Speaker 1: Well whiskey, come and take my pain the money all ry.
Speaker 2: Why think alone when you can drink it all in
Speaker 2: with Ricochet's three whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
Speaker 2: John Yu and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Speaker 3: Where they slapped it up and it ain't easy on
Speaker 3: the should stop got it giving.
Speaker 2: W All right, you guys, aren't we glad that Drive
Speaker 2: January is over? Did you guys both survive January well enough?
Speaker 4: Or did you try January?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 5: What did Joe? What do you mean January mean?
Speaker 1: Drive January is? Was we were supposed to give up
Speaker 1: alcohol for a month? Why? I don't know? I mean
Speaker 1: I I borrow, I dredged up and re stated.
Speaker 2: Will Rogers famous line about prohibition, which in my case
Speaker 2: was at least drive January doesn't mean no liquor at all?
Speaker 4: I know you know what it is?
Speaker 5: Where does this idea come from the latest.
Speaker 4: Thing from the CDC who wants us all to believe
Speaker 4: that alcohol is the greatest cause of every disease ever
Speaker 4: known to man? That it's a that you know that
Speaker 4: it's almost a quarter of a millionth of a jump
Speaker 4: in your chances of getting cancer if you drink, and
Speaker 4: I mean it's it's just the latest thing, like you
Speaker 4: shouldn't be barbecuing your meat because of the carbon and
Speaker 4: it's just stupid. So I'm drinking more because of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, if they make me give up alcohol, I'm
Speaker 2: going to take up smoking because you know they okay,
Speaker 2: they snap that out.
Speaker 4: Speaking of it's getting a lot of a lot of
Speaker 4: play that RFK had a nicotine gum or or shoe
Speaker 4: or something like that in the middle of the pretty
Speaker 4: rough hearings, So you can't blame that he was a heroin.
Speaker 5: If he can't have alcohol, I'm going to take a funanol.
Speaker 2: Well all right, So so by the way, how are you, Crazi?
Speaker 1: How are you? John? You're doing well this week? I think,
Speaker 1: I hope.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, after we recorded last weekend, the Eagles
Speaker 5: won the NFC Championship. We're going to go to the
Speaker 5: Super Bowl, and I wish I could beat in New
Speaker 5: Orleans watching the Eagles and eating mcred simultaneously, but I
Speaker 5: can't be and a soft pretzel. But this is like
Speaker 5: the best thing, This is the most important thing I
Speaker 5: should tell. It's a true story, but it's also a joke.
Speaker 5: It's a true story. Is my mom was a psychiatrist
Speaker 5: and she worked in a psychiatric hospital in Philadelphia for
Speaker 5: forty years. And so the other day I said to her,
Speaker 5: you know, Philadelphia is a crazy city, said mom, was
Speaker 5: there ever a day where there were no new patients?
Speaker 5: And she said yes, the day after the Eagles won
Speaker 5: the Super Bowl. Ah, true story.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: Well, you know your fans have gotten even more of
Speaker 4: a bad rap because of how you know, subhuman. They
Speaker 4: tend to act on occasion like the guy who you
Speaker 4: know made all those nasty comments to that woman. I
Speaker 4: think she was a Chiefs fan. No, no, it was
Speaker 4: before that. Whatever it was, she was anyway, and he
Speaker 4: got kicked out forever he can never go to another
Speaker 4: Eagles game. And then he got fired because he worked
Speaker 4: for some DEI company that remember that that believes in
Speaker 4: belonging and anyway, But I will tell you this. There's
Speaker 4: a big story a couple of days ago about the
Speaker 4: fact that the Eagles had extended a very generous invitation
Speaker 4: package to the Super Bowl to one of the guys
Speaker 4: in New Orleans who had been his buddy. Was they
Speaker 4: both played for Princeton football. For Princeton, his buddy was
Speaker 4: killed and he was seriously seriously injured, and so the
Speaker 4: Eagles are are rolling out the red and he's still
Speaker 4: in pretty bad shape, fractures everywhere and so on. He
Speaker 4: was hit by the car, the truck, So the Eagles
Speaker 4: are making a big deal out of him to the
Speaker 4: Super Bowl.
Speaker 5: You don't see I don't think you see any Seagles
Speaker 5: players taking a kneed during the national anthem. I'll tell
Speaker 5: you that much. Philadelphia doesn't never don't stand for that
Speaker 5: kind I don't think so we don't stand for that
Speaker 5: kind of stuff. That's a forty That's a San Francisco thing, right,
Speaker 5: that's Colin Kaepernick in the San Francisco forty nine ers
Speaker 5: and all their PC football, right, But all.
Speaker 4: The others did it too, and the NFL was pretty
Speaker 4: despicable in that whole thing.
Speaker 1: But I agree, Yeah, I think that's now.
Speaker 2: But since you mentioned McRib john, that's one of the
Speaker 2: pieces of housekeeping to get to here in our opening today.
Speaker 2: And I was gonna do it in different order, but
Speaker 2: you brought it up, so let's do it now. It
Speaker 2: is my sad duty to tell our listeners that it
Speaker 2: has become necessary in the course of human events for
Speaker 2: the three Whiskey Happy Hour to declare holy war on
Speaker 2: the Commentary Magazine podcast because.
Speaker 6: Earlier this week they went on the war path about
Speaker 6: how disgusting the McRib is not once not just in
Speaker 6: passing they did at the beginning of the show in
Speaker 6: a prolonged fashion because actually John pot Hard it's not
Speaker 6: like John, but he never does anything briefly.
Speaker 4: And someone there Whiskey Happy Hour.
Speaker 1: The kettle black.
Speaker 2: But then they came back to it to the end
Speaker 2: of the episode too, so they doubled down on just
Speaker 2: in the McRib And you know, look, I made my
Speaker 2: view is clear. I don't like the McRib either, but
Speaker 2: they don't get to do that. And this is a
Speaker 2: three Musketeers moments, all for one and one for all.
Speaker 2: So listeners, we have declared war on the Commentary Magazine podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Probably thinks that it's better if they do because they'll
Speaker 4: mean more for him.
Speaker 5: Well there's that, But can I ask, like, did they
Speaker 5: attack the McRib or did they attack McDonald's overall, because
Speaker 5: if you attack McDonald's, this is like from you know,
Speaker 5: the famous speech from Animal House, then you're attacking the
Speaker 5: United States America.
Speaker 1: Right, No, No, it was just the McRib.
Speaker 4: Still, I think you could make the same Uh, you
Speaker 4: could make the same progression, John. If you attacked the McRib,
Speaker 4: you're attacking McDonald's, which means you are attacking the United
Speaker 4: States of America.
Speaker 2: I did think, I mean, look, I'm I'm a good
Speaker 2: old fashioned proto wasp, and I did think it was
Speaker 2: interesting and revealing who exactly a'm on the commentary crowd
Speaker 2: or not, shall we say, strictly observant Jews when it
Speaker 2: comes to their fast food preference sell.
Speaker 5: Then how do they know what a mcgrip tastes like?
Speaker 1: Anyway?
Speaker 5: Can it?
Speaker 2: Well, that's what I was wondering. But I don't want
Speaker 2: to chase too far after that or we'll get in
Speaker 2: the usual trouble.
Speaker 5: So the usual trouble. Oh, this is going to you know,
Speaker 5: And this is just once again the snooty New York
Speaker 5: City Manhattan elites looking down on the rest of the country,
Speaker 5: isn't it.
Speaker 1: I think?
Speaker 2: By when we move on from that and say that
Speaker 2: my favorite executive order, John, I think you should be
Speaker 2: for this is Uh. Trump should mandate that mcgribby part
Speaker 2: of the school lunch program. Then we'd have it year round.
Speaker 1: For sure.
Speaker 5: All that plus next you know how he usually welcomes.
Speaker 5: Remember he welcomed I think the NCAA men's football champions
Speaker 5: or basketball. I remember he had a big picture of
Speaker 5: him piled in the White House, piled with big max
Speaker 5: and quarter pounders. Well he should add mcgribs next time.
Speaker 2: Well, I I mean he was by the ways everything
Speaker 2: and they had Chick fil a and again he had
Speaker 2: all the you know but this true?
Speaker 5: Yeah, who I wouldn't. But look, this is the thing.
Speaker 5: It's that, as you all know, the McRib is a
Speaker 5: very special sandwich. It's not available all the time. It
Speaker 5: only comes out for certain precise seasons. And I bet
Speaker 5: that wasn't available when Trump had his celebration. Sam, Yeah, oh, Rush,
Speaker 5: I could spam sushi they'd be more lucky. But I
Speaker 5: bet you know, I bet the guys on commentary don't
Speaker 5: know this because they don't even even really eat mcgribs.
Speaker 5: They just look down on America.
Speaker 4: Wait a minute, that's perfect.
Speaker 1: Let me let me change that.
Speaker 2: We're declaring limited war, not unconditional total war.
Speaker 5: So is there anything whatever leads you to believe that
Speaker 5: Lucretia or I believe in limited war?
Speaker 2: No, yeah, I had a whole thought about that that
Speaker 2: I believe on the cutting room floor. One other piece
Speaker 2: of housekeeping, briefly, listeners, the reason we're coming on a
Speaker 2: little later than usual, you know, half a day late,
Speaker 2: whatever is. I was on the road to something, John,
Speaker 2: you actually got me involved in. I had to go
Speaker 2: back to Villanova Law School to be the keynote speaker, and,
Speaker 2: much to my sort of discomfort because I don't like
Speaker 2: the lime light, sort of the focus of his day
Speaker 2: long conference at the annual SCARPA Conference on Law, Politics,
Speaker 2: and Culture, so pretty broad scale. I had no idea
Speaker 2: John that, and I clearly have brought down their average.
Speaker 2: But among the luminaries who've been their keynote speakers and
Speaker 2: focus for the day include Justice Scalia obviously many years ago,
Speaker 2: Martha Nusbam, who I don't like worth of darn, but
Speaker 2: she's a big figure in the sort of academic philosophical world.
Speaker 1: And then how did I get on this list?
Speaker 5: And anyway, it's about conservative thought? What did you tell them?
Speaker 5: I read the paper. I hope you'll post it, but
Speaker 5: I was hoping at least if seventy five to one
Speaker 5: hundred great minds came together at least someone would finally
Speaker 5: be able to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Speaker 4: Well, I think you're just too optimistic, John.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well you should have.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I just do want to say
Speaker 2: thanks to Patrick Brennan, who had.
Speaker 1: Never met before.
Speaker 5: He's a great guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's a very serious guy.
Speaker 2: Uh and has a you know, an interesting political philosophy
Speaker 2: though he became a law professor.
Speaker 1: Yes, and to his staff.
Speaker 2: And you know, Steven Smith from Yale was there, and
Speaker 2: he's a very nice guy in a very gentle manner.
Speaker 2: But he picked a fight with me on a couple
Speaker 2: of things where he thought I'd gone too.
Speaker 1: Far and that was fun.
Speaker 2: Dan Mahoney and I had dinner the night before and
Speaker 2: got shushed in the restaurant for talking too loudly.
Speaker 5: Oh where'd you go?
Speaker 1: What was Steve?
Speaker 5: Steve's Steve's cheesteaks, Steve's No.
Speaker 1: No, we were out in what rabb Hopefully.
Speaker 4: They weren't a no no no.
Speaker 2: We were at a nice restaurant in the hotel we
Speaker 2: were staying, and we a few patrons found.
Speaker 1: Us to be too loud, and that's probably true.
Speaker 2: Dan's a large, loud guy and saw my and I
Speaker 2: haven't seen him for ten years. Anyway, it was fun
Speaker 2: and I will probably post the paper awesome anyway, And
Speaker 2: then the only other thing is, you know, I keep
Speaker 2: threatening We're gonna do three whiskey happy hour whiskey glasses
Speaker 2: for listeners who are interested.
Speaker 1: I wonder should we do onesies? I mean, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: The way the hell are you onesies? See you missed
Speaker 1: this too, John. It was the highlight of the week.
Speaker 2: Was Bernie Sanders glowering at RFK Junior, pointing to a
Speaker 2: slide of you know, onesies, a little baby clothes.
Speaker 1: You do you support these onesies? And in my mind,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think. I don't know if Bernie Sanders sayst.
Speaker 4: Well, because because supposedly the anti vaxers are out there
Speaker 4: for twenty eight dollars, you can buy your child, your
Speaker 4: your infant, because infants wear onesies and I guess, uh
Speaker 4: the what Chris Chris Christie also wears onesies. Anyway, The
Speaker 4: baby onesies say things like anti vaxxin proud of it,
Speaker 4: things like that, So they make some money to support
Speaker 4: some of their efforts by selling onesies that say things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I in my mind, I was trying to
Speaker 2: conjure up Bernie Sanders changing a diaper. I don't know
Speaker 2: if he has kids or grandkids, but it was and
Speaker 2: what he might say. There's a comedy sketch to be
Speaker 2: written there because it's.
Speaker 4: The Maha moms. John, Are you aware of the Maha moms?
Speaker 5: Oh? Make America healthy again?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: And there supposedly the movement out there of the Maha
Speaker 4: moms is greater than the suburban soccer moms that brought
Speaker 4: Clinton into power. We'll see, yeah see, but that was
Speaker 4: a big reason supposedly that they voted for Trump. Remember
Speaker 4: all the dire warnings about the suburban moms would all
Speaker 4: go for Come Milama ding Dong, but instead they all
Speaker 4: voted for Trump. And supposedly it's because of RFK Junior.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, anyway, listeners, this week we are going to do
Speaker 2: instead of a single topic and going after it in depth,
Speaker 2: we're going to go to our round robin format where
Speaker 2: each of us brings up a topic or article or
Speaker 2: something on our mind or a rant or whatever. And
Speaker 2: we were going to start with Lucretia right after these
Speaker 2: messages from our sponsors. Don't go away, all right, Lucretia
Speaker 2: you're up.
Speaker 1: What's on your mind this week?
Speaker 4: Well, there's a lot on my mind, but you only
Speaker 4: are going to let me talk about one of those things.
Speaker 4: So I had to prioritize here and what I want
Speaker 4: to talk about for all of my faithful listeners out there,
Speaker 4: who are in fact of the faithful i e. Catholics,
Speaker 4: this was an interesting week for all of us, a
Speaker 4: very interesting week. So you have jd Vance, who is,
Speaker 4: like me, a fairly recent convert to Catholicism. And you know,
Speaker 4: we recent converts don't necessarily have that cradle Catholic cradle
Speaker 4: mentality where whatever the Pope says is gospel, sorry forgive
Speaker 4: the pun, nor do we care too much what the
Speaker 4: bishops have to say. You know, we came to this
Speaker 4: whole thing from an intellectual point of view, and then
Speaker 4: and faith and what the bishops say. But what came
Speaker 4: out this week very clearly, and you can again thank
Speaker 4: Elon Musk for making a very big deal out of this,
Speaker 4: is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which
Speaker 4: has not been a great organization for a very long time,
Speaker 4: it turns out that they have received over the course
Speaker 4: of let's just say, the Biden administration. It didn't start
Speaker 4: in the Biden administration, but it got much worse, literally
Speaker 4: hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to provide what
Speaker 4: shall we say, assistants to refugees and immigrants. And know,
Speaker 4: part of the very big problem with that, I think
Speaker 4: I might have even mentioned it on a podcast some
Speaker 4: weeks ago, is that there's a camp that's not too
Speaker 4: far from my house on the other side of the
Speaker 4: foothills that's run by the bishops, and ango aligned with
Speaker 4: the bishops gets federal money to house immigrants on their
Speaker 4: way through the mountains. You know, it's the whole thing
Speaker 4: is despicable, especially because I mean, the bishops came out
Speaker 4: this week and they trashed Trump's executive orders on immigration
Speaker 4: and his deportation. As you put it, John, we're not
Speaker 4: supposed to say deportation anymore. We have to say removal, right,
Speaker 4: that's the legal word that along with illegal aliens. That's
Speaker 4: that's in the law too, Okay, illegal aliens. And so
Speaker 4: you know, they're finding that this goes against Christian practice
Speaker 4: and so on, and and of course you know, the
Speaker 4: hypocrisy is so thick here because all of these last
Speaker 4: four years they didn't care a damn about the fact
Speaker 4: that Biden, supposedly a practicing Catholic, was pro abortion in
Speaker 4: every possible way, pro transgender you know, on and on
Speaker 4: all the despicable things that came out of the Biden
Speaker 4: administration at least nodded at, nodded to by Biden. If
Speaker 4: whether or not he was behind them, it's hard to
Speaker 4: say if he was behind anything anyway. So Jady Vans
Speaker 4: gets on there with Margaret Margaret, I won't, I won't.
Speaker 4: I won't run it for you. Steve, I'll leave it
Speaker 4: for you. But and and has this interesting discussion and it's,
Speaker 4: believe it or not, a discussion that we had a
Speaker 4: few weeks ago, and one of our listeners took me
Speaker 4: to task for it. I didn't bother to answer her
Speaker 4: because it wasn't worth it to me at the time.
Speaker 4: And that is the notion it was when we were
Speaker 4: talk about Jimmy Carter, and I said that the thing
Speaker 4: I found most despicable about Jimmy Carter was when he
Speaker 4: was preening about the fact that he felt so guilty
Speaker 4: and cried every night because he cared more about amy
Speaker 4: than he did about some random poverty stricken child in Africa,
Speaker 4: and I just you know, that's everything that that defines
Speaker 4: everything that's despicable about the Left, which is, let's care
Speaker 4: about people. Let's let's show, let's virtue signal how much
Speaker 4: we care about people that we can't do much about.
Speaker 4: We certainly can't personally do anything about it. We can
Speaker 4: force our tax dollars to go to that, and that's
Speaker 4: what we should do it for good Christians or whatever. Anyway,
Speaker 4: Jamie Vance took him down, and he did it by
Speaker 4: he did it by referencing a biblical precept, something out
Speaker 4: of Thomas Aquinas called the Ordo Amorus or the order
Speaker 4: of Love. And it's really very clear in Christian theology.
Speaker 4: Despite people who want to say that the Good Samaritan
Speaker 4: parable says the opposite, it doesn't. I want. I'm not
Speaker 4: going to do a sermon today, I promise, but the
Speaker 4: order of love is very simple God, you, your family,
Speaker 4: your neighbor, your commune, unity, your nation, and then the world.
Speaker 4: And there's a whole lot of reasons for it, which
Speaker 4: I won't go into. But boy, do I like that guy, JD. Vance?
Speaker 4: Oh well for commentary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, I've got a couple of comments, and then
Speaker 2: also sort of a minor scandal to share with John.
Speaker 1: It relates to aquinas a litill find funny.
Speaker 2: I think, look, Advance did this with a bit of
Speaker 2: trumpy and genius and baiting the liberals to expose themselves,
Speaker 2: because never mind the theology for a moment, to say
Speaker 2: that you should care about migrants as much as or
Speaker 2: more than your own family, is that really a good
Speaker 2: look for liberals? I mean, that just goes against nature,
Speaker 2: never mind theology.
Speaker 4: It's incredible, that's why they push it, because it goes
Speaker 4: against nature.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, the fair point, right.
Speaker 2: I mean that goes along with the you know, the
Speaker 2: socialist impulse to nationalize the children and goes back to Plato.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: The bit about the Catholic bishops, I mean, boy, I
Speaker 2: had them in my gun sights back in the eighties
Speaker 2: when they were behind the nuclear freeze and opposing Reagan's
Speaker 2: foreign policy. But about the federal grants to Catholic charities
Speaker 2: and such, that's been going on for a long time
Speaker 2: for all kinds of things, you know, homeless services and
Speaker 2: all the rest. But as you may know, and John,
Speaker 2: maybe you may or may not know, and I forget
Speaker 2: the details but they might as well not have the
Speaker 2: word Catholic in the name of any of them, because
Speaker 2: the grants are.
Speaker 1: Conditional that there's no spiritual.
Speaker 2: Element, no religious element in the grant programs. That's why
Speaker 2: they usually aly to an NGO. Really, I think a
Speaker 2: lot of these Catholic organizations are laundering the money from
Speaker 2: the NGOs who do the actual work. And I mean
Speaker 2: this was an issue with you know, President George W.
Speaker 2: Bush's Faith based initiatives. They wanted to chip away at that, thinking,
Speaker 2: you know, if you're gonna have a faith based organizations,
Speaker 2: maybe we'll let them talk about their faith as an
Speaker 2: element in those services they deliver. Right, No, of course
Speaker 2: there's lots of problems there, but that was controversial with
Speaker 2: the left. Oh we can't have it asked to be
Speaker 2: one hundred percent secular. And then finally John Halter over
Speaker 2: to you. So John Carlow and I'm forgetting his last
Speaker 2: name for heritage, was at the conference. I keep wanting
Speaker 2: to call him Carfano, but that's James the forum. But anyway,
Speaker 2: John Carla was very good.
Speaker 1: Young guy.
Speaker 5: Carlo cam That's it.
Speaker 1: John Carlo Camparo told the funny story.
Speaker 2: He said, uh yeah, I bought a copy of the
Speaker 2: Suma Theologica to use, and I tried to expense it.
Speaker 1: The Heritage Foundation wouldn't let me.
Speaker 2: I thought, well, boot boot on heritage, then really that
Speaker 2: should that should be a legitimate job expense.
Speaker 1: And anyway, that was funny.
Speaker 4: Take it off your taxes.
Speaker 2: But I know, anyway, John, what do you have to
Speaker 2: add on if anything?
Speaker 5: Or well, you guys are both Catholic, right, I don't
Speaker 5: get why Steve's like our friend.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, I'm Eastern Orthodox?
Speaker 5: Are you really?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 5: No? Oh gosh, I.
Speaker 1: Know this.
Speaker 2: Icons in your house, Well, this is my I have
Speaker 2: a few here and there, not very many that part
Speaker 2: of you.
Speaker 5: Know, Steve does smell like incense all the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we do even more incense than the High Church
Speaker 2: Episcopal Church of which you left. But well, all right,
Speaker 2: ten seconds. If you really want a conser a conservative church,
Speaker 2: it's not going to get true. The Orthodox Church is
Speaker 2: the one for you. They're the same abandoned. Oh I
Speaker 2: do want sorry, five more seconds. I really do want
Speaker 2: Trump to insist that we need to change the name
Speaker 2: of istan Bull back to Constantinople and then he can
Speaker 2: be president for life.
Speaker 5: Well, I've been talking about that for decades. The game.
Speaker 4: I okay, anyway, so wait, can I just one last
Speaker 4: thing before John goes on? But you didn't give us
Speaker 4: a chance. You said you were going to for our
Speaker 4: own executive orders that we wanted, right, So I think
Speaker 4: mine's mine's already out there AI having Trump do it,
Speaker 4: and it's we will be allowed to say gay and
Speaker 4: retarded again and it will be great.
Speaker 5: Okay, sorry, Actually should just take that remember that list
Speaker 5: of Stanford for in words, right, you should just have
Speaker 5: an issue EO saying that these words are to be
Speaker 5: used by all government officials.
Speaker 1: Anyway, I still loved.
Speaker 5: That episode where we had a contest to you who
Speaker 5: could use all the words and like Lucretia like was
Speaker 5: it had two to one, but.
Speaker 1: Either of us trying it in sixty seconds it was around.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even you know.
Speaker 4: Retarded was on there, I think, but not there anyway.
Speaker 5: You got to put them together, oh somebody.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So my question was, you know, one, why does the
Speaker 5: Catholic Church allow these people in the hierarchy to speak
Speaker 5: on political issues as if they represent the Catholic churches
Speaker 5: and institutions? Says one question, But then the second question
Speaker 5: is I I remember the Catholic bishops and a lot
Speaker 5: of other religious leaders came out against Reagan's foreign policy
Speaker 5: and called for nuclear zero, And I mean the idea
Speaker 5: that they would be commenting on the deployment on intermediate
Speaker 5: range ballistics well missiles in Europe, the pershings, which actually
Speaker 5: had a lot to do with helping the end the
Speaker 5: Cold War. But I think because of that, could you
Speaker 5: say that the rank and file Catholics have lost a
Speaker 5: lot of faith in their leadership and institution because of
Speaker 5: things like that. So I'll make a point as someone
Speaker 5: who went to an Episcopalian school and go to Episcopalian church,
Speaker 5: is there was a lot of controversy about the Episcopalian
Speaker 5: bishop by I guess, giving an openly political speech at
Speaker 5: the National Cathedral with the President and the audience and
Speaker 5: making a plea on behalf of illegal aliens and gays
Speaker 5: and transferred, you know, the people that she thought were
Speaker 5: going to be harmed by President Trump's orders. Regardless of
Speaker 5: what you think about that one way or the other,
Speaker 5: I think it's inappropriate for church leader to be commenting
Speaker 5: like that, particularly in front of the elected leadership of
Speaker 5: the country. So it makes me not to It makes me,
Speaker 5: you know, not want to take the leadership of the
Speaker 5: episcopal church all that.
Speaker 4: Seriously, well, you're absolutely right, John. By the way, that woman,
Speaker 4: that bishop, the Washington Bishop received an organization she runs
Speaker 4: out of there received fifty three million dollars in immigration
Speaker 4: assistance federal moneies fifty last year fifty three million dollars.
Speaker 4: So she had a little bit of a financial interest
Speaker 4: in that as well, which is the big problem with
Speaker 4: all of it. But for just a moment, you know, here,
Speaker 4: here's the problem. And I know people who are Catholic
Speaker 4: who say they won't go to the Catholic Church anymore
Speaker 4: because of Pope Francis, because of this or that. I
Speaker 4: am again, I'm probably not the best person to speak
Speaker 4: to this because I'm not a cradle Catholic. So i
Speaker 4: didn't grow up believing that, you know, when the Pope
Speaker 4: spoke it was the word of God. And the whole
Speaker 4: idea is crazy to me. I know what the the
Speaker 4: I know what the you know the rules are about it,
Speaker 4: and so on. But here's the point to remember. Also,
Speaker 4: if you are indeed a Christian of some kind, you
Speaker 4: have to realize that at church that church, your church,
Speaker 4: my church, the universal Church whatever, is a man made
Speaker 4: institution and it's going to be run by fallible human beings.
Speaker 4: Thing one, thing two back to you guys. As mentioning
Speaker 4: of what happened during the eighties and so on, there
Speaker 4: was a very serious and successful effort on the part
Speaker 4: of the Soviet Union to undermine the Catholic Church worldwide,
Speaker 4: especially in South America. That's where you get the liberation
Speaker 4: theology that our current pope is such an adherent of.
Speaker 4: And it was manifestly successful. And the other thing that
Speaker 4: they did was they infiltrated the seminaries. And I don't
Speaker 4: want to go on after this rever because I know
Speaker 4: you want to move on, but I just wanted to
Speaker 4: get those points out to you. So John, here's the point.
Speaker 4: Our Catholic leadership was so stupid. They fell for this
Speaker 4: infiltration attempt by the Soviet Union and turned themselves completely political.
Speaker 2: Well, by the way, I used to back in the
Speaker 2: eighties refer to liberation theology, which really disappeared till Francis
Speaker 2: came back. But I always referred to it then as
Speaker 2: Marxism with salsa, because it really was.
Speaker 1: I mean, they had always.
Speaker 2: Books about synthesizing Marxism and Christianity quite directly. However, I
Speaker 2: think it should be mentioned that while our Conference of
Speaker 2: Catholic Bishops was so bad on those questions, the French
Speaker 2: and German bishops I think it was French and bishop
Speaker 2: might have been Italian, but certainly the German bishops put
Speaker 2: out their own paper dissenting from what the American bishop said,
Speaker 2: and what they said was a long thoughtful I haven't
Speaker 2: read it now for forty years, but I still have
Speaker 2: a copy somewhere. What they said was no, no nuclear weapons,
Speaker 2: and their deployment in our countries is consistent with just
Speaker 2: war theory and a necessary thing to do so, and
Speaker 2: that I suspect Cardinal Ratzinger had his hand on that.
Speaker 2: Later Pope Benedict right now, I think I mentioned once before.
Speaker 2: I know I have talked to some people about this.
Speaker 2: I maybe said it on one of our episodes that
Speaker 2: I've been hearing for a while anecdotally that the current
Speaker 2: generation of Catholic seminarians are much more conservative and by
Speaker 2: the way, much more heterosexual. That's has been a real
Speaker 2: problem in past decades, right, And that was that was.
Speaker 4: A little bit like DEI in the seminaries. They were
Speaker 4: purposely choosing seminarians who exhibited.
Speaker 2: Minor attractions. They're supposed to say these days, and I
Speaker 2: know what a felia. But anyway, the last point I'll
Speaker 2: say is that I just lately saw some data and
Speaker 2: I think I'll put this up as a daily chart
Speaker 2: on power Line that surveys of Catholic seminarians going back
Speaker 2: like twenty five thirty years and showing, in fact, a
Speaker 2: rising number of Catholic seminarians are conservative, which means that
Speaker 2: the age of Francis will be behind us, perhaps not
Speaker 2: just to the top, but further down the ladder.
Speaker 1: Two.
Speaker 4: So remember my priest, my young Filipino priest, who would
Speaker 4: come at and at the end of every every mass
Speaker 4: would do the Hail Mary and say, let's just pray
Speaker 4: to Mother Mary to rid the world of the chief
Speaker 4: peoples of communism and socialism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: And then John all I can say, I mean, that's
Speaker 2: episcopalian for a long time, and used to say I'm
Speaker 2: not gonna let him kick me out until I couldn't stand.
Speaker 1: It any longer.
Speaker 2: But our reform project should be, or yours should be,
Speaker 2: let's bring back the old days. Of when the Episcopal
Speaker 2: Church was known as the Republican Party at prayer, which
Speaker 2: you said that you.
Speaker 5: And I got to say, I don't have a lot
Speaker 5: of respect I mean for the Episcopalian. So I was
Speaker 5: listening to a sermon because the Bishop of California, I
Speaker 5: think he was keen to the little church I was in,
Speaker 5: happened to be there, and his whole sermon was about
Speaker 5: why Christianity demanded that we do something about climate change?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 5: I was just say, are you like out of your
Speaker 5: like you're just so like you just should not be
Speaker 5: in charge anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Nowhere both Episcopalians and Catholics have a real revival is
Speaker 4: Africa in church. The Anglican Church in Africa is vibrant
Speaker 4: and committed to the Bible. The Catholic Church is the
Speaker 4: same way in Africa throughout it throughout most of Africa.
Speaker 4: I should say, sorry, see if you're thinking.
Speaker 1: Well, I am.
Speaker 5: But I was wondering, like, because when they when you
Speaker 5: sing this sys and they're going, how can you prioritize
Speaker 5: lower forms of life over human life as a religious leader,
Speaker 5: Because if you really want to, you know, do something
Speaker 5: about climate change, you have to be in favor of
Speaker 5: policies that reduce the population size, that's what they're really doing.
Speaker 5: And so there are these people in the church who
Speaker 5: think this, who are allegedly pro life. Are they not
Speaker 5: elevating actually the other forms of nature above human life
Speaker 5: in their policies. Then that just as when I was
Speaker 5: listening as this sertment, I was like, this is this
Speaker 5: runs counter It seems to me. Well the idea that you're,
Speaker 5: you know, the Christian is a pro life, pro human life.
Speaker 5: I couldn't believe it. And then I was like, you're
Speaker 5: so so non logical and you're thinking you should just
Speaker 5: not be in charge of anything, But that's how you
Speaker 5: get to be the bishop.
Speaker 2: Well you bring that up sparked of synaps in my
Speaker 2: head that wasn't killed off by my non dry January.
Speaker 2: The first sentence, as I recall, in the Catholic bishop's
Speaker 2: statements against nuclear weapons in the nineteen eighties, and this
Speaker 2: was highlighted by Professor Jaffa in Class Lucretia, The first
Speaker 2: sentence was the existence something like this, the existence of
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons calls into question the sovereignty of God. Professor
Speaker 2: jaff would say, is it really now Catholic doctrine to
Speaker 2: doubt the omnipotence of God. Climate change you can drop
Speaker 2: in place of nuclear weapons, and it's the same thing.
Speaker 2: It's it's actually a theological heresy, if not just total
Speaker 2: lack of confidence in their own faith, in their own beliefs.
Speaker 1: That's all I have to say, Lucretia, do you have
Speaker 1: a life?
Speaker 4: Whoa with what John said? I mean, I imagine our
Speaker 4: listeners are already born with our theological discussions here. But
Speaker 4: because it was such a big deal this past week,
Speaker 4: I thought it was worth bringing up. And I saw
Speaker 4: a lot of Catholics because there's a group of Catholics
Speaker 4: I follow on social media, and that gets me in
Speaker 4: trouble sometimes, so I'll leave that aside. They're all saying
Speaker 4: we're better off being led at the Catholic Church by J. D. Vanson.
Speaker 4: We are the pope or the Catholic bishops. Yeah, which is?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 4: I'm sure your friend that I won't mention here would
Speaker 4: love to hear that. John.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, all right, we need to go to a break,
Speaker 2: if for no other reason that I need a couple
Speaker 2: of minutes to catch my breath. After Lucretius saying she agreed,
Speaker 2: with me one hundred percent. This is a rare moment.
Speaker 1: So don't go away, people, We'll be right back. All right,
Speaker 1: We're back.
Speaker 2: And John, I'm throwing the mic to you. What's on
Speaker 2: uppermost in your mind this week?
Speaker 5: I'm still thinking about the never trumpers who draw the
Speaker 5: line at you know, not eating mcribs. But I will
Speaker 5: I thought what I would raise was, to me, it's
Speaker 5: a part of the same phenomenon, which is the confirmation hearings,
Speaker 5: plus what's been going on with law enforcement and the
Speaker 5: Justice Department. So you know, a lot of these headlines.
Speaker 5: So many things happened this week. But the thing that
Speaker 5: was interesting to me, and I think they're tied together,
Speaker 5: was so President Trump has through the Attorney General, the
Speaker 5: person who's the acting Attorney General, through the US Attorney
Speaker 5: in Washington, d C. Who are all both acting right
Speaker 5: now because they're pending Pam Bondi being confirmed. And then
Speaker 5: whoever President Trump puts in DC firing all the prosecutors
Speaker 5: who worked on the January sixth cases, in the Special
Speaker 5: Council cases against him, and.
Speaker 4: Has been done. John, I thought, I read this is.
Speaker 5: One question is whether it's actually legal to do. And
Speaker 5: then there's a story in the Washington Post today and
Speaker 5: yesterday that apparently this is going to happen at the
Speaker 5: FBI too, that FBI leaders are right now asking for
Speaker 5: the names of the FBI agents who worked on the
Speaker 5: January sixth and the Special Council investigations. So that's one,
Speaker 5: you know, huge thing, plus President Trump flying all the
Speaker 5: firing all the inspector generals and all the agencies. That's
Speaker 5: another thing. And then you had the hearings this week
Speaker 5: for the we talked a little about RFK Junior. I
Speaker 5: guess so the ones that I focusing song was the
Speaker 5: way that Cash Patel's hearings went versus Telsea Gabbard, And
Speaker 5: so one thing issued I reason I wrote a few
Speaker 5: pieces this week. They just happened to all come out
Speaker 5: this week. They weren't all time to be this week,
Speaker 5: but I had written different times.
Speaker 1: But that was wondering. Yeah, Frank got a lot, Okay, Yeah.
Speaker 5: Which is like how what this all means about law fair?
Speaker 5: The end of law fair and so on, and so
Speaker 5: one way to understand what Trump is doing is that
Speaker 5: this is a less damaging way to end lawfare, because
Speaker 5: the thing he could do, and I've speculated he might do.
Speaker 5: This is to actually investigate and prosecute criminally the people
Speaker 5: who actually undertook the whole lawfair campaign. Because if in fact,
Speaker 5: and this applied, maybe applies more to the district attorney
Speaker 5: in New York, the Attorney general in New York, the
Speaker 5: district attorney Fanny Willison. You know these are you know,
Speaker 5: this is a Lucretia's Hall of Fame, hall of Shame,
Speaker 5: and the DA her friend Fanny Willis in Georgia. But
Speaker 5: it also might extend to the Special Council Jack Smith
Speaker 5: and so on is did they actually launch these prosecutions
Speaker 5: of Donald Trump to affect his ability to run in
Speaker 5: the election, Because if they did, then they are violating
Speaker 5: his constitutional rights and they're violating the constitutional rights of
Speaker 5: the voters. This is the theory that Jack Smith actually
Speaker 5: used to prosecute Donald Trump. So if that's true, I
Speaker 5: think at the minimum Trump could launch invest have the
Speaker 5: just uprin launch investigations. I would say, particularly targeted at
Speaker 5: state prosecutors, state attorney generals, because the last thing I
Speaker 5: think we want is states interfering with the ability of
Speaker 5: federal candidates to run for office. So you could say,
Speaker 5: you know, so the left has been hammering Pambondie and
Speaker 5: Tulca Gabbert and Cash betelsing, Oh, you would never countenance that. Well,
Speaker 5: if liberals don't want that to happen, then the less
Speaker 5: aggressive position is President Trump firing all the people who
Speaker 5: worked on these prosecutions that he thinks were wrong, that
Speaker 5: actually his lawyers took the position in court that they
Speaker 5: were unconstitutional. So this is where it all comes back
Speaker 5: into the bigger things we like to talk about, is
Speaker 5: that a president is allowed to have a different view
Speaker 5: of the law than the courts. And so President Trump,
Speaker 5: if he wants to think, and he's entitled to think,
Speaker 5: that the prosecutions were unconstitutional, then he ought to fire
Speaker 5: everybody who participated in them, because why should he tolerate
Speaker 5: people in his administration who were doing, in his view,
Speaker 5: appatently unconstitutional things. In my mind, it's the same thing
Speaker 5: as Lincoln saying he wouldn't enforce dred Scott, Obey dread Scott,
Speaker 5: same thing as Jefferson pardoning everyone who's been convicted under
Speaker 5: the Alien Sedition acts. So, in a funny way, I
Speaker 5: think what's been happening this week, while it's driving the
Speaker 5: left crazy, they should be grateful that that is as
Speaker 5: far as Trump has gone so far. The other point
Speaker 5: is he's i think, also usefully restoring the idea that
Speaker 5: the president is in charge of law enforcement. So notice
Speaker 5: what Biden tried to do was, oh, no, I'm not
Speaker 5: involved in any of this. It's a special counsel is
Speaker 5: allowed to do what he wants, and oh, these states,
Speaker 5: I have nothing to do with these states going on
Speaker 5: after federal candidates.
Speaker 4: The worst part was it was a lie.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, that's part of the investigation, is that
Speaker 5: you'll be able to get the emails and discussion notes
Speaker 5: of all the people who participate in these meetings. But
Speaker 5: at least Trump is making clear firing these agents, firing
Speaker 5: the prosecutors, firing the inspector generals. The president is actually,
Speaker 5: in the constitution, the head of all federal law enforcement,
Speaker 5: and he has a duty actually to remove people who
Speaker 5: won't carry out the views of the constitution that he holds.
Speaker 5: So now it's going to be a great fight. It's
Speaker 5: going to be a great civil service fight because you know,
Speaker 5: these prosecutors, some of them and FBI agents are going
Speaker 5: to say I'm being fired in violation of the Civil
Speaker 5: Service Act.
Speaker 2: Ah but now my understanding is right, there's a legal
Speaker 2: question mark there.
Speaker 1: My understanding is, and.
Speaker 2: I've read a few pieces about this this week.
Speaker 1: No one has yet filed suit yes to say my
Speaker 1: firing was illegal.
Speaker 2: And the speculation that I kind of love this, that
Speaker 2: the left is actually paranoid. This way, I applaud Trump
Speaker 2: one more time. There's speculation that Trump is setting a
Speaker 2: trap for them because this will elevate a reconsideration of
Speaker 2: Humphrey's executor, the famous case that said there are limits
Speaker 2: on the president's ability to control quote unquote independent agencies
Speaker 2: and executive branch, which I think is widely thought to
Speaker 2: be defective and vulnerable, not just by but this.
Speaker 4: Morrison versus Olsen is a better for the law enforcement.
Speaker 4: It's a better precedent for the left on law enforcement. Right,
Speaker 4: even though everybody acknowledges it was now that Scalia was right,
Speaker 4: Sclio was right. Yeah, And I do have a really
Speaker 4: quick question for you, though, John, before you go back
Speaker 4: to answering that, and that is, do you think that
Speaker 4: eighteen US two forty one could also be used against
Speaker 4: the fifty one intelligence experts?
Speaker 5: If you have the this is actually the Biden administration's theory.
Speaker 5: I actually thought it was too expensive their argument, and
Speaker 5: the lower court in Washington, d c. Upheld it. The
Speaker 5: Supreme Court didn't reach this in the immunity case, but
Speaker 5: the lower court upheld it. Which is the idea. Section
Speaker 5: two forty one makes a criminal to violate the constitutional
Speaker 5: rights federal constitutional rights people. Yes, the ku klux klin x.
Speaker 5: So if they actually did it to interfere with the election,
Speaker 5: this is the theory. Now the problem with this theory,
Speaker 5: I'd be first admitted. I think this is why when
Speaker 5: we talked about it is, you know, there's got to
Speaker 5: be a limit because every political trick and campaign and
Speaker 5: drytch can't be the subject of a federal criminal prosecution.
Speaker 5: So that's why it's easier to say. The way I
Speaker 5: think of it is, look at what Fanny Willison Bragg did.
Speaker 5: Suppose a Southern da did that during the time of
Speaker 5: and I'm sure they did did this during the time
Speaker 5: of segregation to keep black candidates from running for office.
Speaker 5: Would anyone have any doubt Section two forty one not
Speaker 5: apply to what they did. So I think it's even
Speaker 5: worse if you think about it being used for partisan purposes.
Speaker 5: You know, you know that people could engage in targeting
Speaker 5: people on partisan grounds and taking away their constitutional rights.
Speaker 2: That's well, let me make a devil's advocate point and
Speaker 2: then a second point that will rescue me with lucretia,
Speaker 2: because you won't like my first point, and that is
Speaker 2: Brendon and all those people will say, you know, we
Speaker 2: didn't say, we didn't make a factual claim that the
Speaker 2: laptop was Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: Our language was it bore the hallmarks. In other words,
Speaker 1: it's a lawyerly evasion and maybe a court may or
Speaker 1: maybe or maybe a court would buy that or not.
Speaker 1: I don't know. However, I believe point two.
Speaker 2: They should be prosecuted aggressively, regardless of that whether that
Speaker 2: evasion is illegally exculpates them or.
Speaker 1: Not, on the grounds that the process is the punishment.
Speaker 2: I'd like to see Brendan have to spend a million
Speaker 2: dollars them.
Speaker 5: Look, even before you find churches, you have to have
Speaker 5: an investigation. And this is an investigation. You'll get to know,
Speaker 5: right why who wrote this up? Why did they write
Speaker 5: it up? You know, did they know that it was
Speaker 5: actually true?
Speaker 4: And they did know there's all the evidence in the
Speaker 4: world that they knew I mean, the FBI knew that
Speaker 4: the laptop was real. The FBI knew the laptop was real,
Speaker 4: and the CIA that signed off on it, that ridiculous
Speaker 4: affirmative action idiot Gina haspell She signed off on it,
Speaker 4: She actively signed off on it, and she knew it
Speaker 4: wasn't Russian disinformation. I mean that if they do an investigation.
Speaker 4: But back to what John was saying, though, you know,
Speaker 4: do we want to go down that road? It does
Speaker 4: seem to be quite the punishment for poor John Brennan
Speaker 4: that his security clearance was taken away because he's out
Speaker 4: there whining about it like a two year old, and
Speaker 4: I'm loving every minute of that. I don't know, I
Speaker 4: think it should be more those I agree with you.
Speaker 1: Bye bye, remember about Brennan.
Speaker 2: I don't think Mike pal Lloyd Billingsley makes this point
Speaker 2: over and over again. I don't think we've ever made
Speaker 2: it on our podcast. That guy admits that he voted
Speaker 2: for Gus Hall, the Communist Party candidate for president, back
Speaker 2: in nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 4: He changed his mind. It'd be fine. I don't care
Speaker 4: what happened in seventy six.
Speaker 5: A lot of us were then.
Speaker 1: But yeah, Okay.
Speaker 4: What he's done subsequently, that's such a problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well I agree to that, but that's ought to
Speaker 2: be a red flag that this guy might not have
Speaker 2: been altogether there for a very long time.
Speaker 5: Okay, just one last point about the hearings. So the
Speaker 5: interesting thing to me was that Cash Patel, who has
Speaker 5: openly talked about right doing exactly this, seems to have
Speaker 5: skated through his confirmation hearings. In fact, you know, watching
Speaker 5: the different clips, I was amazed at how demoralized the
Speaker 5: Democrats were. I don't think they really laid a finger
Speaker 5: on him. I mean, when it started out all the
Speaker 5: cabinets nominees and you look at their paperwreck, he would
Speaker 5: have should have been the most vulnerable one because he's
Speaker 5: been doing podcasts for years. He has said some really
Speaker 5: extreme things. I mean, he makes Lucretia look.
Speaker 1: Like a squish. Hey.
Speaker 5: But the interesting thing to me is the one that
Speaker 5: looks like she's gonna not make it is Tulca Gabbert,
Speaker 5: And from what I can tell, it's not really her
Speaker 5: views on the Patriot Act and what's called Section seven
Speaker 5: and two, which we can talk about some other time.
Speaker 5: I don't know if Lucretian and I disagree about section
Speaker 5: seven to two. But what it sounds like why senators
Speaker 5: are not going to vote for her is because she
Speaker 5: kind of you know, you know, defends Edward Snowden, and
Speaker 5: I think that's a good reason not to.
Speaker 4: The defense is not wholehearted, maybe really quickly, let me
Speaker 4: let's let's be at least subtle, which, of course Democratic
Speaker 4: senators with an IQ below room temperature are incapable of subtleties.
Speaker 4: But what she says is what he did was wrong,
Speaker 4: but what he what he uncovered was terrible. What he
Speaker 4: did was illegal, But what he uncovered was unconstitutional behavior
Speaker 4: by our government. And I mean that's okay. Would have
Speaker 4: have ever been found out if he had been unwilling
Speaker 4: to I'm not a Snowden fan.
Speaker 5: I'm not.
Speaker 4: I'm not trying to say that, but I'm trying to
Speaker 4: say that that is not a totally unacceptable opinion if
Speaker 4: you just do what I've seen many people do in
Speaker 4: my world. Snowden, I mean, we almost lost a contract
Speaker 4: with the government because another college had Snowden tried to
Speaker 4: bring Snowden onto campus at one point, and the you know,
Speaker 4: the government takes that so seriously that we had to
Speaker 4: like anyway, never mind all that, it's a subtle point. Yeah,
Speaker 4: Snowden was wrong. He broke the law. He he betrayed
Speaker 4: the trust that the United States government gave him. But
Speaker 4: he could turn around and say, but the United States
Speaker 4: government betrayed the trust of the American people, and my
Speaker 4: whistleblowing made that clear.
Speaker 5: I don't think what he did. I don't think what
Speaker 5: the government was doing was unconstitutional. But he I mean,
Speaker 5: he leaked information which I think I believe led to
Speaker 5: the deaths of American agents, and so he should be executed. Yeah,
Speaker 5: that's just like that's you know, it's just like that.
Speaker 5: But that's why I think it focuses the mind on
Speaker 5: what she actually believes, because she in the past has
Speaker 5: defended him and at the hearing would not repudiate it.
Speaker 5: In fact, she evaded it several times, questions about it
Speaker 5: several times, And I think that's the kind of that's
Speaker 5: the kind of question like this guy ysked no question
Speaker 5: on something that's very clear that I think shows why
Speaker 5: she's not to me. It probably won't make it because
Speaker 5: she couldn't answer that clearly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think she didn't want to break with you know, well,
Speaker 2: the Tucker Carlson fans, for example, I think that she
Speaker 2: could have given an answer.
Speaker 1: I think I'm closer to your opinion. John.
Speaker 2: It's one thing to give away potentially unconstitutional acts or
Speaker 2: dubious acts of the.
Speaker 1: Government, but I think a better way they could be.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the better thing to have done would
Speaker 2: have been to take it to You're going to be
Speaker 2: a Paul when I say this, but let me finish it.
Speaker 2: Take it to Adam Schiff or somebody in Congress and
Speaker 2: say I've had this information with the government's done, you've
Speaker 2: been mad at Bush and the War on Terror.
Speaker 1: You need to know about it because it's been concealed
Speaker 1: from you.
Speaker 2: Now, this highlights to me the hypocrisy of the Democrats
Speaker 2: on this, because that is kind of how it was
Speaker 2: done in the seventies when you had the Church Committee
Speaker 2: in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House
Speaker 2: investigating the CIA and the FBI, and especially the Pike Committee,
Speaker 2: what did they do. They leaked the findings like crazy
Speaker 2: to the media, and that would have happened in this case.
Speaker 2: But now the information would have been coming from Democrats
Speaker 2: for partisan reasons, and there's a sort of different kind
Speaker 2: of accountability there. I think it's a mistake to celebrate,
Speaker 2: you know, Snowden being a free agent. I like that, right,
Speaker 2: but and I think it would if Gabard thought about
Speaker 2: that and given a better put my argument a little
Speaker 2: better than I just did, that could have been kind
Speaker 2: of interesting.
Speaker 1: Saying nothing is.
Speaker 5: She's not being nominated to be secretary of HHS. I mean,
Speaker 5: the reason why, okay, it matters is because she's in
Speaker 5: charge of the intelligence agencies.
Speaker 4: Except that. Here's but let me let me give the
Speaker 4: other side of the which I have sympathy for your
Speaker 4: point of view, John, But but the other side of
Speaker 4: it is the widespread belief that our intelligence agencies have
Speaker 4: been turned against Americans, and uh, Telsea Gabbard is one
Speaker 4: of the victims of that for no apparent reason other
Speaker 4: than maybe her uh uh, you know, touting Edward Snowden.
Speaker 4: I don't know, But she herself has been the victim
Speaker 4: of what I would illegal, unconstitutional spying on a private citizen.
Speaker 4: We know that's the case. I think that's why she
Speaker 4: was given that job, or at least nominated for that job,
Speaker 4: because Trump understands that the entire intelligence community has proven
Speaker 4: themselves with the fifty one and the you know, the fight,
Speaker 4: the FISA warrants, all of that has proven themselves to
Speaker 4: be just abjectly corrupt.
Speaker 5: And I think there's two different things. I think there's
Speaker 5: two different things, but I can see why in terms
Speaker 5: of politics people don't view them as two different things.
Speaker 5: But what Snowden revealed, I think, was that we were
Speaker 5: conducting warrantless surveillance basically on everybody abroad, which is not unconstitutional. Actually,
Speaker 5: and actually when this was all revealed, then that's why
Speaker 5: Section seven oh two becomes an issue, because Congress eventually
Speaker 5: approved it and passed a law to authorize it. That's different,
Speaker 5: in my mind than what happened with Russia collusion and
Speaker 5: all the ways intelligence agencies tried to stop Trump, which
Speaker 5: has nothing to do with our efforts to stop these
Speaker 5: foreign threats and terrorists. By intercepting all the communications in
Speaker 5: the rest of the world. I'm glad the government does it,
Speaker 5: but agreed, these guys. What they did is they use
Speaker 5: their intelligence, you know, positions to launch a political witch
Speaker 5: hunt against someone they didn't want to be president, which
Speaker 5: has nothing to do with what's Snowden.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, I mean I wasn't trying. I was
Speaker 4: actually making a different point, John, I was making the
Speaker 4: second point, which is that I don't know that that
Speaker 4: many of Tulci Gabbard's supporters really care that much about Snowden.
Speaker 4: At least a lot of people that want to see her.
Speaker 4: That Snowden's a separate issue. They are interested in her
Speaker 4: simply because she already is saying we are not going
Speaker 4: to do business as usual, at least recent usual in
Speaker 4: the intelligence world anymore. That's why that's do you see
Speaker 4: what you're right? When they're two separate issues. I'm saying
Speaker 4: that support for Tulsa Gabbard for the most part, has
Speaker 4: nothing to do with the snowed in question. It has
Speaker 4: to do with the concern about our intelligence Agency's the
Speaker 4: last thing I'll say, is it. By the way, I'm
Speaker 4: not sure that the d n I. There's a lot
Speaker 4: of jokes going around there about the most important thing
Speaker 4: that the nominee for d n I could do, what
Speaker 4: the hearings would be explained why we need a d
Speaker 4: n I.
Speaker 2: I agree, Oh yeah, I was going to say that too. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's that's the whole thing. Was a bad idea, But yeah, right,
Speaker 2: so right.
Speaker 4: I'm told that if she doesn't get it, Trump will
Speaker 4: maker national security advisor. Well no, and he's going to
Speaker 4: nominate the National Security advisor anyway.
Speaker 5: Oh, I switched Waltz and Gabbard.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't. I think.
Speaker 5: I don't know if that's worse or better.
Speaker 1: I hear things about Waltz. I don't know much about them,
Speaker 1: but I impressed.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, okay, I have no idea if that rumor
Speaker 4: is true.
Speaker 1: Schlogon could be fun.
Speaker 5: Or we can make our governor of Canada. That would
Speaker 5: be perfect. So I think people right, Oh, so I
Speaker 5: get to say what EO I liked so and it
Speaker 5: also talks about the future. EO is I like the
Speaker 5: which it's not. It's only starting now to get the
Speaker 5: attention it deserves, which is the DEI Executive Order. Uh
Speaker 5: and Steve made this point this week that in the
Speaker 5: New York Post about how it reverses Lyndon Johnson's Affirmative
Speaker 5: Action EO, which is something no Republican present has dare
Speaker 5: touch before.
Speaker 2: H and Reagan thought about it and shrunk back from
Speaker 2: doing it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Bush didn't do it. Trump didn't do it his
Speaker 5: first term and would have normally caused enormous political uproar,
Speaker 5: but because of the blizzard of eos goes unnoticed. Now,
Speaker 5: I think that the Curnio has the germs of in
Speaker 5: it of a really important change, because right now it's
Speaker 5: a no more DEI within the government. And then it
Speaker 5: says and the government agencies are now supposed to study
Speaker 5: whether government contractors and recipients of federal grants are engaging
Speaker 5: in DEI programs. And here's the catch that violate current law. Now,
Speaker 5: I think that President Trump could instead go further and
Speaker 5: issue AEO that says, no recipient of federal funds and
Speaker 5: no one who does business with the federal government shall
Speaker 5: use race in any of its operations are considered diversity,
Speaker 5: you know, DEI at all. That would be groundshaking because
Speaker 5: every university in the country except Hillsdale and Growth City,
Speaker 5: I think, receives federal funding, right, and they're one of
Speaker 5: the worst. Right, They're one of the worst violators of
Speaker 5: color blindness. And it would apply to all the major government,
Speaker 5: the s and P. Five hundred, every major company in
Speaker 5: America would have to stop their DEI policies. That I
Speaker 5: think if he just added that one more sentence, that
Speaker 5: could really seal the deal. And really put a stake
Speaker 5: through this and this DEI business.
Speaker 4: So can I just add a couple of things from
Speaker 4: a personal point of view being at a university, I
Speaker 4: have watched the meltdown this past week, and what I
Speaker 4: what I was talking with John about earlier today, many
Speaker 4: of these grants, some of them, regardless of what actually
Speaker 4: ends up happening with the Title seven and Title nine interpretations,
Speaker 4: things like USA ID and grants are going away. They
Speaker 4: have already stopped expenditures, totally stopped expenditures on a number
Speaker 4: of grants, like a grant for instance, that puts ten
Speaker 4: million dollars toward pay bringing in in the medical school
Speaker 4: graduate students and postdocs to do research in the grad
Speaker 4: in the medicine. So they've had to stop that. They
Speaker 4: can't offer any more you know, awards on that. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's just on and on. But the other side of
Speaker 4: it is the university itself. We already have a legislature
Speaker 4: and a board of regents who are telling us to
Speaker 4: back off on DEI. But so much money comes into
Speaker 4: the university and those kinds of grants, and the university
Speaker 4: takes fifty three percent off the top. My university is
Speaker 4: already in the hole, seriously in financial trouble. You can
Speaker 4: imagine the panic going on. So I'm having a bit
Speaker 4: of shot and for it about that one, because my
Speaker 4: college makes money hand over flood, but they still communyway.
Speaker 2: That's I'm used to hearing universities taking twenty percent off
Speaker 2: of grants.
Speaker 4: Maybe the indirect cause are fifty three percent if the
Speaker 4: work is done on campus.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean other universities. I hear the figures twenty
Speaker 2: percent at least some private foundations, and maybe higher for
Speaker 2: government money.
Speaker 1: But the point is, whatever the figure.
Speaker 2: Is, the point there is a serious cutback in those
Speaker 2: kind of funds sluicing around to all these programs.
Speaker 1: They're going to have to have massive layoffs of their
Speaker 1: administrative bloat. And I'll be the right exactly that's right.
Speaker 4: So then the other thing, really quickly is, you know
Speaker 4: my other position. I started receiving as if I were, well,
Speaker 4: I guess I am. I am a federal employee, all
Speaker 4: of the DoD missives, and you know, here's what usually happens.
Speaker 4: You know what my inbox would be filled with today
Speaker 4: from not just the university, but from the do D
Speaker 4: and all these other groups. Because today's February first. Do
Speaker 4: you know what February first is, John, the first day
Speaker 4: of Black History Month? Yeah? Really, no more Black History Month,
Speaker 4: no more Martin Luther King Day celebrations or pronouncements on
Speaker 4: social media. No more Women's Equality Day, which means, thank god,
Speaker 4: I don't have to go give fake speeches for that anymore.
Speaker 4: But also this was interesting. No more Holocaust Remembrance days.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that was well. So first of all,
Speaker 1: I mean hexap put out.
Speaker 2: I have a statement I actually post on power line.
Speaker 2: No Pacific Islander, heritage, no month, just stop.
Speaker 1: It all the way.
Speaker 5: What is my month? I had one, because that's when
Speaker 5: I'm really going to go over kick some ass on
Speaker 5: the commentary podcast. I'm gonna go, I'm gonna.
Speaker 1: Have like a uniche.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna like, I'm gonna like be like Steve Johnny
Speaker 5: and I can see what the idea is. What it's
Speaker 5: going to be, Mick Ribs. I'm going to toss left
Speaker 5: and right out of my little satchel all around the
Speaker 5: commentary offices.
Speaker 2: But then, uh, equally fun is President Trump did put
Speaker 2: out a proclamation observing Black hits this month and includes
Speaker 2: this clause American heroes such as Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman,
Speaker 2: Thomas Soul, no Justice, Clarence Thomas. Right, so, I mean,
Speaker 2: I think last time I checked, Clarence Thomas is not
Speaker 2: mentioned at all at the National Museum of African American History,
Speaker 2: which okay, But did.
Speaker 4: You see my good story of the day yesterday? Abram Kendy,
Speaker 4: the Button Professor, completely shut down, shut down operations. How
Speaker 4: many millions of dollars and with abs were funneled into
Speaker 4: his operation there with absolutely nothing to show for it.
Speaker 4: He closed his doors, fired everybody, and went to Howard University.
Speaker 4: I mean, I know that he'll come out on top.
Speaker 4: There's no problems there. But still it was a good story.
Speaker 4: It was.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: But before we wrap, we need to go to another
Speaker 2: break for our sponsors, and then we'll come back. Get
Speaker 2: your babbyl on bees queued up Lucretia, and I've got
Speaker 2: a new close for us, and we'll be right back,
Speaker 2: all right, give us the best of the bee Lucretia.
Speaker 4: All right. Even though they said last week that they
Speaker 4: were going to shut down because there wouldn't be anything
Speaker 4: funny to talk about, because everything would be perfect. But
Speaker 4: the Democrats proved that that wasn't the case because we
Speaker 4: had the hearings, and you know that was actually posted
Speaker 4: on ex John that I really appreciated all the people
Speaker 4: who were watching and reporting on those hearings because I
Speaker 4: could only stand about five seconds of it before I
Speaker 4: threw my beer at the TV or some equally frustrated action.
Speaker 4: So I appreciated their fortitude and got a lot of
Speaker 4: response on that. But anyway, nominee, it's a picture of
Speaker 4: Cash Battel, nominee for top criminal justice position, interviewed by
Speaker 4: nation's top criminals.
Speaker 1: I thought that was good.
Speaker 4: Or the picture of Cash Battel and Telsy Gabbard Democrat
Speaker 4: senators opposed diversity for one day only. You know if
Speaker 4: I like that Babylon b writers get nothing done? Is
Speaker 4: Telsy Gabbard is on TV?
Speaker 1: Yeah she didn't look spectacular.
Speaker 4: I have to say, yeah, very very pretty. There's no
Speaker 4: way around it. Preliminary report confirms tragedy was the fault
Speaker 4: of whichever political party you like. Poor Trumpy did have
Speaker 4: a bit of tragedy this week, now, didn't he. I'll
Speaker 4: set up a little bit. Let me do this in first,
Speaker 4: entire federal workforce replayed by one replaced excuse me by
Speaker 4: one sixteen year old Chick fil A employee.
Speaker 5: Boy.
Speaker 4: The metldown on that has been so spectacular, I can't
Speaker 4: even And finally, uh local Karen being a real margaret.
Speaker 1: Oh good John, have you.
Speaker 5: Altered your responsibilities? Yeah, you guys have to give me
Speaker 5: the new tagline whenever we figure out what it's going
Speaker 5: to be.
Speaker 1: Well, I've got one. I mean you can still do
Speaker 1: always do your whisky meat. That's perpetual. Yeah, all right,
Speaker 1: I'll go straight to my clothes, but I.
Speaker 5: Always drink your whiskey meat and Steve.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so a quick context, and I won't do it
Speaker 1: in the future. But remember, for two three years after
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: I had a tagline, don't forget to milk the soft
Speaker 2: Power dividend, and that was mocking Samantha Power for her
Speaker 2: disappointment to Hillary Clinton didn't win, because she told the
Speaker 2: New York Times, having all these women diplomats to her
Speaker 2: apartment in New York, I was looking forward to milking
Speaker 2: the soft Power dividend. And I thought it was such
Speaker 2: a ridiculous phrase. But now we have a new one,
Speaker 2: courtesy of JB. Advance, and I think this one should
Speaker 2: be the model for everyone for quite a while to
Speaker 2: come here.
Speaker 1: And it's frankly martyret I don't really care all right,
Speaker 1: Bye bye everybody, Bye guys.
Speaker 4: Next week.
Speaker 5: Bye.
Speaker 7: This is in poetry. It's meandering sophistry, and you must
Speaker 7: hate words. All of the youth degree is soothe in
Speaker 7: your wandering and chasing these turns.
Speaker 1: There was no.
Speaker 5: Peace warning, that's only a story you tell.
Speaker 3: Two scared kids now that nothing is growing, it's darker
Speaker 3: and lowing.
Speaker 7: Just too asso, our bitch, And just saying.
Speaker 1: No hour is fine, just saying no hour is.
Speaker 3: Fine, But no one wants say.
Speaker 7: No hour is.
Speaker 3: Fine, so we both know.
Speaker 2: No hours is fine.
Speaker 5: Never do tie.
Speaker 3: And kids are statistics and affair for the ages. I
Speaker 3: assume they'll be fine. And if numbers are destiny and
Speaker 3: history is.
Speaker 4: Dead to ricochet.
Speaker 1: Join the conversation.