Pope Francis on Immigration

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I try to be honest on this show, and if
I'm being honest, the topic that's really dominating my mind
at the moment is the question of immigration, the tensions
about this subject between the Trump administration and the Catholic bishops,

(00:20):
as well as the recent intervention into this discussion by
Pope Francis. Now, I don't go on this show and
I don't blast the Pope. I don't criticize the Pope.
This is I think this stems from my own Catholicism.

(00:41):
I hate it when Catholics sort of treat the Pope
as just another kind of political talking head whom you
can call a moron at your pleasure. He's not. I
think he's deeper, thinker than that. I think he's a
better person than that. And I basically I kind of

(01:08):
view the question of, you know, criticism of the Pope
along the lines that I would if my own father
were doing something that I didn't like or I didn't
disagree with, How would I talk about it? If my
father were a prominent figure in public life and we're
doing something I disagreed with, I would probably ninety nine
percent of the time maintain a respectful silence. And if

(01:34):
I were pressed into talking about it, I would, you know,
do so with love and affection and respect, because I
love my father and I have that kind of an
attitude towards the Pope, as I think the early Christian

(01:56):
community would have had towards the apostles towards Peter. I'm
also not really anyone in a position of authority. Paul,
an apostle, was able to engage in fraternal correction to
Peter when Peter was sort of being kind of hypocritical

(02:23):
in his treatment between some of the more some aspects
of the early Christian community that wanted to maintain Jewish
customs and other aspects of the Christian community as represented
by Paul and Peter. Really that we're saying, no, Christianity
is open to the gentiles. We don't need to insist
on following the We do not need to insist on

(02:46):
following old law customs, kosher rules for food, et cetera.
So Paul was able to critique Peter. But I'm not Paul.
I'm not an apostle, I'm not bishop, I'm not a priest.
I'm a guy yapping on the radio, and I'm not
even necessarily someone with you know, I am a lawyer,

(03:09):
so I think I have some basis for discussing the
immigration question a little bit, and I want to sort
of talk about the tensions within Catholic teaching on this.
So Pope Francis issued just yesterday this letter to the
Bishops of the United States talking about the immigration question,

(03:30):
where it seemed as if he was directly responding to
Jade Vance. Jady Vance had mentioned this idea called the
Ordo amorris, the notion that there is a certain ordering
of love, of care and concern that everyone is supposed
to have. That this is just sort of obvious, natural

(03:51):
common sense, but also as a principle within Christianity that
you have certain kinds of obligations of care and duty
to the people closest to you. To care for someone
in need in your immediate sphere is a more urgent,
pressing obligation to you than caring for someone who is

(04:12):
half a world away. You know, I'm going to put
food on the table and clothing on the backs of
my own children before I do that for someone else's children.
If I neglect and my own children for the sake
of someone else's children, that would not be good and JD.
Vance is just basically making the point that we've I

(04:34):
think the broader point that Vance has been making that
I think has been missed by some of his more
liberal Catholic interlocutors, and that frankly, you know, the Pope
did not mention Vance by name, but he certainly didn't
mention this topic, and it's obviously a reaction to Vance.
I think the point Vance is making is that American

(04:57):
immigration policy has been so solicitous to welcome people from
other countries that it has resulted in detrimental outcomes for
our own citizenry. We have been so eager to let
in immigrants from other countries, whom, by the way major

(05:24):
capitalist big business can mistreat in the labor market. Okay,
why do we want Why do all these big companies
want a bunch of H one B visa holders to
come to America from India to work, you know, to
work engineering jobs. It's not out of an altruistic desire
to lift up the world's benighted masses, you know, and

(05:46):
bring in you know, wonderful people from India to do
this work. Part of it in many, many companies is
you can get away with paying an h one B
VISA holder less money, treating them worse because an H
one bvs A holder, it's almost like this indentured servitude.

(06:08):
If they lose their job, their rear end is going
back to India. So rather than hire an American engineer
who's an American citizen, who if you treat him badly,
if you don't pay him well enough, he can say, well,
screw this, I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go get another job.

(06:29):
If you mistreat them, you know, I'm an American worker
could maybe say, hey, you're violating labor law, you're not
paying me what you owe, or you're violating overtime rules,
or you're you know, discriminating against me on the basis
of you know, exra y category. No worry about that
with H one bvs A holders. Why have Americans picking

(06:56):
your crops when you can have someone from Mexico, someone
from Mexico who is more leary about unionizing because maybe
they're only here on a green card maybe or well
green card is implies permanent status, but you know, maybe
they're only here on a work visa temporarily as long
as they have a job and they don't want to

(07:17):
lose a job. Maybe they've overstayed their visa, so they're
in a dicey situation. They don't want to lift their
nose above the water and give someone an occasion to
call ice or call it immigration authorities to ship them back.
I think there's this fundamental problem with American immigration policy,

(07:38):
that this fundamental injustice that's being perpetrated, that that people
on the bleeding heart left don't seem to want to
acknowledge that the reason why people like tons and tons
of illegal immigration and even in some cases a wildly

(07:58):
over expansive legal imageation market, is not out of an
altruistic desire to keep and care for the world's oppressed masses,
or even like you know, I think there is some
obligation that wealthy countries have to take in immigrants, to
allow people to migrate relative with relative freedom as long

(08:21):
as people follow legal processes, and the United States is
incredibly generous as far as it's immigration policies. There are
other countries that just say a total pause, we're allowing
in no new legal immigrants. In the United States never
does that. We are constantly allowing in hundreds of thousands

(08:43):
of legal immigrants every year. It's just that there's a process,
and I think a lot of illegal immigration is motivated
not it's not just a sense of how could you
be so harsh and draconian in, you know, enforcing American

(09:08):
immigration law to stop illegal immigration. This is so harmful,
This is so mean to the people who came here.
Why do you think they're here in the first place.
Why do you think you have so many of these
entities wanting them to come here, to overstay their visas,
to be here on a you know, a tenuous either
legal but only if you have a job or illegal basis.

(09:32):
It benefits big time businesses, that's whom it's benefiting, and
it is to the detriment of American workers. I see
no reason why other than proximity to Mexico, the California
agriculture industry came to be dominated by just immigrant, by

(09:54):
mostly ununionized immigrant labor. Other you know, the UfW tries
and the UfW is really a shadow of is really
not a very significant force anymore. It's not like most
I don't think most farm workers are members of UfW.
Why it developed like that rather than the automobile industry.

(10:16):
It's not like guys who were working the line at
Ford were not working hard. It's not like that isn't
a physically taxing job. But why did the American automotive
industry develop that way and not I don't know California
agg industry. Now that there's a seasonal nature to agricultural jobs.

(10:39):
I get it that maybe it makes it hard to
sort of build a house and settle down in one spot,
but and should certainly there are a lot of other
contingent factors. But this sort of vaguely racially, this vaguely
racist idea that only Mexicans are able to pick to

(10:59):
do the backbreaking labor of picking vegetables is I think ridiculous.
There are plenty of examples of Americans who did backbreaking
physical labor. Who do backbreaking physical labor. You know, why
are coal miners all Americans? Why are you know these
are hard jobs that Americans do. It developed that way

(11:19):
in California because California is close to Mexico, and it
is clearly financially advantageous in certain respects to have non
citizens people here quasi legally, people here illegally. So I
think none of that is being discussed, and I guess

(11:42):
it's a little bit. It's a little unrealistic to expect
Pope Francis, of all people, to be able to even
get in the weeds of that. He is an Argentinian
priest bishop who in Rome now, who is getting his

(12:04):
information about the American immigration situation from the most liberal
bishops in the United States. Pretty much. Of course, he's
not going to give a very two sided presentation to
the debate. Now. He reiterates Catholic teaching on the subject, which,
if you look at Catholic teaching on the subject, I

(12:26):
think can result in a variety of different approaches Legitimately
between disagreeing people to the immigration debate. I think there's
a lot of room for reasonable people of goodwill within
the Catholic Church to disagree on the parameters of immigration enforcement.
I think the bishops have been in America, and by

(12:47):
the way, both bishops, not just bishops who are very liberal.
I had I had Bishop Joseph Brennan, the Bishop of Fresno,
on this show. I can assure you all there is
nobody more socially conservative you're ever going to meet in
your life than Bishop Brennan. All Right, he is a
die hard pro lifer. He is you know he's for

(13:11):
one thing, He's also just been a very dear friend
to me, a very faithful Catholic, and not like a
total He isn't like this caricature of the modern day
left pro immigration, you know, racial fraudster who thinks that
any immigration enforcement whatsoever is just tantamount to racism and

(13:33):
responds to any argument about immigration by saying, well, America
is a country of immigrants. No, He's like, yes, I
really think we should deport anyone who's in this I
think deportations are okay. I think anyone who's committed a
crime needs to be deported. I think Bishop Brennan has
legitimate concerns about the fairness of people who were allowed

(13:54):
to stay in the United States for long periods of time,
who were allowed to stay for such a long time
that they set down roots, now all of a sudden,
all being deported because guess what, probably a lot of
his parishioners in the Sanawaquin Valley are like that, And
now a lot of those people are scared. They are worried,
they're concerned. They've made a life here, they're not sure

(14:16):
what they would go back to in Mexico or wherever.
He has concern for those people, and unfrankly, I do too.
I think that there is this fundamental unfairness that's resulted
in American immigration law as a result of non enforcement
of immigration law that happened for the past four years.

(14:37):
And I think that's what frustrates me, is that the
people from whom Pope Francis is getting all of his
information about the American immigration scene are some of these
most liberal bishops I think, who didn't raise a peep
about the problems that President Biden had been creating at

(14:58):
the border, exacerbation of the problems with people making phony
asylum claims, which has been I think the chief I
think that, more than anything has been the chief problem
at the border during the Biden years, the fact that
we have an asylum system in America. The asylum system,

(15:21):
it's not supposed to be a shortcut to immigration. It's
supposed to be you're in a bad, exigent circumstance in
you're you're putting a raft together made out of old
tires to float from Cuba to Miami because Castro is
gonna murder your family. You don't have time to or

(15:42):
the ability maybe to, you know, apply for a work
visa in the United States. You lash a raft together,
you float from Cuba to Miami Beach. You've come ashore,
you get picked up by immigration authorities and you say, hey,
I know I didn't come here the normal legal way.
I am seeking asylum. Castro is gonna kill me. Can

(16:05):
I come to the United States and we have a
system for that. Instead, what we've got are people marching
all the way up through Central America, through Mexico, through
safe parts of Central America, safe parts of Mexico, to say, ah,
I need asylum, when really what they're moving for is

(16:25):
an economic opportunity. Which that's fine, but you shouldn't be
using the asylum system to effectively cut the line. So
what do we do with these people? The Biden administration said, ah,
let them come in, and so we have wave and
wave and wave and wave of people where the Biden
Administration's like, ah, we're just not going to catch people
sneaking across the border illegally. We're not. We're gonna let

(16:48):
people in while we sit around and say we're going
to adjudicate their asylum claim, give them a court date
three years from now, that they're never going to show
up for and so now we just have all these
people in the country. But basically, this on again, off
again situation of American immigration enforcement I do think is

(17:10):
unjust for a lot of people who wound up staying
here on the basis of American presidents saying yeah, you
can stay. So when we return, I want to just
talk about maybe some dynamics about Pope Francis and things
like that, just to try to give some context for

(17:33):
the whole thing that is next on the John Girardi Show.
I'm discussing the recent letter that Pope Francis sent to
the bishops of the United States with regards to immigration,
and I want to talk about this just to give
some context for people. I think the perception of probably
most power talk listeners is Pope Francis is a left

(17:56):
wing lunatic and he hates Donald Trump. It may be
that he doesn't like Donald Trump. I wouldn't call him
a left wing lunatic. I think he has been very
concerned about immigration questions in many contexts worldwide, that that
is clearly something that really animates him. I wouldn't say

(18:20):
that he is unconcerned about social conservative questions. He's been
very few people in the world have been more anti
trans than Pope Francis, who, in spite of various whining
wringing their hands Catholic lefties said absolutely not. Nope, the

(18:42):
catholicarick absolutely posed it and actually helped develop Catholic teaching
over the course of his pontificate with regards to these
emerging trends and emerging issues with regards to transgenderism, all
in ways that are completely excellent and good. So I

(19:03):
want to give him credit where it is due. He's
unfailingly pro life, has reiterated, honestly with far harsher language
than I've ever used his opposition to abortion in context
after context. I will also, though, note this, with regards

(19:25):
to this most recent interaction, I would be willing to
bet a large sum of money that Pope Francis didn't
write a word of it. That maybe he signed it,
but he didn't write it. Pope Francis is eighty eight
years old. I don't need to tell any American about

(19:47):
you know, when someone's getting into their late eighties, you know,
it's kind of a difficult thing to expect them to
be operating at a super high level. We just saw
this with a guy who was our president who was
clearly senile the whole time. And I'm not saying Pope

(20:08):
Francis is senile. I don't think he is. I think
he's actually still fairly I think he's still probably pretty
darn mentally sharp. But you don't have the same fastball
at eighty eight. I don't care how mentally sharp you are,
you don't have the same fastball at eighty eight. I
think that's why Pope Benedict the sixteenth resigned the papacy.
Some of you may remember this, that Pope Benedict in

(20:31):
twenty thirteen resigned. Was the first pope in like five
hundred whatever, how many years, I forget how many centuries
was the first pope to voluntarily resign his office. And
I think he did so because he saw what had
happened under John Paul the Second. John Paul the Second,

(20:52):
I think had a very strong sense of his duty
and obligation to serve the church. And in spite of
the fact that he had Parkinson's disease and was suffering
very badly and was exhausted by the efforts of the papacy,
he said, no, I'm going to carry this cross like
Jesus did, and that's it. I'm not going to resign.

(21:12):
And I think Pope Benedict was saw that and saw
obviously he very so deeply admired John Paul the Second,
but I think he also realized maybe that's not the
best thing for the church to have a pontiff who's
well into his eighties, who cannot be as on top
of things as a younger man. And you know, popes

(21:34):
are living longer than they used to. Okay, in the
fifteen hundreds, if a pope dropped dead at age sixty eight,
no one was surprised. Popes are living to be they
have really good health care. They can live to be ninety.
And paup Francis only has one lung. He had some
kind of lung disease when he was young and had
one of his lungs removed. The fact that he's got
bronchitis right now. So again, I'm not saying Pop Francis

(21:59):
doesn't know what he signing, but I will say he
is reliant on other people. And I think I don't
know if there's some kind of a anti American bias
that's just present among Europeans and South Americans of which
he's kind of both. And I think he just sort

(22:21):
of has this. You know, he actually said this in
a press conference he had on an airplane recently when
he was asked about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and
he said, one of them wants to kill all the babies,
and one of them wants to get rid of all
the migrants. And that's it's sort of just his viewpoint

(22:42):
on things that he thinks abortion is bad and he
thinks he has a vague sense that American conservative's position
on immigration is bad. But he doesn't have the level
of sort of nitty gritty detail understanding of it, I
would guess. And you know, maybe I'm being as umptuous.
Maybe he does. Maybe I'm just wrong. I just don't

(23:03):
think he has the level of nitty gritty detailed understanding
of like, hey, do you realize how President Biden, like
royally screwed everything up, completely screwed up the asylum system
and people cutting the line via the asylum system, letting
them come into the country unchecked, everyone's miensing their court dates,
people overstaying whatever kind of parole Biden gave it. Blah

(23:24):
blah blah blah, blah blah, bah blah blah, the long
term economic harms to American the American working class that's
resulted from immigration, the benefits to capitalist enterprise to from
illegal immigration that people just pay their workers less, on
and on and on, the sort of in depth America
specific details about the immigration question that I just I

(23:44):
think it would be unreasonable to expect him to fully understand.
And I think he's got a lot of advisers around
him who want him to talk about want him to
push him to talk about this, who seemingly didn't push
him to talk about things like abortion or whatever. So
at the end of the day, that's my thoughts. I
respect the Pope, I love the Pope. I'm never gonna

(24:06):
blast him on this show. I want to treat him
the way I would my own father. I hope that's
what I've done. When we return. Is jd Vance initiating
a constitutional crisis of ignoring the court? Next? On the
John Gerardi Show. Jd Vance the other day had a
fairly simple statement that's been blown way out of proportion

(24:29):
into literally people calling it a constitutional crisis. I mean,
I guess it's not much of a surprise to anyone
given the level of lunacy and historyonics that people were
into during the first Trump administration, where everything Trump did
was the end of the world, that we you know,
get more of the same in the second Trump administration.

(24:51):
But and it's especially comical to see the American Bar Association.
So for those who don't know, the American Bar Association
is a joke. It is completely dominated by its actual
you know, leadership is dominated by left wingers, and they
are are now at this point where they're totally fine

(25:13):
with accepting even the most wildly left wing, outlandish liberal
legal ideas and theories humanly possible that that would just
get laughed out of an actual, real life, real world courtroom.
Stuff that's like too liberal for the actual Biden doj
The American Bar Association was cheering the notion just a

(25:34):
few weeks ago that Joe Biden could create a constitutional
amendment to the United States could declare something to be
a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution, an amendment to
the US Constitution via tweet. When Biden declared an think
they equal rights amendment is part of the Constitution, It's like, yeah, well, there,

(25:55):
it is part of the Constitution now. Spite of the
fact that it you know, didn't get another states to
ratify it within the specified time frame, and a bunch
of states de ratified after initially ratifying it, and blah
blah blah blah blah. So the American Bar Association's ridiculous.
But they issued this big statement just earlier that the

(26:17):
Trump administration this unprecedented attacks on the law because he's
firing a bunch of government employees and because of this
statement by JD. Vance. So what advanced say? Vance said, quote,
judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. Now

(26:40):
people took that to mean the president is going to
ignore the courts, and frankly, this is a you know,
I think a lot of people like to think of
our constitution as this sort of perfect, sort of fail safe,
perfect mechanism with no holes, no lacune, no sort of gaps.

(27:04):
As far as well, what would happen if this happened?
And this has actually been kind of a long standing thing.
The checks and balances that exist within our constitutional order
as we have it today is Congress rights the laws.
The president executes the laws. The president can only execute

(27:26):
those laws that Congress writes. The president has some ability
to use some level of executive discretion about how exactly
he's going to enforce the law within the parameters of
what Congress has written. So Congress has some ability to
check the ability. Congress has the ability to check the

(27:47):
power of the executive by delineating the area of its activity.
You will enforce the law. This is the law you
will enforce. You must stay within these parameters. You go
outside these parameters, you're outside the law. And the judiciary
has this sort of power to check everyone by in
an individual case or controversy, declaring that a certain law

(28:11):
violates the Constitution. The problem is, how does the judiciary
enforce its decisions. Well, it really only does so through
the good graces of the executive branch of government. And

(28:31):
this has led at different times in American history to
these kind of little mini constitutional crises. Andrew Jackson famously
ignored a Supreme Court ruling. He said, the Court can
issue its decisions, let them enforce it. And the thought

(28:56):
is that basically we have followed this pattern that the
Supreme Court has the last say about what is and
is not consistent with federal law or consistent with the Constitution,
and the executive follows it. That has been the most
majorum the way of our ancestors. That has been the

(29:16):
custom that has been kept, an important custom, long standing custom,
but effectively it's only in place with the goodwill of
the executive And there have been times when the executive

(29:37):
has or would tell the Supreme Court to go shove it.
If the Supreme Court were to intervene and say, in wartime,
the president cannot move the first Infantry battalion from this

(29:58):
area to that area through an emergency court ruling prompted
by a soldier filing a lawsuit or something. Clearly that
would be a wrongful infringement on the authority of the president.
The president is the commander in chief of the military.
He is solely given that responsibility by the Constitution, and

(30:21):
if the Supreme Court were to purport to venture into
that territory, the President would be I think completely within
his rights to tell the Supreme Court to go shove it.
And I don't know if we are quite there, but boy,
I think we're getting close. With some of these lower

(30:44):
court rulings that have been coming out with regards to
actions by the Trump administration. You had one federal judge
who said basically that Treasury Department positive information he was
trying to block. The effort was to block Elon Musk

(31:05):
and the DOGE guys from accessing certain kinds of Treasury
Department information. And the ruling from this one Federal District
court judge was to limit all political appointees in the
Treasury Department from seeing this information, from accessing this information,

(31:27):
all of them. That includes like the Secretary of the
Treasury not being able to see Treasury Department stuff. How
is that not a wild infringement by the courts on
the clear prerogatives of the executive branch. And by the way,

(31:50):
liberals have cheered the fact that the judiciary shouldn't infringe
on executive prerogatives. In twenty twenty two, a case Biden b. Texas.
This was a case where President Biden had gotten rid

(32:11):
of the Trump Remain in Mexico policy. Basically, American lawses
win an asylum seeker comes to the United States, they
are to be detained. Well, we don't have enough cells
to detain people. So the policy enacted by President Trump was, look,
you got to remain in Mexico while we adjudicate your
asylum claim. And this led to fewer flimsy, fraudulent asylum claims.

(32:36):
President Biden changed it. He said, Oh, we're going to
let you into the country while you wait for your
asylum claim. And so people just go into the country
their asylum There are way too many asylum seekers, not
nearly enough immigration judges and lawyers. Their court date for
judicating their asylum claim wasn't for several years, and then

(32:56):
we just let these people into the country. They're in
the country, and they're never shown up for that court.
That has been one of the massive reasons, one of
the massive flaws in the Biden immigration policy was that.
And it got to the point where Biden was using
like the Border Patrol CBP one app or something. I

(33:19):
think that was the app to sort of like make
that process even more quick automatically just giving these people
parole is purporting to give these people some kind of
parole from their necessary legally mandated detainment and just letting
him into the country. So a bunch of states sued
the executive branch to say, hey, you're violating the law.

(33:44):
You're letting all these people in in violation of American
law that says you have to detain these people. Well,
The Supreme Court ruled against the States in twenty twenty
two in a case called Biden v. Texas, and Chief
Justice Roberts wrote Article two of the Constitution author the
executive to engage in direct diplomacy with foreign heads of
state and their ministers. It part of remain in Mexico.

(34:06):
It relies a little bit on Mexico's good graces. Accordingly,
the Court is taken care to avoid the danger of
unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy and
decline to run interference in the delicate field of international
relations without the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly clearly expressed.
That is no less true in the context of immigration law,

(34:27):
where the dynamic nature of relations with other countries. Who
requires the executive branch to ensure that enforcement policies are
consistent with this nation's foreign policy. Now, in that case,
Roberts was saying, well, the judiciary is not going to
tell the president what to do in something that's within
his province foreign relations. So while the Court is from

(34:54):
a peace in National Review by Andy McCarthy, that's kind
of a good summary of this. While the Court can
and should say what it thinks, the law is. We
must always remember that the justices are right because they
are final. They are not final because they are always right.
As is well known, the High Court has in its
history reversed itself on a number of significant matters, often
because prior rulings were egregiously wrong Roe v. Wade, And

(35:19):
the Court has a doctrine storry decisis a major aspect
of which assumes that some decisions are wrong and wrestles
with whether they should be retained. Nonetheless, so I don't
I think that this notion that Vance is saying something revolutionary,
I think is ridiculous. He's not. He's saying there is
a proper role for the executive and the judiciary shouldn't

(35:43):
be overstepping it, and if it, and frankly, I'd love
to see some old Supreme Court cases overturned to establish
the authority of the executive one to fire members of
the executive branch and actually oversee them, which I think
Trump might be setting up here. That's really what is
just that, that's what I hope is accomplished by these

(36:05):
clashes Trump is having with some of these lefty federal judges.
When we return my seasonal effective Disorder aka being sad
that there's no football next on the John Jrwardy Show. Folks,
my problem when we get to the Super Bowl is
that any feeling of excitement I have about the game

(36:26):
gets immediately overshadowed by the looming dread, the dread that
basically there's no football for the next what is it,
five months? No? Seven months? Oh gosh, there's no football
until like late August at best. It's devastating. I'm so

(36:56):
wildly bummed. The Super Bowl was a pretty much a
huge snoozer. I kind of like Kendrick Lamar, but I
recognize that like this is not you know, anyone over
the age of fifty has no idea what's going on.
No aspect of it was particularly entertaining. Of the whole

(37:16):
Super Bowl was particularly entertaining. And now I'm left with
this reality of basically, I'm seven months away from Notre
Dame playing its first game, and I'm sure many of
you are in a similar situation where this stinks. But
what you do have? You have Fresno State basketball, which

(37:40):
is having the worst season in fifty years. You got
Friends of State baseball, though, which is great, and you've
got all president State sports here on iHeartMedia, So catch
that anytime. And hey, even the basketball team, the men's
basketball team, you know, still a fun time going to
the Save Art Center. That will do it for John
already shows see next time on Power Talk