Sex Trafficking on Figueroa Ave

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's been a real silly season for conservative institutions, and
I think it's because there's not enough actual news going
on that a lot of these conservative institutions have the
time on their hands to have these little, bizarre internecine
battles that nobody actually cares about in the real world.

(00:20):
And I want to talk about a few of them
in case any of our listeners are themselves getting too
wrapped up in all this and I want to give
some perspective on it. So one of the things to
talk about is the storm and drong over three characters.
The Heritage Foundation, which is very prominent and historically has
been a very important conservative think tank. Tucker Carlson, the

(00:48):
former MSNBC and then Fox News host who after he
got fired from Fox News, has a weekly show on X.
And then this guy, Nick Fuentes. Nick Fuentes is a
guy with a YouTube show, and let's recall that's what

(01:11):
he is. He's a guy with a YouTube show who
clearly he's a youngish guy. I think he's in his
twenties still, and he's developed a bit of a following
something I don't know, like about a million listeners or
followers whatever that has basically developed around him because he

(01:31):
intentionally says provocative stuff that is beyond the pale. He
makes jokes, He has made various jokes about the Holocaust.
He has taken on a very anti Israel position that
then slips into anti Semitic tropes time and time again.

(01:54):
And he's doing that on purpose. I mean, he's doing
it with a knowing, like bleep eating grin on his face,
because he knows it's transgressive. He knows he's being naughty,
and he knows that if he says stuff like that,
he gets noticed and gets attention and gets eyeballs, and
he takes on this very anti Israel form of Israel
is controlling the world. Everyone's focused on Israel. And the

(02:18):
weird thing is that because he's so I don't even
know that it really fits saying that he's right wing.
I guess he's sort of right wing if you want.
I mean, he's an extreme whichever, however, he maps on
to the right left dichotomy. I mean, it's funny how

(02:39):
the extreme left wing is now super anti Semitic, anti
Israel at this point, but also now this little portion
of the extreme right wing. But he says all this
stuff with a knowing grin because he knows it will
get him attention and clicks and views. So Tucker Carlson,
Tucker Carlson wants eyeballs, so he's going to put anyone

(03:03):
on his show, which after Carlson got fired from Fox News,
he signed some kind of deal with Twitter with X
with Elon Musk's the Elon Musk owned version of X
to have like a show, a weekly show on whose
platform is X. And so he's having anybody on. Honestly,

(03:28):
I think he's just he There are a lot of
guests who are just kind of like, we don't want
to come on Tucker Carlson show anymore, and so as
a result, he has to find anybody. So he brings
on this Nick Quintez guy because he's got a platform.
Now Carlson has been accused more and more and more

(03:48):
of anti Semitism himself. Even I think the most classless
thing was after he was invited to speak at Charlie
Kirk's funeral, because he had been very close to Charlie
and had been a speaker for a Turning Point USA,
and at his funeral he talked about people munching on
hummus being glad that Charlie was dead, which given Tucker's

(04:15):
very aggressive anti Israel promptings and stances, these very harsh
anti Israel stances that he's taken, especially over the last
few years, everyone was like that seems like a not
so veiled anti Semitic trope, like some notion that Charlie

(04:36):
Kirk was killed by the Jews or somehow blame throwing
in something anti Jewish in the context where it really
wasn't appropriate, like it's the guy's funeral, whatever you've got
going on with your pet views, maybe Charlie Kirk's funeral
was not the place to air that out with some

(04:58):
kind of bad joke. Now, this is one of the
things that I've been frustrated by. I am not as
much of a die hard pro Israeli involvement, pro American
Israeli foreign policy involvement guy as a lot of people

(05:19):
on the right are. I thought that Trump's posture has
been very smart with regards to how he's managed the
Israeli Palestine conflict. I think Trump's decision to sort of
maximally go against Iran and maximally back Saudi Arabia and

(05:41):
Israel in the modern day context, I think was smart
and has led to the ground and set the groundwork
for the burgeoning promise possibility of actual peace in the
Middle East. It's certainly a much better array of policies

(06:02):
and decisions than anything Joe Biden did, which yielded us
the disaster on October seventh, twenty twenty three, and the
disastrous war that followed. But there are a lot of
Republicans who sort of take this possure that Israel can
do no wrong Israel, and I don't necessarily think that.

(06:22):
I think, especially Israel's conduct of the war in Hamas.
I'm not gonna call it a genocide, but it is
a fact that they killed a lot of civilians. And
at a certain point you have to ask questions, like
you know, from the general Christian sort of from the
writings of Saint Augustine onward. Just war tradition looks at

(06:45):
two different questions. There's use odd bellum right as it
applies to going to war. Are you justified in going
to war? Yes, I think Israel was justified in going
to war against Gaza. But then there's also use in
bello conduct right in a war. In your conduct of

(07:06):
the war, are you deliberately targeting civilians? Are you deliberately
you know, is the is you're carrying out of the
war actually accomplishing anything, or just causing more and more
needless death. Now, I don't think Israel was directly targeting civilians,
And to a certain extent, I think Israel was stuck
between a rock and a hard place. Hamas is so

(07:28):
evil and so egregiously evil that they deliberately set up
their military assets with civilian shields, that they want more
civilian deaths, one because it conforms with their Islamic worldview,
the idea that well, if our civilians are killed, I mean,

(07:51):
you know, they're going to be martyrs for the cause,
they're going to go to heaven. But also because they know,
they cynically know, if more of our civilians get killed,
it makes our cause more sympathetic to liberals in the
West and helps us in the pr war of international
opinion against Israel. So I'm sort of two minds in this, Like,

(08:14):
I obviously I think Hamas is egregiously awful, but Israel
was killing a lot of civilians, and at a certain
point it's like, all right, well, are these continued military
offensives at a certain point. I mean, with the war
had almost been going on for two years, what is

(08:36):
this actually accomplishing? So with all this anyway, So that's
my specific views on israel I. Guess my generalized view

(08:57):
on the Israeli conflict is not that I think President
Trump has handed old Israel and Palestine about as well
as a president could have possibly handled it. I guess
my problem is more with the antecedent policies of both
the Republican and Democratic parties in my view, which I
adopted from my dad. My dad had my dad, doctor Jojo,
already had a real way of distilling complicated questions simply,

(09:24):
and he had just paid taken the posture. I would
just like America to have nothing to do with that
entire part of the world. We don't understand them and
they don't understand us. So just no involvement at all.
Just forget it. And if Israel wants to handle it themselves,

(09:45):
let Israel handle it themselves. If you know what, it's
not our concern, because part of it is like a
lot of the reason for the anti American sentiment in
the Middle East is because of for example, continually militarily
arming Israel continually being involved in the Middle East in
a pro Israeli possible part of why they ate our guts. Now.

(10:06):
I don't know that our foreign policies should be determined
by the antipathy of people of other observers if we
want to support a country, but it is true, it
is a reality that that is a major part of
why the Middle East hates US. I don't think it's
actually because of some just generalized thing of oh, we

(10:28):
hate the whole West. Well, no, they hate America very specifically,
and it has to do with our ongoing support of Israel.
So I think, you know, if I had a magic
wand in eighties or nineties or something as opposed to
right now, just to generalized sense of let's we shouldn't

(10:50):
we should just not be involved in this whole part
of the world. We should drill for our own oil
and let it. Let it be like the reasons why
we feel we must be involved in the Middle East,
but we have no concern about being involved in how
many horrible sectarian conflicts are happening right now in Africa

(11:11):
that we don't give a darn about. I mean, there
are thousands of Christians being killed by although Trump now
is saying he wants to get militarily involved in Nigeria,
but I mean, for decades we don't. There's so many
conflicts in Africa that we just don't give a darn
about because it's not really in our national interest, so
we just don't care. I just feel like whatever national

(11:33):
interest America has in the Middle East, which I guess
is just oil, is dumb. We have enough oil in
America that we don't need to rely on the Middle East.
We should have adopted thirty years ago, forty years ago
a policy of just drill, baby, drill in our own
country and just stop caring about the Middle East altogether.
Maybe the world would be a better place anyway. With

(11:59):
that said, given the hand that Trump was dealt, I
think Trump is dealt with it beautifully. And it's odd
because the Tucker Carlson's of the world and the Nick
Flinteses of the world are in this awkward position. On
the one hand, they've tried to set themselves up as
like the most maga Magaites that ever magaed, but at

(12:20):
the same time they're like super anti Israel, and no
one is more pro Israel than Trump and everything they've
said has kind of been wrong. Like Tucker Carlson before
the American airstrike on the Iranian nuclear facilities, was saying

(12:40):
President Trump cannot do this. If he does it, he
will start World War three. This would be the greatest betrayal,
This is horrible blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
And well Trump did it. Send the American bombers in.
They blew up Iran's nuclear program, set it back. I
don't know a decade. No American casualties, minimal Iranian casualties too.

(13:06):
Nothing happened. I think the Iranians fired some rockets back
at the Israelis, but that was just after the Israeli
attack and Iran folded. That was it. It didn't start
World War three. And in fact, Trump's super aggressive anti
Iranian posture cut Iran off from its oil sales revenue

(13:34):
and dried things up for its proxy entities throughout the
Middle East. I mean, the October seventh, twenty twenty three
attack was able to happen because Biden loosened all of
the previous Trump restrictions and sanctions on Iranian oil sales,

(13:55):
so the Iranians were able to sell oil, make a
bunch of money, use the money to help fund Hima.
Hamas perpetrates October seventh, and they perpetrated October seventh thanks
to Iranian funding in Iranian coordination. Well, now Hamas they
ain't got no more Iranian funding. They ain't got any
more Iranian coordination. And Iran's other proxies are falling. Syria

(14:21):
what's his name, the former president of Syria, the former
regime in Syria that had been in Iranian proxy, it fell.
So that's not becoming a conduit for Hamas anymore to
receive arms. Trump's posture being anti Iran and then setting
back Iran's nuclear program. Now the Iranians are, you know, broke,

(14:44):
and their military has been enormously set back, and their
nuclear program is completely set back into which they had
obviously been pouring a ton of money and effort. So
Tucker was wrong. He was incorrect about this stuff. And
I know it's always like if you're more hardcore Mega
than someone else, it always makes you feel like, oh,
you're you're more right because you're more hardcore Megah. But

(15:09):
he isn't, and he's not actually aligned with what Trump thinks.
Now he has Nick Fuentes on his show Why Well,
because he wants clicks, That's what it is. He wants views.
He wants clicks, he wants eyeballs, and Nick Fuentes brings
a certain amount of clicks and views, and this has

(15:31):
led to all sorts of consternation and finger pointing over
issues and people that I just think are not very important.
When we return Why Heritage, Why the Heritage Foundation blundered
into all this? That's next on the John Girardi Show.
Conservative Land is all up in arms about this brew

(15:53):
haha going on between the Heritage Foundation, Tucker Carlson, and
Nick Fuentes. Tucker Carlson has become more and more aggressively
anti Israel in his posture, to such an extent that
it's some people arguing that he is slipping all the

(16:17):
way into flat out anti Semitism. He then brings on
people onto his show, his little show platform that he
has on X now since he lost his Fox News gig.
Now he has a show that plays on X and
he brings on He's brought on several people who are

(16:39):
off in kind of la la conspiracy theory Land, including
Nick Fuentes, Nick Flintez, who is a guy with a
YouTube show who is described as an alt right guy
who most again, most of what this guy does is
he's a young guy in his twenties or early thirties
who it's kind of like like Charlie Kirk, if like

(17:04):
evil Charlie Kirk more or less, where all of what
Nick Fuent is his whole shtick is talking about some
political thing in the most aggressive way possible, throwing in
a bunch of curse words, and then with a bleep
eating grin on his face, saying something that he knows
is transgressive. So making jokes that the Holocaust didn't happen,

(17:27):
it's saying something outrageous like that because it attracts attention,
because it attracts clicks. He's desperate for attention, That's what
it is. So Tucker, also desperate for attention because he's
in the media business, brings this guy on, brings this
guy on a show, and this has led to a

(17:48):
bunch of people being furious and wanting people to sort
of distance themselves from Tucker. One of the entities that
was called upon to distance itself from Tucker is the
Heritage Foundation. So the Heritage Foundation, as I said, the
first is remains a really important Republican think tank. Often,

(18:09):
both it and certain other think tanks, they wind up
being the next Republican When a Democrat is president, Heritage
Foundation and other entities like it wind up becoming the
next Republican administration in waiting, where people who had been
officials from the prior Trump administration went over to the

(18:29):
Heritage Foundation to have jobs so that the next time
a Republican was elected they could go right back into
the Trump administration. There were several people for whom that
was the case, and that is one of the functions
of think tanks in Washington, d C. Basically, these like
shadow government positions where they're awaiting their turn to come

(18:52):
back into power in actual government jobs. And while they
do that, they write research papers, they help develop policy
for the party, et cetera, etc. So Heritage Foundation functions
in that way, and it has helped set the agenda
for Republican politics for decades. It helps develop and advocate
for model legislation and legislative ideas and all kinds of stuff. Right. So,

(19:15):
Heritage Foundation and its current president, Kevin Roberts had in
recent years, i think, responding to the times that we
live in a maga world now. We don't live in
a Ronald Reagan world now has become more maga, more
explicitly supportive of Donald Trump and their current president, Kevin

(19:35):
Roberts has been very aggressive with that. And Heritage was
very friendly to Tucker, welcomed him, had him come speak
for a bunch of things, and clearly not I don't
think Tucker ever had a formal position there, but was
clearly very friendly with Heritage. For some reason, Heritage Foundation

(19:57):
thought it was necessary to issue some grand and statement
about Tucker Carlson's decision to have Nick Fuente's on his show.
And I feel like I'm more entree even talking about it,
because how many of you listening I have ever heard
of Nick Flintes. Probably nobody. And this is the result
of there's not enough real news happening, and people are

(20:20):
online so much that they miss out on what people
in the real world, those of you with jobs who
don't sit around on Twitter all day. I sit around
on Twitter much more because I have this show that
I gotta do and I gotta find things to talk about.
It's just not relevant to most of the world. I

(20:40):
don't think Heritage Foundation needed to address this as much
as I think the left wants to argue that the
Republican Party now has an anti Semitism problem among young
Republican men, and they point to this Nick Fuente's guy
as an example. They want to say, Nick Fuentes is

(21:03):
proof positive that the Republican Party has a deep racism
and anti Semitism problem, to which I would retort, First
of all, how many people even actually regularly listen to
this guy, as opposed to see an occasional video, you know,
twenty second video clip of him zip past on their

(21:26):
Instagram feed. Secondly, if they do listen to him, how
many people actually ascribe to all of those things? Even
if they do ascribe to those things, really, is it
actually ascribing to yes, the Holocaust did not happen, or
just ti he laughing at the transgressiveness, at the transgression
of someone making a joke about the Holocaust, which is
not a good thing to do. It is not a

(21:47):
nice thing to do. It is a bad thing to do.
But te heeing at someone making a joke at the
Holocaust is different from actually eying that the Holocaust happened.
They're both bad, they are different levels of bad. I

(22:09):
don't think the Republican Party actually has an appreciable, serious
problem with anti Semitism. And I know that because look
whom they elected to be their president. Donald Trump is
the most Jewish friendly president America has ever had. I
don't even think that's like hyperbole or exaggeration. His son

(22:31):
in law is Jewish, his daughter converted to Judaism, he
loves Jewish people, he loves he is more pro Israel
in his foreign policy than any president has ever been.
And he got elected with you know, practically every Republican vote,
and forty nine percent of the country voted for him.

(22:52):
So I just don't think there's a big anti Semitism
problem on the right. I do think there's a big
Annti Semitism problem on the left when Kamala Harris is
too scared to pick the obvious choice Josh Shapiro to
be a running mate because he's Jewish, where pro Israeli

(23:14):
Democrat politicians and senators like John Fetterman are basically shoved
to the periphery. So I think the Democratic Party has
a way bigger anti semitism problem. The fact that a
Republican think tank had a poorly thought out statement about

(23:38):
defending Tucker Carlson to the death, and then by Tucker
Carlson hosted an anti stom like this is silly little
republican organizational spats that I just think have no consequence
on the grand stage when we return, an absolutely gripping

(23:59):
New York Times piece that I want to talk about
about sex trafficking on Figueroa in Los Angeles and what
the New York Times wouldn't dare talk about. That's next
on the John Girardi Show. I read a really gripping
story and I'm not joking about this. I thought it
was really well written and really gripping. I'll retweet it

(24:23):
again at my Twitter account Twitter dot com slash Fresno
Johnny at Fresno Johnny on Twitter. It's a long piece
from the New York Times magazine, which my mom got
me a New York Times subscription for my birthday. Even
though she and I both hate the New York Times.
It has been helpful for my writing, especially just because

(24:45):
The New York Times writes about things that become relevant
in the news. By virtue of the New York Times
writing about it, I mean they still do, I think, unfortunately,
have the ability to sort of set to some extent,
help shape the national agenda in a way that I
think very few other newspapers do. Now they have this

(25:06):
long piece about sex trafficking on Figaroa Avenue in Los Angeles,
and it's this stretch of Figaroa that's right near USC
University of South Southern California with its inferior football team,

(25:27):
and the story it's gripping. The author of the piece
follows throughout this long story, I don't know how many
words it is must be about. It feels like it's
a round five thousand words. It might be longer than that,
maybe ten thousand words. I don't know anyway, very long story,
and it follows kind of two characters. One is a

(25:47):
Los Angeles sort of a vice cop, a female vice cop,
who does amazing work trying to combat sex trafficking with
their team, including she herself going undercover dressed as a
prostitute to arrest traffickers and try to save women who

(26:09):
are being trafficked, especially and I say women, actually what
I should say is girls. A ton of these people
are miners, girls as young as eleven. It's horrible, it's
egregiously evil. And the While the author doesn't say the
name of the author of the bill or the name

(26:29):
of the governor who signed the bill, the author does
take what I think is a brave step for someone
from The New York Times to actually mention the law
that has helped facilitate this real uptick in the twenty
twenties in sex trafficking. On figure out, she identified the
law SB three five seven from twenty twenty one. This

(26:51):
law was passed in the California legislature in twenty twenty
one at the height of the defund the police dei
equity in policing criminal law reform in ways to combat
disproportionate arrests and convictions and sentencing of persons of color

(27:15):
communities of color. When Senator Scott Wiener, the most loathsome
person in maybe all of American politics, Senator Scott Wiener
introduced this bill and got it passed and got Gaven
Newsom to sign it. And what the law did was

(27:36):
it outlawed? Excuse me? It decriminalized rather loitering with intent
to commit prostitution, loitering with intent to commit prostitution. Why
was that significant? Well, cops can only arrest people if

(28:00):
they have if the cop has probable cause that they
see someone committing a crime. Probable cause means the cop
sees more likely than not someone's committing a crime. Now,
sometimes cops will suspect that a worse crime is happening

(28:25):
but not quite have probable cause for it, but they
will arrest or pull someone over for a minor violation
that they do clearly see in order to allow them
to check someone out to see if there is a
worse crime happening. So if cop has a suspicion that

(28:51):
someone in a red Ford Mustang committed a murder ten
minutes ago, and he's driving down the street and he
sees someone driving a little erratically and shifting lanes without
signaling in a red Ford Mustang, well the cop can

(29:12):
pull that guy over for not signaling when he was
shifting lanes and then discover, aha, I have the murder
suspect and arrest him for that. Okay. So sometimes you
want to have little crimes on the books to give
cops probable cause to arrest and detain people so that

(29:34):
you can get to a much bigger problem. And that's
what the crime. The former crime before this law was passed,
loitering with intent to commit prostitution. This was a really
important law to help police do stuff like that. You
see a girl hanging out on the sidewalk wearing not

(29:59):
much at all, wearing high heeled, wearing you know, six
inch stiletto heels, and wearing nothing much but a bikini
with a mesh skirt that you can see her whole
butt or whatever. The cop goes over and says, hey,

(30:20):
all right, come here, you're loitering with intent. I've seen you.
You've been sitting here for five minutes, not doing anything.
I'm detaining you for loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
By doing that, what does that help police to do well?

(30:40):
All of the anti sex trafficking advocacy organizations throughout California
were saying, that's a critically important thing for police to
be able to do. Why because so many people who
are prostitutes are not there of their own free knowing
adult volition. A lot of them are miners, and a

(31:03):
lot of the adults are not there of their own
free will. They're being coerced under threat of physical violence
by sex traffickers slash pimps, which maybe those two terms
are pretty much synonyms at this point by allowing cops

(31:26):
to detain someone, which, by the way, getting arrested is
not the same as getting indicted. It's not the same
as getting convicted. You're just arrested. When one of these
women gets arrested, it can provide the opportunity for law
enforcement to realize, holy cow, this is a minor. We

(31:49):
gotta get her the heck out of here. She is
being trafficked. This is a sex trafficking victim. And police departments,
all police department, sheriff to de pertments, et cetera, all
up and down California have tried to save girls from
this horrific plight. And the way they're able to do it,
to do the initial arrest is by saying, this person's

(32:12):
committing loitering with intent to commit prostitution. I can go
in and I can arrest this person. Well, when you legalize,
when you decriminalize loitering with intent to commit prostitution, police
no longer have the legal authority to arrest someone just
because they're standing on a corner looking like a hooker.
So police have to sit there and unless they can,

(32:37):
like one hundred percent, unless they can clearly tell that
someone is a minor and that prostitution is happening. Basically,
it hugely hinders the ability of police officers to intervene
in this situation. Why was it passed? Why would such
a law be passed? What kind of psycho would pass this?

(32:59):
You don't, I don't understand how insane that building is
up in Sacramento. It is dominated not by the left,
not by the very left, by the ultra most extreme.
You see, educated liberal college professor extreme never once have

(33:19):
interacted with reality left wing in our state. Scott Wiener
introduced it because he thinks that persons of color are
disproportionately arrested and charged under loitering with intent to commit prostitution,
and members of the LGBT community have been harassed with

(33:45):
this law disproportionately. Now we can leave our commentary on
that side. I feel add if people were not loitering
with any intent to commit prostitution at all, we're just

(34:07):
I don't know, drag queens standing around on a dark
corner late at night in stiletto heels as one does
you know that's my normal Friday night. I don't know
that I've ever done any activity that would make or
my wife has ever done any activity that would make

(34:28):
a cop confused as to whether or not she's a prostitute.
All right, Now, the libertarian thought is, well, there's nothing
wrong with it. Look, if someone wants to dress up
like a hooker and walk down the street, what business
is that of anyone else? Now? That is dumb and

(34:55):
the consequences of that law have been an utter disaster. Now,
the story gripping, I encourage you to read it and
run in short on the segment when we return. I
want to talk about, though, a couple of things about
the horrific nature of sex trafficking in southern California, A
couple of things that The New York Times doesn't dare

(35:15):
to talk about because it's a kind of third rail
for their liberal politics. That's next on the John Girardi Show.
The New York Times had this incredible story from the
New York Times magazine about sex trafficking in Los Angeles
along Figueroa, sex trafficking which has exploded since California passed
a law authored by State Senator Scott Wiener, the horrible

(35:37):
crazy state senator from Nancy Pelosi's part of San Francisco,
and signed into law by Gavenuwsom, which neutered police's ability
to detain people who are clearly engaging in prostitution, which
allows police to help victims of sex trafficking to intervene,

(35:58):
arrest these girls, realize that they're a minor and get
them out of sex trafficking, away from their pimps, away
from these horrible, violent men. There were a couple of
points that The New York Times didn't dare touch on
in this story that I think was extremely well written,
really gripping, really worth your read. But there were a

(36:19):
couple of points that they didn't want to do. One
is that they didn't want to name and blame the
Democrats who enacted these policies Scott Wiener, Gavin Newsom. Their
names don't appear in the story. They should the next thing,
it's clearly a third rail that a liberal institution like
The New York Times doesn't want to touch. What role
does a legal immigration play in sex trafficking, Especially we're

(36:42):
talking about Los Angeles, California. You're telling me the cartels
aren't involved in this at all. I mean, at one
point they talk about how drug dealers shifted away from
dealing drugs to doing prostitution. Why, Well, because you can
keep reusing and reusing and reusing a girl for years
and years and years and years. You know, once you

(37:04):
sell drugs, you got to get more drugs. You don't
think illegal immigration is involved in that. You don't think
the cartels utilize illegal immigration help facilitate all this illegal
immigration was never really discussed in the piece, and I
feel like there's no way it's not involved. There's no way.

(37:24):
I mean, just statistically speaking, a certain percentage of these
girls are illegal aliens. I mean, you take any cross
section of Los Angeles' population, you're going to find some
people who are not here legally. All right. The other
issue abortion. If you have a bunch of women who
are having sex, some of them are going to get pregnant,

(37:44):
and sex traffickers don't want that. Where they get in abortions,
where they get in birth control. Oh, there's a planned
parenthood clinic right on figure rollot, right in this area
where all this sex trafficking is happening. There's a big
planned parenthood. I'm not saying planned parenthood is knowingly aiding
and a betting sex traffickers, but I bet the traffickers

(38:07):
find them quite convenient. That'll do it for the John
Girardi Show. We'll see you next time on Power Talk