Speaker 1: Morning. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're really loud.
Speaker 1: Too hot, too hot. I will adjust.
Speaker 3: I will adjust that.
Speaker 2: Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask
what you can do for your country.
Speaker 4: Mister garbachow, tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: It's the Ricorship Podcast with Stephen Hayward and John You
sitting in for Charlie. I'm James Lylyas. Today we talked
to Matt Connnetti about a new edition of his book
End what twenty five is all about? So let's Saffrasel's
a podcast.
Speaker 5: Has your Attorney general told you this was a hoax?
Speaker 2: One evidence?
Speaker 4: Jerry Jeneral, No, I know it's a hoax.
Speaker 1: It's started by Democrats. It's been run by the Democrats
for four years.
Speaker 4: You had Christopher Ray and these characters and call me before.
Speaker 2: Him, and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into.
Speaker 3: The net and so they try and do the Democrats work.
Speaker 1: Welcome everybody, It's the Ricochet Podcast, number seven hundred and
forty nine. Hey you, why don't you go to ricochet
dot com. Join up and be part of the most
stimulating conversation and community you'll find on the web. I'm
James Lilyx in Minneapolis. Stephen Hayward is in California, and
also in California, sitting in for Charles C. W. Cook, or,
for all I know, permanently replacing him by some sort
of palace Who is John Woo Coo Woo you?
Speaker 3: And a name is you? When when you bow down
before your robot over lord, you better get their names right?
Speaker 1: You got that straight? Well, gentlemen, I hope your next
are okay and haven't been whiplashed too much. But apparently
we have another Epstein twist story which I have been
sort of minimally following because I don't know what to think.
I have had many opinions and they have drained away
in importance over the years. But why don't you tell
me exactly where we are now? A letter was released,
supposedly in a well supposed letter by Drumm and the
Wall Street Journal, threats of suits, threats of consequences. Trump
says it's fake and now we're going to release the files.
I say that with hesitation because by the time somebody
listens to this, they may discovered there's no files whatsoever.
They've been burned, and they have been sent into a
pit in the year.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: So where are we now?
Speaker 2: Well, all I was going to say is what I've
said before, is that I don't think there's any There
was never any list, or at least not a list
kept by Epstein, and any reconstructed list is probably unusable.
I suspect we've reached the Keystone Cops phase of the investigation.
There's just all kinds of problems with it. And I'm
more interested in the Richard Epstein files, which could be
even more.
Speaker 4: Tedious in some ways.
Speaker 2: But I don't know. This is now just a giant distraction.
And this new wrinkle of Trump sending a birthday greeting
to Epstein twenty two years ago, is that right? Something
like that? And Trump is now apparently this morning the
news is out He's going to sue the Wall Street
Churn for publishing what he says is made up. And
I don't know. There is this great debate going on
on Twitter about whether there's a certain word Trump used
in the letter that someone said no, Trump would never
use that word. I forget what it is now, But
then someone found video I'm using a you know, a
slightly recondite term. I can't believe I can't remember it.
But so we're now down to the you know, parsing
out what words are in Trump's vocabulary from twenty two
years ago. And so it's silly season.
Speaker 1: You're saying it's a distraction, John distraction. Who's being distracted?
Are you distracted?
Speaker 3: I'm terribly distracted, as it seems America and our political system.
Speaker 4: I have to say, I enjoy reading about this, just.
Speaker 3: In the way you might like reading about how your
former employer the workplace is all screwed up. Now, I
guess I used to work at the Justice Department. And
first idea of people like Cash Pattel and Dan Bongino,
who are wonderfully entertaining TV and radio and podcast hosts
actually in charge of the FBI. FIRSTUS shocking. Then they
made part of it careers by saying that the government
had somehow covered up or conspired to kill this Jeffrey
Epstein fellow. And then they get into the FBI and
then they say there's no evidence of that, and then
all their fellow travelers are now piling on them. The third,
I gotta say, there's no way that President Trump can
order the release of the Epstein files. Someone you shouldn't
release anything in the Epstein files. And if you've ever
seen a raw law enforcement file, you know, to prepare
for prosecutions, could be filled with gossip in you window,
people you know, getting back at other people, lies, mistruths.
It's almost like the transcript of a podcast. Then, so
the purpose of this is you don't release that in
the public because you're going to besmirch the reputations of
all kinds of people. Usually the only way the justice
departments should be speaking is when they indict someone, and
the indictment speaks for itself. You don't go around releasing
all the gossip and rumors. You come cross. Second point
I'll stop here is the really sensitive material has been
sealed by a grand because it was presented to a
grand jury for indictment.
Speaker 4: It has been sealed by a federal judge. The President
can't order it released.
Speaker 3: The only people can release it would be the judge
or Congress would have to change the law about how
we keep those things secret. Congress isn't going to do that.
So I don't think we're really going to know unless
people who are in the files themselves go to the
judge and say I want my name to be released.
I want to prove my innocence. Perhaps that's only where
we're gonna get it.
Speaker 1: Highly unlikely, highly unlikely that's going to happen. I can't
see anybody. I mean, I can see somebody volunteering to
be on a cold Play JumboTron with their mistress before
I can.
Speaker 3: Well, any way, that just sounds like another cabinet interview
with President Trump.
Speaker 1: Well again, you know my whole I don't know what
we're supposed to find out from these things. I think
what a lot of people. There's sort of nations and
numbers of q about this, because there's a lot of
people who have gone down to the Epstein file as
part of the proof that there's this large satanic conspiracy
of trading children around. And I have no idea that
I have no doubt that there are people in Washington,
d C. In power and finance everywhere who have absolutely
appalling records of behavior when it comes to the youth
of America or other countries. But whether or not that
there's some actual, you know, Pizzagate style thing going on here,
I don't think so. Anyway, that's just my naive belief
sitting here thousands of miles from anything important. Moving right along,
we've got McMahon versus New York. This is interesting, John,
You being the legal guy, why don't you tell us
what this one's all about.
Speaker 3: So McMahon versus New York, this is the case about
just recently decided by the Supreme Court about whether the
president can continue to go forward with his reductions in force.
This is at the Department of Education and how to
explain it. So the Supreme Court did not issue an opinion.
The only opinion we saw were from the dissenters. This
was just to lift a district court's ban on carrying
out the reductions in force. So this is really the
Supreme Court saying, hey, you chriald judges. There's a thousand
of them. Hey you guys, did you not read our
opinion from two weeks ago in the nationwide Injunctions case?
Speaker 4: Do we need to spell it out for you? Let
us repeat ourselves.
Speaker 3: A district judge cannot stop the entire federal government from
carrying out its policies unless it goes to the US
Supreme Court. That's all this case says. It's actually not
a review on whether President Trump ultimately will win. I
think that's going to go back up to the Supreme Court.
But in the meantime, the Court said, no single judge
in Boston or New York or Maryland is going to
sit there and sort of sit and be the onwoodsman
or the micromanager of the executive branch. Now, the important
thing that people didn't observe in the news reports is
that the government promised that it would not shut down
the Education Department unless Congress said so, And in fact,
it's said in its pleadings to the court, we're only
getting rid of the fat We're not going to fire
anyone who's essential for the core operations of the Department
of Education. We understand that when it comes down to
shuttering the place, only Congress can do that. And so
all these claims in the media of you know, out
of control president defining congressional orders, shutting down agencies left
and right, it's just not true. It's just not true.
Even the Trump administration is court papers says, we understand
Congress is preeminent. We're just getting rid of people who
are not necessary for the core functionings of the department
and try to save money for the taxpayer.
Speaker 1: Stephen We've been told that the State Department is now
non functional, that war will break out everywhere because because
they went through with the with a meat cleaver, with
a wood chipper and just absolutely cleaned out the place.
Is that what happened?
Speaker 2: Of course not I don't have the headcount numbers in
front of me, but the State Department's total headcount has
gone up by something like ten thousand people over the
last fifteen years. And so this twelve hundred thirteen hundred
laid off last week is a reduction force of less
than two percent. But beyond all that, what do all
these people do? Mostly bad stuff? And I've been ranting
for quite a while now about three particular places. We
spent over a billion dollars to build an embassy compound
in Bagdad. It's the largest US embassy compound in the world,
has a very nice reflecting pool by the way, and
some nice architecture. And we spent seven hundred million dollars
on a huge embassy compound in Kabul, Afghanistan that's now
the largest office building for the Taliban. And we're also
in the process of building, or may have finished, a
billion dollar embassy compound in Beirut. Now I'll just submit
to you that the Israelis did more for the progress
and improvement of Lebanon by taking out Hesbola than a
billion dollar State Department footprint in Beirut is ever going
to do. Why these huge, expensive palaces and the huge
staffs that go with them, Well, because of.
Speaker 1: Still fair to be fair staved in Beirut. You're going
to want the walls to be about fourteen feet thick,
so I think.
Speaker 2: That's cost Well, yes, but you're going to put hundreds
of people in it. And I bet we could do
our essential business with maybe fifty people or one hundred
people and still have adequate security. You don't need to
spend that kind of money. You only spend that kind
of money if you have this grandiose presumption that you
are there to run the country and run the world.
Why do we want to have a big footprint in
Kabul Afghanistan, even if we're going to keep some military
force there, which we didn't. It just you know, the
shocking waste of all this and presumption of it is
to my mind unconscionable. And I think Trump didn't fire
enough people from the State Department. I think that you
get rid of another ten percent. Oh, Steve, yes, I know,
I'm they can all go to work for NPR.
Speaker 1: Haha, which brings us to the great cries and lamentations.
As I was reading my local subreit about Minnesota and
they caught an old lady who lives in the Sticks,
who loves the polka show that they run, and now
she's not going to have her polka show anymore. I
feel for her. I remember the days when AM radio
was absolutely full of poker when you drove around the
rural parts of the state. But A, it's possible that
locals may pick up the slack if they wish, and
B it's possible that she has access to something called
the Internet, where one can find in abundance poka of
all manner, sort, shape, and variety. We've been told that
the cuts are going to destroy in PR and PBS,
but A, no, they're not. And B the whole notion
of state media in the first place ought to seem
a little un American to people. But we've been living
so long with the holy ghost. The whole presence of
PBS and NPR held up as a model, an absolute,
shining beacon of non partial, essential cultural commission that without
it there would be no Masterpiece Theater, there would be
no Sesame Street Therapy. Now that'd be a bit true
at one time in the past, but it isn't anymore.
So it's a small cut and it's not going to
destroy these things. And I'm not sure why it's as
controversial as it is, unless, of course, James.
Speaker 3: I love PBS. I love NPR, actually I do. I
really enjoy listening to them. It's just like sitting around
at the Berkeley Faculty Club meetings and it's just like
on the radio instead. It's great. But look, I actually
love Masterpiece there. I love all those British TV shows.
I love watching all these ways that the British think
of murdering each other. They're so clever at it. They
should be killing more of each other. Every British TV
show seems to be about who done it? Murders but
loved like watching I Claudius and Brideshead Revisited. But now,
if you get a streaming service and you pay I
think I paid ten dollars a month, I can watch
almost every BBC TV show that was ever filmed, you know.
I can watch Steve Hayward's favorite show Doctor Who where
the reptilians show up and you can see the floppy
arms have human beings in them, and it's really just
fake clothes they got on it. It's wonder in black and white,
it's wonderful. But you know what, I've never given a dollar,
not a single dollar to NPR or PBS, even though
they run these you know, campaigns endlessly because the government
paid for it. Now you've put me in this terrible
situation where I have to decide where I'm going to
give money to keep it going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but John, you really are behind the times. I
mean all of the I'll put this way, costume dramas
these days are not appearing first on PBS. You know
Bridgerton and you know Rome twenty years ago, they're on HBO.
Speaker 3: Steve, I don't want you know, you're just watching the
ones that you just watch, the ones that have nudity
in them. I mean, come on, you can admit it.
Speaker 2: Oh no, that was my joke of I never could
get into a Game of Thrones because there wasn't enough
sex and violence in it for me. I just I
actually did find it boring, I have to say.
Speaker 1: But yeah, all right, of course I understand exactly what
you mean. When I when I was growing up, PBS
was the source for Monty Python on Sunday Night, for
the Prisoner, for all of these shows, none of which
they made, none of which they made, but they brought
them over and that was fine and well good. I
remember when I was a seed salesman in the South
Downe in nineteen seventy nine, I would try to time
my weekends for a city that was big enough to
have a PBS reception so I could watch I Claudius.
But that was a very long time ago, and things
have changed.
Speaker 2: Can I say a quick point of order changing? I mean,
I think this is relevant if I recall this right.
National PBS was offered Monty Python. They said, no, this
is too weird. It was a Dallas affiliate that picked
it up first, and then it spread from there, so
it was a local station and said, actually we think
this is pretty funny. I think that's how it went.
Speaker 1: I think I think you're absolutely right, and we've been
told a different story, perhaps because we've been lied to.
Are you being lied to? More friends? Are you being
lied to? You know they tell you to defer paying
your taxes by saving it a four oh one k
or an ira because you'll retire in a lower tax bracket.
But if that was true, why are so many retirees
in the highest tax bracket of their lives. Look, it's
time to get the truth and discover a better way
to grow and protect your money. Bank on Yourself. It's
the proven retirement plan alternative that banks and Wall Street
desperately hope you never hear about. Well, here we go
because I'm telling you about it. It gives you what well,
Bank on Yourself gives you guaranteed predictable growth and retirement income.
With Bank on Yourself, your plan doesn't go backwards when
the markets stick of tumble. Now your principle and growth
are locked in tax free retirement income. That's another thing.
You'll know what your tax rate retirement is going to
be zero because under current tax laws, which protects you
from the coming tax tsunami. Three, you get built in
inflation protection. Your money is guaranteed to grow by a
larger dollar amount every year in both good times and
bad times. And for you get peace of mind, You'll
know the minimum guaranteed value of your retirement savings on
the day you plan to tap into them. And at
every single point along the way. Look, you can get
a free report that reveals how you can bank on
yourself and enjoy tax free retirement, income, guaranteed growth, and
control your money. Just go to bank on Yourself dot
com slash ricochet and get your free report. That's bank
on yourself dot com slash ricochet. Bank on Yourself dot
com slash ricochet. And we thank bank on Yourself for
sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast. And now we welcome back
to the podcast. Matthew KANINEITI, director of Domestic Policy Studies
and the inaugural Patrick and Charlie Neil Chair in American
Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute. And of course he's
a columnist at Commentary Magazine and The Free Press, and
he's the author of The Right, The one hundred Year
War for American Conservatism. Matt, welcome back.
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Well, you completed The Right in nineteen or nineteen twenty
two points worth. Sorry feel a little old to I
retired in twenty twenty two, and you, of course were
aware the story was ongoing. I've thought about how the
final chapters your book would look if you were wrapping
it up today because right keeps getting redefined underneath us,
doesn't it?
Speaker 5: It does? And I think a lot about that question.
If I were to update the story to the summer
of twenty twenty five, what would I cover. When the
paperback edition of the write came out, it included a
new chapter that I had written and sent to press
right after the midterm elections of twenty twenty two, and
if you recall, that was really the low point of
Donald Trump's political strength in the Republican Party. The midterms
had not gone as well for the GOP as they
had expected. A lot of that was because of Trump's
endorsing candidates who the electric just didn't really like. Trump
announced his presidential campaign, his third presidential campaign for the
GOP nomination, shortly after the midterm election, and the event
at Mar A Lago did not go very well. People
weren't really excited by it. All. The energy was on
Ron DeSantis a side. Ron de Santis, who had done
very well in twenty twenty two, seemed to represent the
next iteration of Maga Mago, perhaps without Trump's baggage, And
within six months of the paperback coming out and me
saying that there was a chance that the Republican Party
might move on from Trump. Trump had solidified once again
his position as leader of the GOP and leader of
this MAGA movement. One was one reason for that was
his just natural political talent. But the second and main
reason I think was shortly after the midterm election is
when the law fair campaign against Trump began, and then
in the spring of twenty twenty three is when the
New York indictment came down as well. That had the
effect of rallying the Republican Party to Trump's side, and
it has not left him ever since. So that was
the main unanticipated event was the revival of Trump, a
revival that only accelerated from twenty twenty three through the
assassination attempt one year ago, this past week and into today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, my realization that I know absolutely nothing came to
me when I thought Thissaners was going to just walk
away with it because I thought it was palatable. I
thought that he would cross body like he had this
proven record of governance and just died on the vine,
and I thought, Okay, that's it. My instinct's I'm never
going to trust him again. Stephen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So Matt, you're lucky today that we have John
Hu sitting in for Charlie Cook. Because you may not
know this, but John's nickname or acronym is og NC,
which stands for Original Gangst the Neocon. And that brings
me to you guys at Commentary. I do tune into
your daily podcast fairly often when I'm home and on
a walk on the afternoon, and I've noticed something. I mean,
let's not put too fine a point on it, but
Trump has never been a favorite of John Putt Hart's
an abe and your colleagues. I mean, you're the one
person who's always said the nicer things about him. But
now suddenly, starting about three weeks ago and maybe more,
it seems to me that you guys have signed up
for MAGA. And now is it just because he bombed
the forid of Nuclear Side, which you know John said
on Twitter a couple of times that's enough for me.
He's great, right, But I have to say there's been
a real change in tone and looks to me like
it's going to last. And so what say you to
that provocation?
Speaker 5: Well, I can't speak for my colleagues on the Commentary podcast.
I have noticed that my friend and leader John pod
Hortz has been very positive about Trump's decision to join
the Israeli campaign against Iran and bomb the three nuclear
facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer. And that is because John
and others in our Orbit and Commentary magazine have argued
for exactly that sort of military intervention in order to
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for decades, and
it was Donald Trump who actually did it. So Trump
deserves to be commended for that. I still think my
friends on the Pod are going to have criticisms of
Trump now and then, and there are a few things
that Trump has done in this administration that I disagree with,
but I think overall, what we've seen in this second
administration is, first, Trump has advanced conservative priorities, long standing
conservative priorities, along with the new MAGA agenda, not all
of which we agree with. But second, and perhaps most importantly,
the left's reaction to Trump and the radical swing of
the Democratic Party toward socialism, toward anti semitism isolationism is
something that my friends, commentary, my colleagues, and I strongly
condemn and oppose. So you know, as you know, Steve,
in politics, it's often what you're against matters more than
what you're actually for. And when you look at the
Democratic Party today, or at least when I look at it,
I see everything that I'm against and nothing that i'm for.
Speaker 2: Well, let's take another domain. Let's leave Israel aside for
a moment. And so just this week, the Republican Congress
finally defunded NPR and PBS. You know, people back as
far as the Reagan years want to do that. New
Gingridge took a run at it, right, and people said,
I remember one interview with Nude in nineteen ninety five
and someone said, oh, but you'll kill big Bird, and
Newt said, back, big bird makes money. Why I think
the army. But he didn't get anywhere with it, right.
It took Trump and the Trumpian moment. You might say,
to do that as well, and I can think of
there are a few stronger care of that whole domain of
state run media. Then again, the commentary crowd. So it
seems to me you've got to give Trump and the
Republican Congress's galvanized just huge props for doing things that
they were always too chicken to do previously.
Speaker 5: That's right, you know, not only were they chicken to
do it, but they just didn't have the consensus within
the party. They weren't prepared to do it. This is
a paradoxical advantage of having such narrow congressional majorities is
there's less room for that marginal member to hide and
to throw a wrench into the congressional agenda or to
the president's agenda. And Trump has been able to exercise
incredible leverage over the Republicans in Congress. That's partly because
Trump is so popular in the Republican Party. It's also
because Trump has changed the Republican Party so that people
who have been vocally against him or his policies just
aren't there anymore. And then it's also I think a
result of the twenty twenty experience, the pandemic experience, the
great awokening that happened in twenty twenty that had the
effect of making many Republicans much less tolerant of taxpayer
subsidized leftism. And whether that was in the schools, whether
that's in the universities, or whether it's at PBS and NPR,
Republicans as a rule just don't have the tolerance for
it any longer. They don't want to continue to spend
taxpayer funds propping up anti American, anti Western ideologies.
Speaker 4: Hey, Matt, good to see you.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to revise any details, but Matt and
I were at one of the last remaining as Steve
calls them, neo conclaves. I think they were just the
two of us there and all these other constr heard.
It was great. It was like it was like Back
to the Future two thousand and six edition. That was wonderful.
I got to see the CONTINENTI family struggle at pick
a ball at pick a Ball as Dick Cheney slammed
on them with his aeriel Michael Jordan reverse back slam
on the pick a ball court. So, actually, I got
to ask you about something I just don't get, which is,
why is this Epstein thing causing such a disruption in
the Trump I don't know if you can call it
a coalition or explain why this is so important. It's
totally I think killed Trump's political momentum. He spent the
last week talking about Epstein instead of the passage of
his tax bill, instead of the recision package, and it
seems to be flooding both conservative and liberal media.
Speaker 5: What explains this well killing Trump's political momentum explains why
the Democrats are so excited by the Epstein story. They
have finally found a story. They finally found an issue
that puts the administration on its back foot, and that
divides the Republican MAGA coalition. It's been months since they've
been on the offensive the Democrats. So that's the Democrats,
that's easy. The question is the Republicans and MAGA, and
in particular the MAGA influencers, the podcasters, the kind of
activist crowd that, at a recent conference held by Charlie
Kirk of Turning Point USA, went after the Trump administration
for covering up the Epstein case. Is what's going on here? Well,
I think the writer Park McDougall had a very good
piece in The Free Press speaking about how what's happening
is some of Trump's podcast base has been alienated from
the administration in the second hundred, whether that was Operation
Midnight Hammer, which they had argued against, whether that was
the One Big Beautiful Bill which Elon Musk famously left
the GOP over and other figures like Steve Bannon felt
should have raised taxes instead of keeping them low. There's
an ongoing debate inside the administration right now about whether
there should be some sort of immigration arrangement that either
legalizes or at least kind of puts safe caps on
safeguards around the migrant worker population or even the hotel
worker population. So for on those three axes, you see
that the new right wing, the Bannons, the Tucker Carlson's,
they are very much on the defensive and they have
real problems with certain policies of Trump. How does this
manifest itself, Well, it manifests itself, I think in going
after the administration on Epstein. Now, a couple more things.
The first is the administration hasn't helped, and that is
Attorney General Bondi did over promise and under deliver. Whether
it was saying that the Epstein files were on her desk,
Maybe I'm sympathetic, she may have misspoken on TV, but
you know, when you're ag you have to be careful
with what you say. Whether it was that photo op
where they brought the influencers into the White House and
then they gave him these binders where it turns out
that it was pretty much previously disclosed information about Epstein.
To have those two moments followed a few months later,
by this just pronouncement that the investigation was over and
that there was no list, there was no blackmail, and
there was no foul play in Jeffrey Epstein's death really
antagonized a lot of people who look at other stories,
whether it's the JFK files that have been released, or
whether it's the UFO story where Caroline Levitt came out
and she said, we looked into this, what we found
that the strange lights in New Jersey that we were
following last year turned out to be all domestically made right.
Whether it's the president's health, you know. Just yesterday, in
response to people who had been noticing that Trump's ankles
had been swollen and the bruise on one of his hands,
the administration came out with the letter actually from his
physician saying that he has a typical condition for people
of his age that leads to ankle swelling. Epstein, there
just hasn't been that same amount of transparency and even
though there may be no there there, and I'm very
skeptical that there is a there there, that's led to
additional question students as well. So it's a combination john
of opportunism by the Democrats and never Trumper's, along with
a mishandling of the way in which this information was
presented to the public on the part of the administration,
which then has produced this kind of revolt. I will
just say this finally, the Wall Street Journal story that
broke today July eighteenth, before what broke on the seventeenth.
We're recording this on the eighteenth, with the alleged letter
that Trump sent Epstein on for Epstein's fiftieth birthday, that
has had the effect, it seems to me, of rallying
MAGA together, because yes, a lot of MAGA pundits want
transparency and they believe in kind of these theories that
powerful people are shielding one another from accountability on sex crimes.
But they hate the mainstream media even more, and so
if Trump was able to focus on the media as
the common enemy, then he might be able to bring
the band back together.
Speaker 1: I was provided by a producer a quote from your
recent piece of yours, James Burnham. I like this quote.
I hate it, but I like it. Quote when the
Western liberals feeling of guilt and his associated feeling of
moral vulnerability before the sorrows and demands of the wretched
become obsessive. He often develops a generalized hatred of Western
civilization and of his own country as part of the
West End quote. And we've been seeing this everywhere. You
see it in stories every single day on Twitter, of course,
if the algorithm has figured out that you kind of
like these things. One of the most notable to me
the other day was they were having a cultural enrichment
diversity celebration event at a school in England and a
girl wore a Union jack and she had a speech
about englishness and how it was wonderful and she was
proud to be She was sent home because I was
the wrong. We're not going to celebrate that. Somebody else
pointed out that a quote that talked about suicidal empathy,
referring to I think it was a New York Times
piece which talked about how empathy became a toxic subject
on the right and the rest of it. The idea
that one should become a globalist, a global philanthropist before
a national philanthropist, because the West has committed so many sins,
has done such evil is so uniquely inherently intrinsically bad
that the only enlightened position is to detest it and
to seek to tear it down, or at least to
acquiesce in its destruction. So you wrote that, Explain how
you used that quote in your piece and how it
applies today to let's say, the campus situation.
Speaker 5: Sure well, the quote comes from James Burnham, the Titanic
intellectual who exercised such a remarkable influence on William F.
Buckley Junior in the National Review. The quote specifically comes
from Burnham's book Suicide of the West, first published in
nineteen sixty four. And what I like about that quote,
and what I like about that book is this is
James Burnham really diagnosing the liberal mentality decades before I
was born, and you know, some sixty years before what
we've seen on our college campuses after October seventh, this
guilt drive that seems to explain a lot of liberal views,
in particular their obsession with the victimizer binary and always
identifying with the victim, and the victim is always the
victim of Western society or systemic racism or the patriot barchy.
That it can be identified throughout the history of the left,
in more radical forms, but also in the mildier forms
of American liberalism. So it's a very stunning quote, and
I recommend the book, which is still in print. Encounter
brought out an edition about a decade ago that you
can get to understand liberals, and there are some dated parts,
but really that fundamental diagnosis holds up, and we, like
you say, we see it on campuses today, and we
see it in the anti Semitism, the anti Zionism that's
coming from campuses today. This guilt over Israel, the guilt
stemming from this idea that Israel is a Western colonial project,
which it is.
Speaker 4: Not, saying God, I hope so.
Speaker 1: The whole.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 5: This tendency to always fall back on oppress or oppressed uh,
and this guilt complex that motivates, I think, a willful
blindness among liberals towards the enemies of civilization. This is
something that has been present for a long time. In
one way, it's reassuring because it means that even though
our technology changes, the names and faces change, the fundamentals
of politics remain the same. The argument remains the same.
But what I think we need more of today are
people who will stand up for the Western civilization, stand
up for Biblical civilization. Judaism Christianity, Zionism, and Americanism, the
principles and institutions of the American founding, and say that
we're proud of these, we are not ashamed. And if
I have to identify one source of Donald Trump's political longevity,
I would say is that he does proudly say he
is for all these things, and he's certainly not afraid
when the left or others try to delegitimize him, demean him,
or kill him.
Speaker 1: It is refreshing. I mean, because when politicians are the
left talk about how much they love America, either the
words just sort of turn to ashes in their mouth
you don't believe them, or it's a theoretical America that
they like. It's one that's never existed that will be
perfect if and or when they're particularly I mean like
New York's mayor in a year may say I love America,
but that's just because he's successfully nationalized every corporation in Manhattan.
Speaker 2: Stephen Well, one of the other things you mentioned I
can send your book is that Bill Buckley, much more
back in the news because of the Townhouse biography, once
kind of equivocated about his famous remarket it's better to
be governed by the first two thousand names in the
Boston phone Directory than the faculty of Harvard University. Okay,
so maybe Buckley is at his core an elitist. They
used to say, look, when I want heart surgery, I
want an elitist doctor. So of course, so you confess
to that. But I've always thought that that phrase should
be modified, that it'd be better to be educated by
the first two thousand names in the Boston phone directory
than the faculty of Harvard University. That I don't think
he would dissent on at all. Now, I'm not following
the machinations at Columbia at a granuar level, like your successor,
the Free Beacon, el Eanla Johnson is, But you're a
Columbia graduate. What's the latest on that? Are you optimistic
that for all the blunderbus that Trump is using, much
of which I like, maybe all of which I like,
are you optimistic that we're actually going to see some
fundamental changes at Columbia or anywhere else.
Speaker 5: Well, the Free Beacon has been reporting that the administration
and Columbia maybe close to a deal, and many in
the pro Israel community, many critics of Columbia University. Columbia
University are a little bit alarmed at the details of
this deal, which has not been finalized. They feel that
though Columbia would pay a very large fine and make
some changes to its governance, the underlying problems will not
be treated appropriately. So we'll see that what happens. Of course,
the deal would have to be authorized by Trump, and
he hasn't done so yet. I think, Steve that Columbia's
problems run really deep, and they think that there are
many decades in the making. And I always have to
say I was a little bit shocked when Trump suspended
the foreign student visas to Harvard. There was a flurry
of articles about the percentercentage of foreign students at ar
Lee University's Columbia, if I recall correctly, was somewhere around
forty seven percent of the student body comes from overseas.
And that was not the case when I graduated there
twenty years ago. And I think what's happened over the
intervening years is that Colombia really decided to become Edward
Sayid University really decided to become the institutional body that
represented the views of one of Columbia's most famous professors,
Edward said, the author of Orientalism and a supporter of
the PLO, a critic, vociferous enemy of the State of Israel,
and someone who was a stylish literary writer, but who
used that verbal ability which he did have to advance
a very anti Western, anti American, anti Israel perspective. That
mindset has been slowly embedded into the institution over time
because of different decisions by the administration successive administrations. Let's
not forget that. When I was there, we welcomed Lee Bollinger,
the famous defender of affirmative action, from the University of Michigan.
He came and became president of Columbia University. I think
in my final year there two three, and just a
few hours years after I left, he ostentatiously invited Mahmud
Ahmadinijad to address the campus, the man who had called
for the destruction of Israel, destruction of America. You know,
a radical Iranian politician. And to get that word radical
in front of you, when you're an Iranian politician, you
really need to be radical or it's not. It's not
just an ordinary anti American mola. I mean, I'm aninjod
if you remember, as I know you do, he was
he was out there and yet here he was at Columbia.
So this deal, you know, making Columbia pay is important,
But if we really want to change Columbia, I always
prefer the Carthaginian option.
Speaker 1: You Know's well, you know, it used to be said
that we want foreign students to come here so they
can learn about America and love America and spread their
love of America when they go back home. And now
it's just like, well, you know what, you can hate
America from a distance. From now on, Colombia is only
going to be for American kids, so they can so
our kids can learn how to hate America the Columbia way.
Johnny got something, I got a last one from that
before we go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm just curious about So this split you were
talking about before within the GOP that you see reflected
in the response at Epstein files, what do you think
that shows about the struggle inside the administration? You know,
is this is this the JD. Vance wing versus the
Marco Rubier wing? What does suggests for what's going inside
the administration? And uh, you know, if you I mean
so early, but you know, how do you think this
plays into handicapping who you know Trump's successor is going
to be.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a great question. I think it's less about
a struggle inside the administration because it's clear from the
past several weeks that Trump is the decider. Trump is
the most powerful force in the administration, and even if
people are counseling alternate approaches, they really don't bring their
their differences of opinion to the public. So there really
is Trump that he he defines what that administration is
going to do. And as we were talking about in
his true social posts this past week, he said that
the critics, the outside critics of his position and appin
were former supporters. He doesn't want their support. I think
where this really comes into play, though, John is the
twenty twenty eight stakes, and clearly JD. Vance is the
front runner for the Republican nomination in all the polls.
He's far and away ahead in first place. He is
the incumbent vice president, which always counts for a lot.
But I do think that Vance is has his kind
of eyes over his shoulder at a potential candidate from
the more online wing of MAGA, the podcaster wing, if
you will, would Tucker Carlson decide to run for the
Republican nomination. That would present a political challenge for Vance
and how he formulates his policies and message. At the
same time, though, I also think that what's been revealed
over the past few weeks is these podcasters don't have
much influence. You know, we're looking at polls of Republican
support for Trump. Republican support for Trump went up during
the Epstein scandal, even as the public says the administration
should be handling it better and should disclose more information.
So the same thing with Operation Midnight Hammer. By the way,
all the polls we have showed that Republicans really support
Trump's peace through Strength approach on Iran. So I do
think there's more bark than them bite here. But it's
one reason that Vance is very circumspect about how he
handles these more controversial issues for the podcast.
Speaker 1: Right, the idea that podcasters are not influential is one
of those ridiculous statements.
Speaker 5: Men, well the other podcasts.
Speaker 1: You're absolutely right, And it's the same thing with people
who marinated on twitter x all day. You become convinced
of a certain line of thought that it's the dominant
line of thought. It shapes everything that you hear, and
you're completely unaware that most people don't agree, don't know
what you're talking about, and don't care, or.
Speaker 5: They view it as entertainment.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: I think a lot of people just watch these podcasters
and it's just something to do. It's better than what's
on TV, that's for sure, But that doesn't mean they're
going to believe everything they say or act on what
they say, and.
Speaker 1: It doesn't necessarily mean that they even listen to the podcast.
They may see a video clip that shows up on TikTokers.
They're scrolling between a million different feeds. Well, thank you
for being on with us today. Man. I have to say,
you had the opportunity to write an extra chapter to
that book about twenty two that ended with twenty twenty two,
and you did not go back and redcon the rest
of it so that you could be proven absolutely correct.
It's a marvelous opportunity you've missed. But it shows that
you are an ethical man and we admire that also.
Speaker 2: Lazy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, Well, we'll look to see what your next
prediction is and then we will go on and bet,
perhaps in a contrary wise based on that so we
got to get that average out there. Matt Conanetti, follow him,
Mariam wherever you got them, And it's been a pleasure
as ever to talk to you today. Have a great
rest of July you too, Thanks again back by. So
we need to tell you about a couple of things
before we head out here, and one of them is, well, well,
we got Ricochet meetups. That's right. Ricochet is not just
a website with a bunch of guys who gam are
away on podcasts. It is a community and if you
go there and you sign up for the member feed,
which is cheap, you get access to all kinds of
new friends. Frankly, that's what they become quite quickly, and
then they get together sometimes periodically in person and talk
about generally anything except politics. The Ricochet meetups I've been,
it's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, we can talk about that,
but there's so much more to discover about each other
and share it and talk. Hey, you're into old coins
from Rome too, so am I? And if you go
so we got three coming up here, we think. Matt
Ballser holding the annual German Fest meet up July twenty
fifth to twenty seventh, In of course, Milwaukee, Randy Wilva.
I never pronounced your name right, Randy, And as a
guy who's been Lilix all of his life instead of
the correct Lilacs, you have my sympathy anyway, Randy. Long
standing members assembling a group to meet in Detroit August
fifteenth through the eighteenth. Huh, I wonder if I'm going
to be anywhere close and Red Herring, I am so tempted.
Just posted about a Ricochet at Sea cruise meetup to
tour the Caribbean in December. If you're a fan of
the old National Review cruise is you know what that's like.
It's a great ship. Actually, it's one of the new ships.
I haven't been on it and just bobbing are on
the Caribbean for a week, having good meals, enjoying the
buffet and the shows and the conversations and nights up
in the Crow's Nest. I miss it, I really do.
And I am tolutely tempted anyway. So that's that. So, John,
what's on your mind that you would like to leave
us with. I'm curious about your take, since you are
a Californian, and you since you know the state intimately,
whether or not. People there are more upset about the
funding of the train to nowhere, or upset about the
fact that Ice, cruel mean Ice is apparently keeping pot
farmers from using illegal migrant children to.
Speaker 3: Grow the weed.
Speaker 1: Where are we as a country, for Heaven's sakes.
Speaker 3: Well, since Steve is the only one who's ever likely
to see either Sings in person, high speed rail or
the pot farms right given where he lives down in
the center of the state. But I can tell you
up here in San Francisco people are pissed off about
the pot They don't they We're never going to see
the high speed rail up here. Although I have to say,
and I think Steve agrees with this, people san Francisco
are suddenly turning optimistic because we have a mayor who
doesn't seem to be a left wing radical. Crime is dropping,
the streets are becoming safer. I think businesses are returning.
And it's all because we put the guy whose family
made Levi jeans in charge.
Speaker 4: Now that's where.
Speaker 3: That's you know, that's when I hope we can get
the guy from Wrangler to come next, because.
Speaker 4: They are turning the city around.
Speaker 2: Right right right, So on the by the way they're saying,
I'm surprised James that you didn't Maybe you did think
of the link between high speed rail and getting high
on pot. I mean they want to run the rail
through the pot farms. I think one thing. You know,
I am not far away from those pot farms in Camerio.
I drive by there when I head down to Pepperdine
every week during the semester, and I watched the TV
news coverage and it was all hysteria. You know, they
kept interviewing the protester around the corner saying this is
the Gestapo, this is fascism, all the rest of that. Well,
I know a few people in the egg business down
in that area, and they all hate the pot farms
because they're some smelly and intrusive, and a lot of
them got their permits during COVID. I have a sneaking
suspicion that the media will never investigate that a lot
of those other people in the egg business are the
ones who dropped the dime on them to ice. I'll
bet some of those people called up Eisen said, you
know who's got a whole lot of illegal farm labors
and children working or this this this farm Otherwise, how
did Ice know to go, you know, ninety miles north
of Los Angeles to conduct those raids. I am convinced
that is what happened, and you heard it here.
Speaker 1: First listeners entirely possible, or drone surveillance using some sort
of height calibration devices. I mean, who knows, who have
absolutely no idea, But yeah, I mean I don't want to.
I don't like the pond farms either, But dead generally
has to do with my dislike of the stuff today
because it is absolutely everywhere. The guy who stole my
car was reeking of the stuff, and when I got
in my car it actually went. After it was recovered,
it still had that faint skin. No, No, I had
a driver on for a day with the windows open
and the AC blasting full, just to get it out.
I mean, just the guy had spent maybe thirty five
minutes in my car, and it was permeated with weed smoke,
and downtown when I work downtown, which I don't anymore,
you would just smell it wafting off people as they
and it's just I don't remember it from my youth
smelling that bad. As a matter of fact, I remember
having an almost attractive aroma to it. But there's something
about modern pop culture and modern pot strength and the
rest of it that I don't think it's a good idea.
I really don't. I don't think that you can't.
Speaker 3: Afford the good stuff back then. James. That's what.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, Minnesota, ditchweed is what we're talking talking about. You.
That stuff that they brought up from from the south
of the state in black plastic garbage banks, bushels.
Speaker 2: It like tumb me anyway now, James, Yeah, So since
you you brought it up briefly, how was your first
two questions? How was your first week of retirement? You
may have talked about the diner, which I have not
caught up with, but how was your first week of retirement?
And secondly, after my dad retired and started working from home,
my mother said they should have changed the wedding vows
to for better or for worse, but not for lunch.
My dad drove my mother nuts. So how is missus
Lilacs adjusting to your new retirement regime?
Speaker 1: Fine? Because I get into the house the first week.
The first week was great. First week seemed to be
primarily paperwork because getting your pension on your social security
and all these things requires phones and forums and the
rest of it, because, as I said in the podcast before,
everything that came to you as part of your employment
was just this gravy that naturally flowed from their bucket
to yours, the paycheck, the health insurance, all the rest
of it. And once that's gone, you have to get
it yourself and clawed in and fix all these things
and dot the eyes. I ended up calling Social Security
on Monday morning, being the first in the queue, and
it was expecting two hours of gruesome wait time and
then some an indifferent bureaucrat who didn't care about my story,
the whole Brazil movie thing, And what I got was
a kind, pleasant, easy to understand, a helpful woman who
really wanted me to get my money and really wanted
to help. And it was the first experience I'd had
with the system, and I was I was impressed with its.
Speaker 4: Professionals, except your creation. After you, what is this social security?
Speaker 1: You speak of nothing, John, You don't have to think
about it, you don't have to worry about it. Boom
us boomers will just sop it up and then pull
the gate, pulled the bridge, you know, the Drawbridge up
with us. So there was that and that was nice.
But it's been finding a new gym. It's been doing
stuff around the house that I've been putting off. It's
been realizing that I don't have to sort of subject. Well,
the funny party is really is that the last thing
I did before I left the paper was to file
a piece that was the antithesis of the thing that
they'd wanted me to write. When they took away my column,
the idiots in charge of that said, now we want
you to write, but we don't want you to write opinions,
and we don't want you to write humor. So the
last thing I did there was to hit send on
a piece to the op ed section. And the op
ed section, of course, can do whatever it likes. And
I sent them a humorous piece with opinion about being carjacked,
and they not only published it, they put my name
in the headline as if to say, hey, everybody, that
writer you liked, he's right here. And it did baffo business.
So that's that, and that was the end of the paper.
But I've been writing tons. I've got my substack to do,
I've got a new video series. I'm ramping up. I've
got the bleat, I've got a book that I'm putting together.
So yeah, it's been wonderful and I've been relieved of
the opportunity to go downtown and to be frank. I
don't miss it a bit.
Speaker 2: So Yl's unleashed, Lileox unleashed, I'll call it. And by
the way, James, you you know, I should have known
that you would make a fleeting reference to the greatest
anti bureaucratic movie ever made, that being Brazil from nineteen
eighty six. So I have to tease you. Did you
see the director's cut or the theatrical release?
Speaker 1: I've seen both.
Speaker 4: God, I'm gonna shoot myself.
Speaker 2: I don't see. That's why I brought it up.
Speaker 3: I thought I kind of escaped the three whiskey hap
how and all these crazy references by coming to this podcast.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, Michael Baylon is a friend of mine
and so I think he did really well. No, but yes,
but no, we we had dinner together in London a
year and a half ago. Wow, we have mutual friends.
Speaker 2: So did you say John stepped on your line? You
say he liked the theatrical or the kid?
Speaker 1: I'm kidding. We never got around to it. I never
asked him about his work. I asked him about this
stuff you talk about, this stuff that other people don't
ask about. And when we did a show, my friend
and I who knows him, did a show in London
last he came to the show and it was a
highlight of my life to look out at the audience
and see Michael freakin Peylins sitting there smiling at our
at our bits and our routines, and he remembered me.
After we I got to introduce him to my wife
and daughter. My daughter was absolutely thrilled. He's about the
nicest man on the planet. He really is just a
decent guy. I gave him a bag of swag from Minnesota,
including spam. I mean, you can't not make a spaw
way for a time, so I gave him. I gave
him spam from the source, from the absolute source, and
a copy of my book that with which he could
do as he pleased.
Speaker 4: Another kind of spam.
Speaker 1: So so yeah, Brazil Is Brazil is a great movie.
I think DeNiro is miscast in it somewhat. But and
Jonathan Price apparently, you know, he had his difficulties the woman,
Kim Kim. What was her name, Alistair Kim. She was
apparently a pain for everybody, but she was a great
eighties heart throb with that short hair and that sort
of go to spirit. Great movie depressing ending. I love
Terry Gilliam. He's another Minnesotan and a brilliant man. But
that's probably his highlight, I guess. And it's been a
while since I've seen it. I'll have to go back
and give it another look.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that'll be it.
Speaker 1: Unless you, guys want to talk about a movie or
television show that you think the viewership should listen to.
So you've got about a minute, John, what are you watching?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: I just watched the third seed final season of Squid
Game and I'm about to start the course. I'm just
about to start a Foundation on Apple TV. I've been
I love this series. I mean I love the books
when they came out. I mean I wasn't around when
they came out, but I read them.
Speaker 1: John, have you heard have you heard anything about that
Foundation television show?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: It's bad.
Speaker 4: Oh, I mean it's so different from the books, but
I love.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I love the books. And then I watched the
first couple of episodes, and I said, I hate everybody involved.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's a different story, but I'm kind
of curious how they changed it or updated it. You know,
it's I think, isn't it directed by the guy who
has done a lot of superhero movies and so on.
It's it's certainly got that take on it. Yeah, and
then I'm about to start watching Star Trek, you know,
the Star Trek series on Parallel Plus. I think that's
starting in a week or so.
Speaker 1: Be very careful for If it's Discovery, don't watch it.
If it's strange New Worlds, You're absolutely going to love it.
Speaker 4: But why would you make a New Worlds?
Speaker 1: But I don't get it. We're going to make a
movie about the Foundation books that everybody loves, but it's
not going to be that story. It's like we're going
to make Lord of the Rings, but it's actually going
to be about a couple of women traveling around Southwest
America in a car. I don't make It's not that hard.
I mean, yes, the first book is episodic from what
I understand, because asthmov cobbled together various stories, yeah, stories,
you know, but you know that's what Raymond Chandler did
with his novels. But that's fine, go episodic. I don't care.
Just give me those stories please. But yeah, I understand,
I understand. So I didn't watch. The second was the
season of Squid Games because I just figured that it
sort of left the story where it was and it
was such an appallingly violent show in the first place
that I really did not want to go back to
that world ever again period. But then again, I watched Mobland,
So what do I know, Steven? You Yeah, I've I
have to stop saying Johnny's on the podcast.
Speaker 2: That will confuse him.
Speaker 4: Right, I finally got my last name, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The only thing I've watched lately because I've been
too busy to watch anything, is the Netflix documentary about
the Ocean Gate Titan submersible. And the amazing thing there
is it's almost an hour and forty minutes long. The
amazing thing is that a Stockton Rush guy was such
a megalomaniac that apparently had either a film crew or
people's cameras constantly, so you have footage of the whole saga,
which now looks very bad, of course, right, And then
I interviewed the engineers, he fired, and so forth, so
that I found the interesting. You know, you knew what
the ending was going to be, but it was still
fascinating watching. Otherwise have been too busy to take in
anything except for John when he appears on Outnumbered on Fox,
where this week he outdid himself by engaging in fat shaming.
So I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker 3: I didn't even know that fat shaming was a thing.
I thought you to make fun of the fat kidding class, Like,
what under that rule change? I still do it when.
Speaker 1: I teach I was the fat kidding class. What did
you do? What did you say?
Speaker 3: Oh? So the you know this Outnumbered show, you know
you're the guy in the middle. There's four Fox four
women have Fox hosts on the couch with you, and
half the show's about current events. But then the second
half of the show where I really unprepared his popular
culture and lifestyle. So they said, the use of ozepic
has gone up amongst children because there's a juvenile you know,
outbreak of juvenile obesity. So they said, what do you think?
And I said, I know a secret, you know, recipe
for weight loss.
Speaker 4: It's called sports.
Speaker 3: And I say, just get the fat kid out there,
make him play sports every day.
Speaker 4: That's what I had to do growing up.
Speaker 3: I went to school, I had to play sports every
single day. I hated it because as a good Asian kid,
I just wanted to go back for preparing for the exams,
but they wouldn't let me. So I learned these sports
and I'm glad I did. I was forced to, and
I still play some of those sports today.
Speaker 4: But then we don't need.
Speaker 3: Know of zempic. Just get the kid, kick the kid
in the butt and make him go play sports.
Speaker 1: That's incredibly so.
Speaker 3: Steve immediately says, I'm shaming fat kids right because he's
so sensitive to the plight of the week and underserved community.
Speaker 1: Let me make this then a promo John Woo's promo
for The Diner, which discusses the trials and tribulations and
humiliations of being the fat kid in junior high in
gym class which I was more grade school, but the
last guy to be struck in battleball, the last guy
to stagger across the finished line of this.
Speaker 3: It worked, James, because now you're in great shape because
of humiliation.
Speaker 1: That's precise. That's exactly why. Because I was shamed, and
I was ashamed of myself, and I was determined not
to be that kid, thinking someday it'll be the fiftieth
high school reunion and I'll come back and I'll walk
in fit and all of the old jocks will be
dead or have a big you know, or be out
of shape.
Speaker 3: So yeah, tell me it wasn't that satisfying? Did that
make you warm and fuzzy inside?
Speaker 1: I haven't hit it yet, but yet, fiftieth anniversary. I
think that's next year. Oh good old. Anyway, with that
cheerful note, we would like to thank bank on yourself.
Go there and find out exactly what they're talking about
for these investments and these opportunities for you support us
also by becoming a best part of the best place
for civil and center right conversation. That would be Ricochet.
And am I going to ask you to do a
five star review on Apple Podcasts? Or am I not?
I don't know. It's Shortinger's into the show thing this week,
so just leave it at that. Thank you, John, It's
been a pleasure, Stephen. Always good to hear from you.
Next week, John, I hope you're back. You know, it's
because it's.
Speaker 4: I'm always available.
Speaker 3: You know. I've been waiting and waiting to get a
call back from the Bush leagues to play in the
MLB within the show the show. I finally made the
show again and.
Speaker 1: We're happy to have you here. So we'll see everybody
next week, and we'll see you possibly tonight in the
comments on Ricochet four point zero. Bye bye,