Jimmy Kimmel is Gone

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Jimmy Kimmel gets his show yanked off the air, the
left goes into convulsions over the grave injustice of it all,
and it feels like the Trump administration could have played
it one hundred percent perfectly if they had just not
said anything, or at the very least not had Brendan Carr,

(00:22):
the SEC Commissioner, say anything. So let me let me
kind of talk about this, But I also, more generally
want to talk about the attitude conservatives have had, I
think the somewhat admirable attitude conservatives have had in the
post Charlie Kirk. You know, a couple of weeks here

(00:45):
about sort of principles and speech and freedom of speech
and things like that. All Right, Jimmy Kimmel goes on
his show He Lives. It's, you know, pretty clear by
the time Kimmel made his comments that there was no

(01:10):
evidence at all that the kid, or let me let
me rephrase that, very little and very unconvincing evidence that
the person who killed Charlie Kirk was a conservative. Really,
the only evidence that people had was that his family
leaned Republican. All of the other evidence, the antifa anti

(01:35):
fascist engravings found on the bullet casings, the fact that
this guy was dating a transgender male, the text messages
indicating that he was tired of Charlie Kirk's hate, and
really the kind of res ipsel Lockwitter thing. The thing
speaks for itself. This was someone who assassinated Charlie Kirk

(02:00):
gives you an automatic presumption, automatic indication that this is
a person who disliked stuff Charlie Kirk says, and pretty
much all the stuff Charlie Kirk said was mainstream Republican
conservative ideas. Ergo, unless this person is a Nick Fuentes

(02:22):
fanboy or something like that, someone so extreme hard right
that they think Charlie Kirk needs to be shot, it's
probably a liberal, and Jimmy Kimmel knew that. But what's
happening right now on the left is this disingenuous game
where they are grasping at every straw possible to not

(02:45):
have this person be from their side. So they are
disingenuously just broadcasting totally disingenuous lies that to try to argue,
oh no, this guy's a Maga groyper or you know,
some some such thing. So they're desperately trying to make
that claim so Jimmy Kimmel comes out and says it

(03:07):
right on his show, and everyone's like, that's so obviously
not true. And it was shortly after the governor of
Utah and the local district attorney who's prosecuting the case
both talked about the motive. They talked about his family
had reported he had become much more left wing pro
LGBT in recent years and this was part of the

(03:31):
motive for why he shot Kirk. The governor talked, The
Governor of Utah talked about it. The district attorney talked
about it. We knew them. This isn't really I don't
know how it could ever have been. Very much in dispute,
I mean, and I talked about the resipsilquitter. Rezipsilocuitter is
this legal doctrine. It usually has to do with lawsuits

(03:55):
for someone engaging in negligence, so someone does something negligent
harm you in the context of torque claims, like if
a piano is dropped on your house, it's a res
ipsi locuitter situation that someone was negative. There's no way

(04:17):
that a piano gets dropped without someone doing something negligent.
It's a kind of situation where the thing speaks for itself. Similarly,
with Charlie Kirk, it's sort of a re zips al loquitter.
Like the fact that Charlie Kirk got shot indicates pretty
clearly what the motive of the shooter was. They wanted

(04:39):
to shut up Charlie Kirk. They didn't like the conservative
things he was saying. It's obviously someone opposed to his
conservative ideas. So again, I guess there's a one in
a million chance that it's some ultra right wing Nick
fuint Is type. But the most obvious answer is from
the other side. We didn't even have this. The only

(05:00):
person for whom this was a more obvious situation about
who the shooter's motive being obviously defined by the shooter's target.
The only other person for whom that was more clear
was the guy who tried to kill President Trump. Now,

(05:21):
Jimmy Kimmel goes on here, he says this obvious untruth
and going back to the halcion days of network television,
this is how network TV works. You have ABCNBCCBS, Fox,
they are the national network, but they have local affiliates,

(05:48):
local independently owned affiliates who air their programming, and if
the local affiliates revolt, it's bad for the network. The
network has to listen to what the local affiliates have
to say. Now, from my understanding of this, I haven't
been a really careful watcher of the industry in you know,

(06:11):
local affiliate broadcasters versus you know, the national networks or
anything like that. My understanding is that these kinds of
conflicts between the local affiliates and the network and local
affiliates getting angry about the kind of content the networks producing,
that these kinds of conflicts are not as common nowadays
as they were, say, you know, thirty years ago, but

(06:34):
it's still a thing. The national network, in this case,
ABC has to rely on the local affiliates to broadcasts
their programming. And if the broad local affiliates say, hey,
we're getting furious phone calls, were our audience is fleeing.
People aren't going to want to advertise with us. You
got to get this show off the air. If you

(06:55):
have enough local affiliates getting angry at the national network
over its programming, the national network has to do something
about it. And that seems to be precisely what happened. First,
it was indicated that I believe it was Sinclair or
one of the big sort of entities that owns lots

(07:17):
of local affiliates started to pull Jimmy Kimmel, said they
would preempt Jimmy Kimmel with other programming, and then ABC
Nationally decided to pull the plug and said Jimmy Kimmel
is suspended indefinitely. Now, this is the market sort of

(07:44):
regulating itself. This is sort of the First Amendment not
really needing to get involved. The First Amendment, right to
freedom of speech, is basically that the government cannot censor you.
The government cannot force you to say things you don't
want to say. But private actors don't have to give

(08:11):
you a platform. Private actors don't have to give you
a show, private actors don't have to give you a
radio program on power talk. So this is private pressure
being put in place. The problem was when the FCC
chair decided to make some comments. Now, Brendan Carr, chair

(08:38):
of the FCC, made comments to CNN seemingly after after
Kimmel was already taken off the air, and he made
comments about, you know, national networks, about national networks and

(09:04):
their broadcasting licenses that they get through the FCC. Here's
just pulling one story at random for it. This is
the New York Times story written by Cecilia Kang. Brendan Carr,
the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which is the
nation's top watch dog over the broadcast industry, was at
the center of a media storm on Wednesday. In an

(09:25):
interview on a right wing podcast, mister Carr criticized comments
that late night host Jimmy Kimmel had made earlier this
week about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Shortly afterward,
ABC decided to pull the Jimmy Kimmel Live show off
the air indefinitely. Many Democrats immediately criticized the FCC pressure,
while President Trump said the suspension of mister Kimmel's show
was great news for America. Here's what to know about Carr. Now.

(09:48):
The media is trying to argue that this is bordering
on a First Amendment problem, that when you have the
chair of the Federal Communications Commission putting pressure on ABC
to suspend a host because of something the host said,

(10:09):
that this borders onto First Amendment violations. I think that
this narrative that the liberals are trying to draw this
straight line. So apparently mister Carr made these comments before ABC,
before ABC pulled them, I think, Sinclair, I think some

(10:30):
of the local affiliates were starting to pull them. Anyway,
the narrative that the media is trying to do is
Carr made these statements. ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel after post
hoc ergo propter hawk. ABC only did it because they

(10:50):
were feeling pressure from the federal government, and isn't that terrible.
Isn't that a violation of the First Amendment. Now, I
think that is not true. I think the reason that
ABC did it, There's probably a couple of reasons ABC
did it. One is the affiliates were revolting. Two is
that maybe ABC doesn't quite care about Jimmy Kimmel as
much as everyone thinks they care about Jimmy Kimmel. I mean,

(11:13):
we just saw this in the case of Stephen Colbert.
CBS announced that Colbert's show was going to end as
soon as Colbert's contract ended, and the left immediately flew
into conspiracy theory land that it's because of Donald Trump

(11:34):
pressuring CBS. Well, no, Stephen Colbert's show, we don't I
don't necessarily have the numbers for Jimmy Kimmel's show. Stephen
Colbert's show was losing forty million dollars per year, and
they had the best actual terrestrial television ratings of all

(11:59):
of the late night show Colbert had better ratings than
Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon, and yet his show was
losing forty million dollars a year. The real fact of
the matter is that these late night talk shows, these
Johnny Carson, Dave Letterman sort of wanna be shows, They

(12:22):
just don't make money the same way that they used to.
It used to be that Johnny Carson was the absolute
anchor for NBC, was generating this enormous amount of revenue
for NBC. It was, you know, first it was sort
of in a pre cable proto cable world, a huge

(12:45):
percentage of America. That's the only show that they had on.
And Carson was a genius. Carson was a fantastic comedian,
a great interviewer, and he, I mean, he defined that
whole format. He's better at that gig than anyone who

(13:06):
came after him. Was Some people try to argue Dave
Letterman was, you know, as good. Maybe I don't. I
never saw that. I don't know, maybe you had to
be a gen xer to kind of get the whole
Dave Letterman vibe. I always thought Conan O'Brien was pretty funny,
but not funny enough that i'd, you know, stay up

(13:26):
till twelve o'clock at night or whenever Conan's show was
on to actually watch it. I always thought Conan was
super duper funny. And I will say somewhat in Conan
O'Brien's defense, that I think he most exemplified the spirit
of Johnny Carson in that he was not really making

(13:48):
a ton of political jokes all the time, that he
seemed genuinely to want to just be funny. That his
most noteworthy bits that he would have on his show
where stuff like, you know, Triumph the insult comic Dog,
where it was one of his writers Robert Smigel with
a stupid like rubber dog puppet in his hand, saying

(14:09):
like really mean things to everybody whom he encountered with
like a fake cigar in the dog's mouth. Anyway, the
fact of the matter is, I don't know how like
desperate ABC was to keep Jimmy Kimmel on the air
forever and ever on men. So you know, maybe this

(14:30):
was kind of a convenient excuse on their part. They
suspend Jimmy Kimmel, and I sort of wonder, like, I
don't know how Jimmy Kimmel comes back, because ABC had
sort of made some indication about Jimmy Kimmel having to
sort of make some statement whenever he returns. I don't
think Jimmy Kimmel's apologizing. I don't think he's apologizing at all.

(14:53):
I mean, just having observed his character, how much he
despises Trump, how much he despises Republicans, I do not
think Jimmy kimble is gonna apologize. I mean, he's made
his money. I mean he can. You know, he has
more money than he's ever gonna know what to do with.

(15:15):
You know, he's you know, he's he's gonna be fine
for the rest of his life, whether he and and
I'm sure he could bounce back and get another kind
of TV show even if he does leave ABC. Uh
So it's I I'm a little frustrated that Brendan Carr
said anything because it could have just been a complete

(15:36):
one victory. And now The New York Times et cetera.
Is gonna run with this little, you know story, this
little argument that, oh it's because, oh, the federal government
pressured ABC into taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air, and

(15:56):
look how that violated the First Ament. Oh, that's a
violation of the First Amendmentlah blah blah blah. I think
that's absurd. All right. When we return, I want to
talk about the way that conservatives have sort of reacted
to speech and free speech claims, et cetera in the
wake of Charlie Kirk's death. That is next on The
John Girardi Show. There's been a big debate on the

(16:19):
American right about the Trump attitude of pushing aggressively and
liberal more left leaning, moderate leaning Republicans wringing their hands
over it and saying, oh, well.

Speaker 2 (16:36):
What about the kind of precedent you'll set? And usually
it's like, oh, what about the what kind of president
will you set?

Speaker 1 (16:44):
After the president was already set, after the left has
already done the thing that you're worried about.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
Oh, if you go after government officials, that'll give the
green light to Democrats to do the same. If you
go after your political opponents using the mechanisms of government,
it'll give the green light to Democrats to do the same.

Speaker 1 (17:03):
Democrats already did the same. This is especially rich when
you know Barack Obama is out there yapping about the
Charlie Kirk assassinations, saying, well, it's because of the you know,
this state of things is because of the extreme rhetoric
that you hear coming out of the Trump administration. You
never heard any extreme rhetoric from my administration. It's like, yeah,

(17:28):
remember when your vice president said that Mitt Romney wanted
to put black people in chains. I think that was
a little extreme. Maybe. Remember when your IRS was audit
was specifically persecuting conservative aligned nonprofit organizations. Remember when you

(17:52):
directed the FBI to investigate the guy running for president
in twenty sixteen and spy on him without much good foundation,
and you try to, you know, create layers of plausible
deniability between yourself and the FBI even after he won
the election on the bogus Russian theory that you knew

(18:14):
you didn't have enough evidence for at the time. Yeah,
I don't know that Barack Obama really did much to
turn down the temperature. One of the things though, that
that's been encouraging though, is I do think that the
right has reacted in a fairly principled way in many cases,

(18:42):
in actually people left right and center on the right
pushing back even against Trump officials when they say something stupid.
When Pam Bondi comes out and says that we need
to go after hate speech for people who don't support
port Charlie Kirk, that was one of the dumbest things

(19:08):
I've heard come out of the mouth of a Trump official,
and everybody in the conservative world, left right, center, trumpy
not trumpy, has decided they are fed up with Pambondi.
I don't know how much longer she is for this world,
the idea that she would try to talk about hate

(19:28):
speech and going after hate speech when the conservatives have
been arguing for years that hate speech is not a thing.
Hate speech is a made up concept that the left
has used to aggressively go after conservatives just for anything
they don't like, for forever. And here's our allegedly Republican
Attorney general trying to make use of the idea. It's idiotic.

(19:51):
And I'd say most of the quote cancelation of people,
or the most of the sort of consequences that people
have gotten from their various horrific comments they've made about
Charlie Kirk. Has been private actors going after people for
disliking their private speech, or it's been in the case

(20:14):
of some public universities who've engaged in certain kinds of
discipline against students or teachers, it's been for stuff that
I think falls within codes of conduct within their universities
that are not all necessarily it's not about core protected
First Amendment speech stuff that they can legally do. So, frankly,

(20:36):
I'm quite comfortable. I think that I don't mind cancel
culture as such. As I said at the height of
Cancel Culture that that whole era, it's not so much
that we get people fired for things they say, it's
what are the things you're saying. If you have a

(20:56):
job that involves serving the community, you know, teaching kids
half of whom might be conservative, that involves taking care
of sick people, half of whom might be conservative. There
was one that I don't know if this person actually
got fired or if this was really truly reported. There
are people posting stuff that a Secret Service agent was

(21:17):
saying about how wonderful it was that Charlie Kirk God
his brain's blown out. Your whole job is protecting secret
service protectees. At the moment, that means a president and
his family that are about as conservative as Charlie Kirk.
So I've always had the opinion it's not that I'm

(21:39):
upset about cancelations. It's that are we canceling the right
or wrong kinds of things? Someone saying one dumb thing
in a tweet when they were sixteen years old fifteen
years ago, that doesn't seem like a fair thing. Someone
in real time saying Yep, it's good that he was murdered,

(22:01):
and I you know, yeah, that's worse. When we return,
we're going to talk about something a little different. We're
going to be talking a little bit about Pope Leo
and the many, many attempts to try to put a
certain identity on him. We're getting more in his own words.

(22:23):
That's next on the John Girardi Show. Pope Leo is
a very interesting character, and some news is being made.
Elise Ann Allen, who's a journalist for this Catholic news
site called Crooks, is going to be publishing sort of
this interview book where she was able she was able

(22:45):
to sit down with Pope Leo for an extensive period
of time and to have sort of extensive interviews with
him over the summer in order to produce a book
about him, kind of a biography, and a lot of
excerpts from the book are coming out. It's probably going
to be, you know, given that it's the Pulpe. It's

(23:07):
going to be translated into a whole bunch of languages,
and it's going to be a huge, big time seller.
Now I've talked a little bit about pop Lio on
the show. I really my inclination is that I like
him a lot, and I think he will be a
good pope. I do not think he is going to

(23:30):
be the same as Pope Francis. There's always this there's
this Roman expression that goes after a thin pope, a
fat pope, and it's basically just sort of a statement
of human nature. Human beings are very different from one another,
and one pope is not going to be the same
as another pope, and popes are always different from each other.

(23:54):
I think you can immediately start to see, you could
immediately start to see with pop Leo very different attitude.
Francis was a bit of an iconoclast. He deliberately made
lots of decisions to not be like his predecessors, even

(24:14):
down to stuff like he wouldn't wear the normal papal regalia.
There was sort of there's sort of two outfits the
pope has for when he does appearances for things outside
of Mass. There's sort of the simpler thing where it's
just his white it's called his cassock. But then he
has a sort of more formal thing he wears, like

(24:36):
when receiving heads of state or presiding at different liturgical
functions where he's not offering the mask, where he wears
this red sort of shoulder cape thing. Francis never wore
the more formal thing ever, not once, but specifically the
entire duration of his however many years he was pope,

(24:56):
like twelve years, never one time wore it, which was
weird and odd. He specifically didn't live in the papal apartments,
which I think people have characterized it like it's a palace, Like, well, no,
it's not a palace. The place where the Pope himself

(25:17):
actually lives is a fairly simple apartment, but a lot
of the apparatus, the working apparatus of the papacy, was
in that building, so it had meeting rooms and you know,
places like that, and the offices where the pope could
do work and things like that. No, Francis didn't want
to do that. He wanted to live in this hotel.
It's this hotel where the cardinals would all stay during

(25:39):
papal elections, called the Casa Santa Marta, and it was
actually he and it was sort of broadcast like I
just want to be one of the people, and there
was a lot of this broadcasting, Oh see, how humble
I am. But then it cost the Vatican just a
ton of money for him to live there because they
needed way more security and things like that. They had
to get rid of, like a whole floor of this

(26:01):
hotel that they would otherwise use. So he was very iconoclassic,
even down to these sort of little things. But Francis
was also not very guarded. When he would speak, he
would say things, and then the Vatican would have to
deal with all kinds of questions about well, what was
he trying to say. He would sit down for interviews.

(26:22):
There was this one like ninety year old Italian like
near communist journalist who, for some reason, Pope Francis just
loved sitting down for interviews with him. The guy never
transcribed the interviews and would not even write anything down.
He would just after sitting for an interview with Pope Francis,
he would write down Pope Francis said blah blah blah,

(26:44):
and it's like, well, are you actually quoting him or
are you doing best in your little eighty nine year
old brain to sort of recall what you think Francis
said and then write it down, which then led to
all these problems because some of the quotes allegedly coming
from Pope Francis via this crazy Italian journalist, some of
them were wildly controversial and the Vatican would have to

(27:06):
kind of clean it up. But I think Pope Francis
liked the chaos that that caused because he kept sitting down.
It's not like he did It's not like he sat
down for one interview with this guy, got burned and
then never sat with him again. He kept letting the
guy do interviews with him. And it's not to say

(27:26):
Pope Franci has had no good qualities, but he had
many sort of qualities that were iconoclastic in this way.
If there's anything we've seen from Poplio, he's not iconoclastic.
He moved back into the old papal apartments that JP
two and Benedict and all the popes before them lived in.
He is very careful when he talks. He keeps saying,

(27:49):
I don't want the papacy to be polarizing, et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera. Now he gave some quotes. Some
quotes of his from this forthcoming book have now been published,
and here are some of the things he said, specifically

(28:11):
about homosexuality. There's all this, you know, but France has
sort of made headlines by saying stuff like, oh, who
am I to judge gay people? But then he never
did anything to change, like gay marriage or something like that.
Pope Francis issued a very immediately controversial document about blessing

(28:31):
a pair of gay people who come to a priest
for a blessing, which was immediately interpreted allowing priests to
do some kind of informal blessing for a gay couple
who might approach them, which was immediately interpreted as the
Catholic churches approved basically kind of gay marriage by the left,

(28:52):
and shock and people on the right were shockingly concluding
the same thing. The bishops in Africa staged a massive
revolt over this, and the Vatican basically had to walk
the entire document back, which was odd because of this
other characteristic of Francis's papacy, One of the things Francis

(29:13):
was really big on was this idea called sinidality, from
the Greek word synod synod. A synod is a gathering
of bishops, and synods have happened throughout the history of
the Catholic Church, where a lot of times it was
sort of local or regional, especially in Eastern Christianity. And

(29:40):
basically Pope Francis was trying to say the Catholic Church
should be synodyl in its nature. That basically, instead of
just you know, doing things sort of the pope doing
things dictatorially, we constantly have meetings of bishops to gather
together to discuss the issues of the day and include
everybody in our co consultation and blah blah blah blah

(30:01):
blah blah blah. And he was really big on this.
The problem was that the three most significant things Francis did,
one was a document about whether divorced and remarried people
can receive Holy Communion. He issued it even though the

(30:22):
Synod told him that they didn't want to discuss it
and he had to change the rules of the Senate
to do it. He had another document he released basically
suppressing the celebration of the older form of the Mass,
the form of the Mass in Latin that had been
used pretty much universally in the Roman Catholic Church up

(30:43):
until the sixties, where he almost totally he suppressed it largely,
which he issued after no Synadel discussion whatsoever. He actually
consulted all the world's bishops about it. It seems that
most of the bishops throughout the world either we're fine
with it, didn't recommend any change, or we're positively happy

(31:04):
about it, and he went against their judgment. Or in
the case of this blessing for a pair of people
who happened to be gay, and trying to make some
distinction between well, we're not blessing a gay union, we're
blessing to individuals who may happen to be gay, and
then that gets into the weird stuff about the theology

(31:26):
of what is a blessing and blah blah blah, blah blah.
That was issued with basically no consultation whatsoever. So here's
Francis saying, Oh, I want a synod ol church where
everyone talks with each other and everyone consults with each other.
And then really three of the most significant things he
did was, we're not very much in line with this

(31:47):
synod attitude. Leo seems to actually be genuinely wanting synodal discussion.
He also seems to recognize the limits of sinnidality that

(32:07):
you know, look, we can talk about what the church
thinks about homosexuality till the cows come home, but the
doctrine of the church is going to stay the same.
That's it. The doctrine of the church will not change.
So here's the question and answer. He was asked about

(32:29):
LGBT Catholics whatever. He was asked what his approach would
be to the topic. He says, quote, well, I don't
have a plan at the moment. I was asked about
that already a couple of times during these first couple
of months about the LGBT issue. I recall something that
a cardinal from the Eastern part of the world said
to me before I was Pope about quote, the Western

(32:51):
world is fixated, obsessed with sexuality, a person's identity. For
some people is all about sexual identity, and for many
people in other parts of the world, that's not a
prime I'm ry issue in terms of how we should
deal with one another. I confess that's on the back
of my mind, because, as we've seen at the synod,
any issue dealing with the LGBT questions is highly polarizing
within the Church. For now, because of what I've already

(33:14):
tried to demonstrate and live out in terms of my
understanding of being pope at this time in history, I'm
trying not to continue to polarize or promote polarization in
the church. What I'm trying to say is what France
has said very clearly when he would say, totos, totos totos.
Everyone's invited in. But I don't invite a person in
because they are or are not of any specific identity.

(33:35):
I invite a person in because they are a son
or daughter of God. You're all welcome, and let's get
to know one another and respect one another. At some
point when specific questions will come up. People want the
church to change doctrine. This excuse me. People want the
church doctrine to change, want attitudes to change. I think
we have to change attitudes before we even think about

(33:56):
changing what the Church says about any given question. I
find it highly unlikely, certainly in the near future, that
the church's doctrine in terms of what the Church teaches
about sexuality, what the Church teaches about marriage, will change.
So it seems as if he's kind of shutting the
door on all of that. He continues, I've already spoken
about marriage, as did Pope Francis when he was Pope,

(34:17):
about a family being a man and a woman in
solemn commitment, blessed in the sacrament of marriage. But even
to say that, I understand some people will take that badly.
He then goes on to criticize this. In Northern Europe,
they are already publishing rituals of blessing for quote, people
who love one another is the way they express it,
which goes specifically against the document that Pope Francis approved,

(34:37):
which basically says, of course we can bless all people,
but it doesn't look for a way of ritualizing some
kind of blessing because that's not what the Church teaches.
So I thought, overall it was a pretty darn good
statement from Pope Leo that no, I'm not changing Catholic doctrine,
and yeah, we can be kind to people, but it

(35:02):
can't come at the expense of doctrine. The thing that
I was quite happy about was even that Pope Leo
has said, I think it would be fruitful to have
more you know, as someone like me, I've gone to
the Latin Mass on and off for years and years
and years. Pope Leo is saying that he wants to

(35:24):
have more of a synodyl discussion about the role of
the Latin Mass, the older form of the Mass, in
the life of the church, and that makes me quite happy.
All right. When we return, I'm going to close just
a little bit with talking about Charlie Kirk and the
attempt to sort of have people argue what his legacy
is and the Candace Owens issue. Next on the John

(35:46):
Juardy Show, there's this mini war brewing on the right
about Charlie Kirk and it seems to be coming from
Candace Owens. Candae Owens, who I must say, has kind
of gone over the deep end in the last year

(36:09):
or so. I mean, one could argue she was never
in the shallow end, but I think has really gone
over the deep end. With I can understand taking a
position that is less negative towards the geopolitical posture of Israel.
I would say I am more of an israel skeptic

(36:29):
than most people on the right. October seventh was horrible.
I think Israel is justified in going to war against Gaza.
I don't see why America needs to fund it. I
am tired of America funding foreign countries. I don't like

(36:51):
America being involved in proxy war with Middle Eastern states,
quasi states, whatever. I tire of, basically our involvement with
that entire region of the world, whatsoever. I wish we
would just drill for all of our own oil and
have nothing to do with that whole region of the world,
and have as little involvement in it as we do

(37:11):
with I don't know, Central Africa. There's all kinds of
bad things that happened in Central Africa, horrible injustices, and
the United States doesn't involve itself in it. Now. Owens, though,
takes it to jumping to wild Jewish anti Jewish, anti
Semitic conspiracy theory land and that's where I have to

(37:32):
kind of pump the brakes. And there's this effort. Now
Candicezon's trying to argue that Charlie Kirk was souring on Israel,
and that's the real direction he's going in, and other
people are saying, what are you talking about? That that's
not true. He didn't, he wasn't souring on Israel. I
think the whole argument, as Vice President Vance said, is unseemly,

(37:57):
certainly before the funeral even happens. And I hate it.
I really don't like the way Owens is trying to
use this to sort of boost her own platform and
standing that'll do it. John Gilardi shows see you next
time on Power Talk