla's This is a California State prisons located in Chouchilla. After his first cellmate became pregnant and was moved to

Los Angeles. Two other cellmates of his had complained that he raped them, so we have filed rape charges against this inmate, said Moreno. Moreno says the ruling regarding pronouns impacts her ability to prosecute the case. This is a particular issue in this case because it's confusing to the jury. In California, rape is a crime that has to be accomplished by a man, said Moreno. Supervising Deputy District Attorney Eric du Temple says it's also unfair to the victim.

It's just absolutely insane. He says that a victim would have to get on the stand and police their pronoun usage when trying to recite one of the scariest times of their lives. Now the judge throwing a hissy fit here about using the right pronouns when the whole theory of this case, By the way, I know this is radio. You can't see it. I've got the mugshot for this, for this allegedly transgender person. He's got a goatee. He

just looks like a dude. He's not even trying. The whole theory of the case against this guy is that he's not even really whatever reality there is to a transgender identity. He doesn't even think of himself as transgender. He's pretending. He's saying that he's transgender because he wants to rape women, and now he's apparently raped three of them. Why was he able to do that? Why does California allow someone just claiming a transgender identity to be housed

with female inmates. The story continues, Carol was allowed to serve time in a woman's prison despite being a biological male, because of Senate Bill one thirty two, the Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in twenty twenty one. Yes, in twenty twenty, COVID dictator Newsom took time away from his busy schedule of ruining county economies color coding you in order to determine whether you had a First Amendment

right to free exercise of religion. Or not he took time out of his busy schedule doing all of that to sign SB one two to mandate biological men be housed with female prisoners just on the basis of gender ideation of acclaimed gender identity, No follow up, no check. As Sally Moreno says, there's no psychological evaluation that needs to be done. This person does not need to be

on cross gender hormones. They don't need to be signed up for transgender surgery, they don't need to be a they don't need to be a psychological evaluation regarding gender confusion. The mere statement is enough, said Moreno, So I guess I applaud Gavin Newsom for saying it's unfair that biological men play women's sports. Listen that, folks, it's the sound of the world's tiniest applause. You know what's really unfair.

It's being sentenced to two years in a California state prison and instead your sentence winds up being two years and being raped by a man. You know, it's really unfair. It's you know, it's a real instance of gender discrimination. It's being a woman and being expected to be housed with a dangerous, convicted criminal. In prison. Newsom's trying to act like the lowest hanging fruit. The most obvious thing

is changing his position on biological men playing women's sports. No, the actual thing that's the lowest hanging fruit, the actual most insane gender policy out there, is not actually women's sports. It's bad that men play women's sports. It's unfair that

men play women's sports. I concur I'm not in favor of it, But biological men being housed in a woman's prison is I think a twenty times worse problem because again, nine percent of the time, if a man's playing women's sports, it's the end result is unfairness, opportunities being taken from women. That's bad, that's not good. You know what happens when you have a male convicted criminal housed with a bunch of female convicted criminals. Rape, That's what's gonna happen. It's

precisely what happened in Madera County. So, Gavin Newsom, you are not some tacking to the middle moderate unless you because guess what, he signed that into law and he's not going to refute that. So let's not let him get away with that. When we return, we'll talk a

little bit more about think, why are certain things? You know, why is the sports thing front and center but not the prisoner's thing that's next on the John Already show went a little long last segment, so this will be a short one, but just it's I understand why men playing women's sports gets more press and attention than biological

men being housed in women's prisons. As Gavin Newsom is trying to do this little press to her, acting like, oh, I'm a moderate on transgender issues because now I don't

think it's good for men to play women's sports. Meanwhile, he signed our state law letting biological men be housed in women's prison in women's prisons based on gender identity acclaimed gender identity, which I think, by any metric, is more dangerous, more harmful, more unjust, more unfair, like by any metric, that's got to be a lower hanging fruit to change your positions on than biological men playing women's sports. I mean, like, come on the bad outcome of biological

men playing women's sports. Yes, there are some instances where someone could get very seriously injured. You put a biological man in a women's prison, someone's gonna get raped. And it astonishes me the naivete of the California state legislature to think, well, people wouldn't lie about their trendsgender identity just so that they could rape women. These are convicted criminals,

of course they will. I mean, anyone who's worked in corrections, anyone who's worked as a correctional officer for a jail or prison, or works for the sheriff's department, understands these guys have nothing but time to think up ways to do bad things they are constantly doing. You give them an inch, they will take a mile. You give them an opportunity. You give these guys who've been surrounded by nothing but dudes, an opportunity to be in a cell

with a woman. You don't well think that these these bad people, these convicted people, are gonna take that chance, or that at least one of them is gonna take that change. Of course, they're gonna take that chance, They're gonna take that opportunity. I mean, what an utter naivete about corrections to not understand that these are bad dudes, and of course they'll abuse that system and falsely claim to be transgender, in so far as such a thing

can be falsified or falsifiable anyway. I think it's just a thing of you know, sports is something that all of us engage with. Most Americans are watching sports, grew up playing some sport, have their kids playing sports. It's something that's obviously readily reachable, tangible part of everyday life in a way that you know, inmates being housed in prisons, in jails isn't. So we don't think about it, we

don't hear about it. You know, there are about twenty more stories about the what is it, the dude swimmer, the biological male who became a Leah Thomas whatever the I forget what his actual original name was, you know, the biological male who all of a sudden becomes a women's swimmer and then he starts kicking everyone's butt. The

eighty more stories about that. That's like a national news thing, as opposed to, again, this horrible story out of Mandera County about three women in the Chowchilla Women's Correctional Facility being raped by a dude. A dude who didn't even bother to change his name to a more female name, didn't bother to shave his goateee. Is not on cross gender hormones, isn't signed up for any kind of surgery.

Who's clearly, I think, very arguably is purely claiming transgender ideation so that a transgender identity, so that he can rape women. It's why that isn't like front and center, National News. It's sort of I sort of understand it again. You know, being involved with kids, your kids' sports is a far more commonplace, common American experience than going to jail.

But it's obviously like a far worse instance of injustice to house women in a situation like that than it is to have them, you know, play in a track and field meet against a dude. Obviously that's also unfair. But holy cow, being women being housed with a convicted other convicted women, I guess being housed of the convicted male felon is so much more dangerous, so much more unjust. Anyway, we shouldn't like avenusom get away with his alleged turned

moderation on transgenderism. Yeah, he's saying, oh, it's okay, it's not good for biological men to play women's sports. It's far worse for biological men to be housed in prison with women. And he was the one who made it happen in California. He signed that bill into law. So don't let him get away with some pretend moderate identity. When we return, we'll talk about some disappointing Supreme Court

rulings next on the John Girardi Show. There's a lot of conservative tongue wagging about Amy Coney Barrett after a recent Supreme Court ruling that was blocking Trump's effort delaying I should say, because it's not really a finalized block, it's a delay some various Supreme Court rulings delaying Trump administration efforts to fire various federal employees and to cut

off certain forms of USAID funding. The problem is, you've got this Federal District Court judge, Judge Emir Ali, who was trying to act as though he's halting a Trump move of stopping certain federal funding, and he's doing it through what's called a TRO a temporary restraining order. Now, a TRO is only granted under certain kinds of conditions, but the idea of a TRO is it's there in the name. It's a temporary restraining order. It's hold it

before some action happens. Don't do that action, because we need to assess this to see if it is legal or not. So I was involved with this with a federal lawsuit that I filed my organization Right to Life Central California. We were faced with this thorny problem. California had passed a law banning protest within a certain number of feet of any quote vaccine sight. Planned Parenthood in Fresno offers HPV vaccines. We had Right to Life. We have our forty Days for Life campaign, which by the way,

is going on right now. And as part of our work on the sidewalk talking to women and couples considering abortion, we're standing on the sidewalk within one hundred feet of the door of Planned Parenthood, and so the law would have rendered our conduct basically illegal. So as soon as the law came into effect. Basically it was an urgency measure, So as soon as Gavin Newsom signed it, it came into effect. It didn't you know, it wasn't a thing where I think he signed it in October of twenty

twenty one. It wasn't a thing where you waited until January first of twenty twenty two. It came into effect as soon as he signed it, as soon as Gavin Newsom signed it, we filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of California, and we submitted a request for a t R a temporary restraining order to say, hey, well, wha wha wha wha whah woa, before the State of California starts enforcing this law against us, we want to temporarily restrain them from enforcing this law because we think

there are really serious violations of our constitutional rights that are at play here, particularly our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. And the judge granted us that tro and in granting us the tro it's the judge was preventing the government from doing something affirmative, saying, don't affirmatively enforce this law. Stay at the status quo what this

federal District Court judge Amir Ali did. And just for background on Amir Ali, he is a federal district court judge for the d C District, and these judges in the d C District. The federal court system is basically broken up into regions. So we in Fresno happen to live in the Eastern District of California, and for every regional sort of federal court district you have a single US attorney who is the federal law enforcement person for that region, kind of like a district kind of like

a district attorney. So so you know at Lisa Smith Camp is the DA for Fresno County. There's a US attorney who prosecutes all the federal crimes within the Eastern District of California. And every state has at least one federal district. So a small state that doesn't have a large population just has the district of the federal you know, district of say Wyoming, Okay. So federal court systems, the federal the structure of the federal courts is basically three levels.

You have Federal district court judges, which here the first level trial level cases. Federal district court judge judges as well, but where there they oversee trials, where they're just where they're you know, sorting through factual disputes and also analyzing at the first level legal questions. Is this consistent with the Constitution? Is this consistent with a provision of federal law? Is the government or are somebody violating this person's federal rights?

So you have the federal district courts at the lowest level. Then you have the federal circuit courts like the First Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Third Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the d C Circuit that you know, we in California live in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears all the appeals from all the individual federal district courts within a number of states in the Western United States.

So there is a DC District Court which has a number of judges who are all federal judges for the DC District and they hear a lot of these big legal disputes involving federal government spending because the federal government is located in the District of Columbia, and a lot of these guys, guys and gals are super liberal. A lot of them are Obama appointees and Biden appointees. Amir Ali is a Biden appointee. So Amir Ali saw federal lawsuit was filed by these various nngos who were supposed

to get USAID money something like two billion dollars. The Trump administration was cutting that money off. Ali gets a temporary restraining They sue. They ask Ali for a temporary restraining order. But this is the difference. This is a temporary restraining order, not demanding that no affirmative act take place, not demanding that we just hold things at the status quo, which the irreversible act here would be the money going

out to the NGO. Ali issues what he calls a temporary restraining order to say that the money must be affirmatively paid out. That's not a temporary thing at all. The horse is out of the barn by that point. Once the money's spent, it's spent, it's gone. You can't get it back. Rich Larry National Review has a little piece about it. Judge Amir Ali. He says, it's good to be king or a district judge. Judge Amir Ali

has no power to appropriate money or spend it. Neither does he have any authority over the condo to US foreign policy if he wanted to have any of these things. He's in the wrong line of work as a federal district judge. Ali is not letting that stop him in his escalating conflict with the Trump administration over USAID spending.

Though the judge won a modified victory in the Supreme Court, which opted not to stop him from trying to force the Trump administration to spend money that it has currently paused.

In a dissent expressing shock and dismay that the Court is letting Ali proceed on his current course, Justice Samuel Alito described the crux of the matter as the question, does a single district court judge, who likely lacks jurisdiction, have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out and probably lose forever two billion taxpayer dollars. The Supreme Court said yes, or, in effect, don't bother us with this now, although we realize the

matter may come back up to us soon enough. Now why did that happen. It's because Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined the three liberals, and this has led to a lot of people starting to raise the question, is Amy Cony Barrett much more liberal than we thought? Now I have a little bit of insight into Justice Barrett.

I'm not claiming I was her, you know, a dear friend, or even that we were very close or anything, but she was one of my professors at Notre Dame Law School, and I have maybe a little bit of insight into this that maybe other people don't. So let me start by saying this first, Justice Barrett is fundamentally a little bit of a different career track trajectory than other justices on the Supreme Court. Fundamentally, she was in academia for her whole For most of her legal career, she was

a professor at Notre Dame Law School. I think early in her career before she got to Notre Dame, she worked in some private practice stuff, She did federal clerkships, but her career was ninety nine percent academic and scholarly. For about two years before she was nominated to the Supreme Court, she served on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But she's fundamentally an academic. So I think this sort of reflects itself a little bit in her open expressed

avowed distaste for what's called the emergency docket. The Supreme Court has different kinds of cases. It hears the chief normative way that the Supreme Court. Here's a case, is someone files a lawsuit. That lawsuit is resolved decided one way or another at the district court level. Then it's appealed to a circuit court, and that's decided one way or another at the circuit court level. It's appealed up

to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court reviews the petition for asserts yourri which is basically the petition saying, hey, Supreme Court, will you hear this case. They look at it, they think about it, they say, okay, we'll take it now over the course of the year, from October through June. We want you to submit your full written briefs and legal arguments, and we'll have oral argument and we'll have the full thing and everything done in normal order. Justice

Barrett really prefers that. And the problem is that the Supreme Court's emergency docket has been growing and growing and growing and growing over the course of the last ten years, where a lot more cases are being bumped up to them because of individual federal District Court judges issuing rulings on executive policies from either a Republican or a Democrat presidentialistration issuing nationwide binding You'll get one federal District Court

judge in one district issuing a ruling that is binding on the whole country, like a tro like this to demand the two billion dollars of USA money be spent, and then it immediately gets kicked up to the d C. Circuit immediately gets kicked up to the Supreme Court, and Justice Barrett hates that. She doesn't like it. She doesn't like the Supreme Court being involved in really high political profile cases without full time for briefing and appeals, and

she doesn't want to participate in it. And I think from her perspective, she thinks, which is true, eventually a case, a case is going to come up, maybe even this case or something like this, is going to come up to the Supreme Court in full order, with normal with the normal process of appeals to the Supreme Court doesn't have to intervene in every single case in controversy, and she doesn't want to intervene right now. I think that's her perspective on this. She doesn't like this use of

the emergency docket. Whether you think that's right or wrong, that's how she views it. I think when we return, these issues will come to the Supreme Court and they will decide them soon. That's next on the John Gerardy Show, Justice Barrett has joined with John Roberts to sort of kick the can down the road when it comes to the trum Trump administration's ability to cut off various kinds

of foreign aid funding. Seems like she's kicking the can a little bit down the road on the question of whether and to what extent the Trump administration can fire federal employees. This is leading a bunch of conservatives to say Amy Cony Barrett's a liberal. Amy Commy Barrett, I don't think that's the case. I think her objections to

it are a lot more procedural than substantive. These cases are going to come before the Supreme Court over the next few years, and when that happens, I think you'll probably get very correct rulings from Justice Barrett on these things. And again, let's all just remember this could have been Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a Democrat replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg. You know, before we start talking about Amy Commi Barrett,

let's remember that. That'll do it. John Gerardy Show, See you next time on Power Talk.