December 4, 2025 • 24 mins
In this episode, Mary Kathrine Ham and Karol Markowicz dive into a wide-ranging set of topics shaping headlines and family life. They unpack the latest developments in the Hegseth controversy, breaking down conflicting reports and what the recent military strikes could mean. They also analyze the special Tennessee election and what those shifts signal for the year ahead.
Ham and Markowicz then turn to parental concerns over vaccine safety for children, exploring the latest debates surrounding risk, regulation, and transparency. This episode wraps with a spotlight on Dell’s initiative to invest in children’s futures—highlighting the growing push for financial literacy and early investment education.
Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hey, guys, we are back on normally but showing normally.
It takes, but when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I am Mary Eperham and I'm Carol Markowitz, Mary Catherine.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Have you mailed your holiday cards yet?
Speaker 1 (00:14):
I'm not doing them?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No?
Speaker 4 (00:16):
Are you really not doing them? I like your Christmas card.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Thank you, but I saved my Christmas cards. I save
my sanity by saving my Christmas cards for only when
I have a baby. At this point, so I think we're.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
The people demand a Christmas card.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
I used them as a birth announcement for two of
my kids and then I was like, oh, I got yeah,
so for now off the plate. But my second child
has asked if she could assist in a in a
Christmas card project, so we it may come back at
some point.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
All right, okay, I am rooting for it personally, or like,
you know, you could just go rogue and like Halloween card.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
You know that's true, you.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I feel like that would really work for you.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
I send a card and I I haven't even do it.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
I haven't even ordered them yet.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
And I tweeted about this today, but like I had
two waiting for me Monday after Thanksgiving in my mailbox
and it was from Mary Chistain and Nikki Neely, and
I was like, you guys are a little two type
a for me to have it all together like this.
And I was like, I'm gonna ask Mary Catherine. I'm
sure she hasn't ordered hers either yet.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Even when I did them every year, they arrived on
like the teenth, and I would just not genuinely no,
just try to get them there by Christmas.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
I think it's they're there by New Years. It's a win.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Yeah, that's what I say.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
All right, let's get into the news. We you know,
talked about some.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Stuff in the last episode, and we just want to
follow up on on that news story that we discussed,
the Pete Hegseeth double tap second strike Venezuelan drug boat story.
So when we last left you, the Washington Post had
had an article called Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat
(02:04):
strike official say kill them all. And the story is
that Hegseth said kill them all, and apparently a commander
took that to mean, even when they're clinging to the
boat survivors of the first strike, you should take them
out on the second strike.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
The New York Times of all outlets which was really.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Surprising, had sort of a defense of Hegseth about this
and said he never said anything like that. Of course,
both stories are anonymously sourced. Everything should be taken with
a grain of salt. I have a hard time believing
anything with this much anonymous sourcing in it, so the
(02:47):
New York Times Rights. According to five US officials who
spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss
the sensitive matter there's under investigation, mister Hegseth, the head
of the September second attack, ordered a strike that would
kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel
and its purported cargo of drugs. But each official said
mister Hegseth's directive did not specifically address what should happen
(03:08):
if a first missile turned out to not fully accomplish
all those things, and the official said his order was
not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least
two people on the boat survived the first blast. Now
that's interesting because that's not how I read the Washington
Post story at all, And now rereading it with this information,
I could see where the Washington Post story was super
(03:31):
vague and didn't really say whether heg Seth said kill
them all before the strike began, which is how I
understood it, or whether he said it mid strike or
after the first strike, which is how a lot of
other people understood it.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
I have to imagine that's by design. Personally, What do
you think?
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Well, a couple things. My smart friend Tom Bevan of
Real Clear Politics noted that the New York Times story
has five sources. The Washington Post had two, so we
do have more people on this. I think, look likely
there's a version of this story that's between Washington Posts,
New York Times, and Pete Hegseth's version. But there was
the initial response from the Pentagon that was like this
(04:10):
is all fake news basically, and then there was like,
oh wait, no, we did hit the vote twice.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Now.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I would like the legal ramifications of the narco terrorism
attacks to be addressed in an adult manner. In general,
we are dealing with Congress, so like that's not going
to happen. They're going to call for hearings and then they're
just going to give a bunch of lectures. But I
wish they would actually engage in this, and I want
the administration to engage it and say this is legal
for these reasons. This is why we're undertaking it. This
(04:38):
is why this wasn't a violation. Right, Yeah, that's better
than meming it on x. We got a little closer
to that. Here's a little bit of Hegseeth speaking to
Trump at the and to the press at the Cabinet
meeting this week.
Speaker 5 (04:51):
The thing was on fire. I was exploded in fire
or smoke. You can't see any you got digital there.
This is called the fog of war. This is what
you and the press understand. You sit in your air
conditioned offices, you're up on Capitol Hill, and you nitpick,
and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about
kill everybody, phrases on anonymous sources, not based in anything,
(05:12):
not based in any truth at all. And then you
want to throw up really irresponsible terms about American heroes,
about the judgment that they made. I wrote a whole
book on this topic. Because of what politicians and the
press does to warfighters. President Trump has empowered commanders, commanders
to do what is necessary, which is dark and difficult
things in the dead of night on behalf of the
(05:33):
American people. We support them, and we will stop the
poisoning of the American people.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Donald Trump's face as Pete Hegseth is criticizing the press
is so perfect.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
He's just like, that's my book.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Well, and like they seemed very comfortable together here. I
think people when they saw the meeting, we're looking for clues,
is like, is the White House upset with Hegseth And
it didn't look like it in this moment. But there
is an interesting thing going on here where Trump is
saying they're basically sort of both disavowing somebody while trying
to sound like they're not so. Trump is like, oh yeah, yeah, no,
(06:06):
he sits right next to me. The only thing I
know about this is from him, Like he just gives
me the information. I totally trust him.
Speaker 4 (06:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
HeiG Seth is like, this admiral is great. He was
in charge of all of this. I wasn't even in
the room. But he's awesome and we trust him. And
I'm like, okay, well, there is a thing. We're empowering
people to make their own decisions is important. But a
little bit You're like, I wasn't there. This was on him. Yeah,
while you're also saying he's amazing, Like there's a weird
dance going on.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Here, right, Yeah, it's yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Look, I think that the people who are hoping that
Trump is gonna throw hag Seth under the bus here
are just it's folly because it's not going to happen.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
I don't see Trump saying.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Oh, we were too vicious here, and therefore you're going
to have to be fired or have to resign.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I just don't don't think any of that's happening.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Look, your point is a good one that.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
They should be clear about the legal ramifications of all
of this. It's look, I'm not a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
The people that I follow that our lawyers feel pretty
comfortable that these strikes are legal. But if the administration
could give some more clarity on that, I think that
would be a good thing.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
All around the.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
New York one watching, they'll never be satisfied. It's not like, yeah, okay,
you guys say that it's legal. That's cool, it's legal.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
There.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
I gonna say that.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
A couple of things. One, where were the Washington Posts
in New York Times when Biden blew up a whole
Afghan family because he was smarting from his terrible Afghanistan withdrawal?
Those things should have been you know, hearing worthy as well.
People should have been held accountable for those things. So
I understand people getting upset. I have no illusions that
I'm like a normal person for having this concern, Like
(07:43):
a lot of normal people are like, I don't know,
they seem like they're right drug drug dealers on a boat.
That seems fine with me. It's inter national waters. So
I don't think that I am indicative.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Right. Look, you know also Congressman Rand Paul, who has
clashed with the president a lot, and is you know,
libertarian more libertarian member of Congress. He tweeted Coast Guard
records show that prior to the reign of blow them
to Smithereens quote unquote, twenty one percent of boats stopped
off the coast of Venezuela possessed no drugs.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
I don't know how.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
He tweets this as some sort of criticism of the strikes.
That means eighty percent of the boats have drugs.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Well, that's because if one hundred percent of the people
you target you're killing, twenty percent.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Of them might not have had any drugs, right, That's
I mean, yeah, but they're not targeting one hundred percent
of the boats, right, So that's where that's where he
loses me and I.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Understand that I'm on the other side of that one.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
If you're accidentally killing twenty one percent who are innocent,
that's going to be a problem, right, But.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
We don't know that they're killing twenty one percent.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I didn't take that to mean that we're killing twenty
one percent at all. I took that to mean the
great majority of boats.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Because we're not just trying all the boats that are
that are in that area. It's a very targeted attacks.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Now, this is true. And another point on your side,
which is the Rubio went up and gave a briefing
about the behind the scenes stuff, which is where you
can present evidence that you can't present in public ostensibly,
and there was quite a bit less complaining after he
went and gave that briefing, which is indicates that what
you're saying that this is very targeted and ameliorates those concerns.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Yes, obviously, if we were destroying all the boats in
the region and twenty percent of them wearess in people,
that would be a problem. But that's not how I
read that. I read that as of all the boats,
eighty percent or carrying drugs and that's quite a lot.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Another note just from the cabinet meeting, because it's fun
to actually listen to the nitty gritty of these things
beyond the sexier story, which is this one in the
politics of the hegsets Trump relationship. Doug Collins at the
VA reported that they have cut the backlog, which is
famously gigantic at the VA for treating veterans, by fifty
(09:52):
seven percent in a year, and that is with a
reduced workforce. Now, I'll shave off a little bit of
that because the government always gives itself more credit than
it deserves. But like, even if you take it down
ten percent, Yeah, that is a huge accomplishment. So appreciate
that that he's been working on that in concert with
heg Seth in many ways because the VA and the
(10:14):
War Department now work together. But that was a cool
thing to hear.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
The other story that we covered earlier in the week
was the special election happening in Tennessee. Matt Vennepps versus
Aten Ben and Ben had made a lot of noise
and people thought that the Democrat might win this seat.
Matt Vanepps, the Republican did end up winning rights Roger L. Simon,
(10:39):
who lives in Tennessee. The possibility that Ben would win
in a district that Donald Trump won by twenty two
points in twenty twenty four had Democrats and all the
ships in their legacy media ce salivating. Would they be
going for a third pick up after New Jersey and Virginia,
but this time in a certifiably red state. Better yet,
Miss Ben was a progressives progressive already dubbed Tennessee's AOC.
(11:01):
This could be a national trend. Of course, VENEPS ended
up winning by a relatively comfortable nine percent.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
Is it a sign? Is it a sign of anything?
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Is every election supposed to be a sign?
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Look, you can always overread special elections because they are
sort of weird. But there is a special election trend,
and the special election trend shows over about five different
special elections that Democrats are outperforming Kamala's numbers by thirteen
to eighteen percent.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
So Kamala so like.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
One it says that Kamala is bad. Two it says
that there might be a real environmental problem here for
Republicans who are not responding to something that the voters
need to hear. Three it says that the left is
very fired up, and I think Bain probably got a
little bit. I don't know whether her leftism worked against
her or for her in this red district, because on
(11:55):
one hand, you rile up a bunch of lefties and
get them out to vote in a special election, which
is weird and generally low turnout, although the turnout numbers
are really close to twenty twenty two for this special election,
so it wasn't that low turnout here. What I think
is probably good for Republicans is that lefties are going
to be like, we just needed to be more left
(12:17):
than afton bag, and then they'll start recruiting.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Yeah, Tennessee's AOC. I'm not sure about that. That's really
gonna fly anywhere, not even in Tennessee.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
So I liked that at the very end. Remember she
had she had a famous viral clip in her OPO
about hating Nashville and hating country music, and then in
her concession speech she shows up in like a newdi suit,
like a Rhyanstone grand Ole Opry suit with like big
padded shoulders and done up like a country star. And
(12:50):
I was like, too little, too late, girl, you should
have done this earlier.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
Yeah, I hate country music in Nashville.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
I mean not a great quote, not a great right.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And Scott Jennings pointed out on CNN that she also
didn't walk back any of her previous comments, like, I'll
this has become this thing where when a Democrat says
something before they run for office, or maybe when they
were in a different office, it's no longer admissible because
they don't run on it in this campaign. But if
you're saying you want to defund the police, you know,
(13:21):
four years ago as a private citizen, that still counts.
Like the idea that like, oh you said something as
a private citizen, but you're not saying it as a
as a running of candidate, that nobody cares.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
It's the same thing.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
So yeah, she was a far lefty and Tennessee said no,
thank you to that.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
So but I would say Republicans just beware, man. The
trend here and the swings don't look great. No for
the midterms.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yeah, yeah, Republicans should maybe focus on that a little
bit more. We'll be watching because that's what we do here.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
So we'll be right.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Back with more on normally and the mRNA vaccine, was
it necessary?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
For children. Yes, we're still mad Bro, be right back.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Okay, we were back on normally with some news that
we are still mad about Bro. Really for real. This
is over the last weekend of twenty of November and
twenty twenty five a memo circulated through the Federal Food
and Drug Administration that outlined that ven A Prisod, who
of whom we are a fan, had ordered that they
(14:32):
go through the vaccine Adverse Reactions database and look at
deaths possibly associated among children with administration of the vaccine.
And they did this because at one point another doctor
and Venaprisod had said, like, look, there were real safety
signals on myo carditis for young people that we were ignoring.
(14:54):
Let's actually look at the data and these individual cases
and determine what happened here. And this intern nal memo
suggests that ten of those Venaporsad says, conservatively speaking, because
they were trying to be very fair about what information
they had and what they could deem was causal ten
deaths in children associated with the vaccine, which, of course
(15:15):
in many places was mandated right for children for many
activities was mandated for children, and that this information was
something they either hid, or weren't interested in, or refused
to contemplate.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Right, the big problem of the vaccine for kids, the
COVID vaccine for kids, is that it wasn't like other
vaccines where by the time the kid got it, we
still believed it would stop spread. Yes, by the time
kids were eligible to get that vaccine, we knew it
didn't stop spread. So it wasn't like, oh, you have
(15:49):
to get it to protect the community.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
It was absolutely not about that at all.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
And kids risk of dying of COVID was statistically zero,
and as you and I's saying at the time, you
can't bring zero down any further. So when kids were
getting the vaccine and then the booster, it was like,
you're still at zero. You remained in the same place
that you were before you got this vaccine. The dishonesty,
the dishonesty is just it's gonna be so long before
(16:16):
we recover from this. People just don't trust anything from
the government anymore. They don't trust anything from anywhere anymore.
And it's terrible. Low trust society is a dangerous society,
and that's where we are right now.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Well, and of course the reaction but from many in
mainstream organizations and from all the public health folks on
x is to say, oh, Ven Aprosod has always been
a skeptic, and he's bad for all these reasons. They
had analyzed ninety six deaths and found ten related. The
memo notes this is a profound revelation. For the first time,
the US FDA will acknowledge that COVID nineteen vaccines have
(16:49):
killed American children. Healthy young children who faced tremendously low
risk of death were coerced at the behest of the
Biden administration via school and work mandates to receive a
vaccine that could result than death. In many cases, such
mandates were harmful, and he said it's difficult to even
read through these cases when you think that this is
the conclusion you must come to.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
He also notes that these agencies had information while this
was happening that they were not disclosing. These agencies did
not quickly attempt mitigation strategies, such as spacing doses apart
or lowering doses. Worst, the FDA delayed acknowledgment of the
safety signal until after it could extend marketing authorization to
younger boys twelve to fifteen, which is the demographic in
(17:32):
which this was the most problematic.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Yeah, yeah, just thinking back to that time where any
conversation about this was simply not permitted, and we kept
finding that.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
The CDC was lying to us in case after case.
I remember David's wy writing.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
About the myocarditis story and it being I think I
believe he wrote it a vice, but it was just
not hitting the mainstream at all, And it still is
not really in the main stream, and it's where that
loss of trust comes from.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Well, and it remains the case that people in the
mainstream and sort of left leaning public health figures still
say that anyone who notices you'll notice a theme, like
with the Minnesota fraud, if you notice the safety signal,
if you point out that these things are real, you're
the problem with trust. Now, you're the problem with trust
because you're not reckoning with the facts.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
That's what we need, which used to be with science
was about facts right, and getting to a conclusion, not
starting with a conclusion and altering everything on the way there.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
And giving people information that they can use to make
real decisions. A lot of people in this cohort of
young men, mothers of young men would have liked to
have had this information.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And taking everything away from them until they did what
you demanded of them also so wrong. I don't know
we're ever going to get a real reckoning on this.
I mean, I love what's happening now with our health agencies.
I think that there we have the people that we
trust in them. But I'd love to see a bigger investigation,
a bigger look into what really happened in so many
(19:09):
of these cases.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
I'm glad to have an Aprosad there. I do think
he's a voice of reason. And of course in his
memo he says, I acknowledge fully that vaccines are really
good in all of these ways and help. But he
was like, certain medicines you give to certain people with
certain ailments and certain risk profiles, right, you don't give
them to other people where you might cause harm, right, period?
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (19:30):
Or you know the risk profile is important.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
I remember at the time, you know, where the Gavin
Newsom's were like all vaccines are good, and you take
all of them. I was like, so give your kids
the malaria vaccine? Like why not give them all of them?
Like why are you stopping at just COVID? Like continue on.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
With all the vaccines that have no reason to be
given to these kids.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Still mad, bro, But we're having the conversation even if
people are incapable in many sectors.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
We will be right back with more on nor Mali.
No football segment this time. I know you all loved it.
I'll be talking the Dells giving out two hundred and
fifty dollars to millions of kids to change their lives.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Be right back, all right now, time for some good
news on normally. I love this story. So Michael, the
CEO of Dell Technologies, they have committed six point two
five billion to fund investment accounts for some twenty five
million American children. The couple's donation, this is in CNBC reporting,
(20:31):
will be the largest ever devoted to American children, according
to invest America, a nonprofit advocacy group partnered with the Dells.
Now this money is so, it's two hundred and fifty
per kid for twenty five million kids. It's going directly
into a tax advantaged savings and investment account called a
Trump account created created in the One Big Beautiful Bill,
(20:55):
and the idea behind them is to give a bunch
of kids access to the idea of saving an investment
to encourage saving an investment. And while I don't always
love a government mechanism for such things, name yeah, I
like the idea that this could give more people a
start doing this kind of thing. Now there's a there's
(21:18):
one thousand dollars credit coming from taxpayers that is going
into these accounts, but the dells, of their own volition
are throwing into fifty and I love that part unabashedly.
This seems smart and innovative. And I know the lefties
are going to be like, you should give it to
whatever climate change organization. It's like, no, let's give it
straight to the kids.
Speaker 4 (21:39):
That's straight to the Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
And actually this reminded me of that time that the
I forgot her name, the New York Times editorial person
was on TV and said that Michael Bloomberg could give
every American a million dollars because he had spent three
hundred million dollars or something on his presidential race. And
it's like, no, six point two five billion dollars, twenty
(22:01):
five million children two hundred and fifty dollars each. But look,
you know people are saying, is this going to matter?
Is this going to make any difference? In the lives
of these kids. And I think those people need to
look up compound interest, which is what these people are
relying on to make a difference in these kids, it'll
(22:21):
be invested for them, that money will grow. They can
potentially use it for retirement. Yeah, they're probably not going
to use it when when they're eighteen years old it's
going to be further down the line.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Well, and they can only be they can be used
in like low risk US stock indices. And Dell himself,
I think started his company with like one thousand dollars
of capital, right Yeah, And to me, this is such
a beautiful story about wealth generation, which I know that
our liberal friends think is a myth. But this six
(22:53):
point two five billion dollars would not exist if Rifldell
hadn't created something that was worth six point twenty five
billion dollars and then some. And so he's able to
give a little capital fund to twenty five million American
children who might get a taste for building and investing
in saving and think when I'm older and I have
access to this, what could I do with it? They
(23:16):
don't get access to it until they're eighteen, and then
I think there are restrictions on how you can take
it out and what you can use it for, but
you can use it for like starting businesses, buying a house,
and it just seems like of all the things you
could throw money at, this seems like it encourages the
right stuff.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Yeah, we love it, but if Michael Bloomberg wants to
give us each a million dollars, will take it.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
He can do that too well.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
Thanks for joining us on Normally.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe anywhere
you get your podcasts. Get in touch with us at
Normallythepod at gmail dot com. Actually, we're soliciting your anonymous
questions for some episodes later this month, so please send
us your questions that you want to hear us answer
on the show. Thanks for listening, and when things get
weird at normal Lee y
Hey, guys, we are back on normally but showing normally.
It takes, but when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I am Mary Eperham and I'm Carol Markowitz, Mary Catherine.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Have you mailed your holiday cards yet?
Speaker 1 (00:14):
I'm not doing them?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No?
Speaker 4 (00:16):
Are you really not doing them? I like your Christmas card.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Thank you, but I saved my Christmas cards. I save
my sanity by saving my Christmas cards for only when
I have a baby. At this point, so I think we're.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
The people demand a Christmas card.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
I used them as a birth announcement for two of
my kids and then I was like, oh, I got yeah,
so for now off the plate. But my second child
has asked if she could assist in a in a
Christmas card project, so we it may come back at
some point.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
All right, okay, I am rooting for it personally, or like,
you know, you could just go rogue and like Halloween card.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
You know that's true, you.
Speaker 4 (00:56):
I feel like that would really work for you.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
I send a card and I I haven't even do it.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
I haven't even ordered them yet.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
And I tweeted about this today, but like I had
two waiting for me Monday after Thanksgiving in my mailbox
and it was from Mary Chistain and Nikki Neely, and
I was like, you guys are a little two type
a for me to have it all together like this.
And I was like, I'm gonna ask Mary Catherine. I'm
sure she hasn't ordered hers either yet.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Even when I did them every year, they arrived on
like the teenth, and I would just not genuinely no,
just try to get them there by Christmas.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
I think it's they're there by New Years. It's a win.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Yeah, that's what I say.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
All right, let's get into the news. We you know,
talked about some.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Stuff in the last episode, and we just want to
follow up on on that news story that we discussed,
the Pete Hegseeth double tap second strike Venezuelan drug boat story.
So when we last left you, the Washington Post had
had an article called Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat
(02:04):
strike official say kill them all. And the story is
that Hegseth said kill them all, and apparently a commander
took that to mean, even when they're clinging to the
boat survivors of the first strike, you should take them
out on the second strike.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
The New York Times of all outlets which was really.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Surprising, had sort of a defense of Hegseth about this
and said he never said anything like that. Of course,
both stories are anonymously sourced. Everything should be taken with
a grain of salt. I have a hard time believing
anything with this much anonymous sourcing in it, so the
(02:47):
New York Times Rights. According to five US officials who
spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss
the sensitive matter there's under investigation, mister Hegseth, the head
of the September second attack, ordered a strike that would
kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel
and its purported cargo of drugs. But each official said
mister Hegseth's directive did not specifically address what should happen
(03:08):
if a first missile turned out to not fully accomplish
all those things, and the official said his order was
not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least
two people on the boat survived the first blast. Now
that's interesting because that's not how I read the Washington
Post story at all, And now rereading it with this information,
I could see where the Washington Post story was super
(03:31):
vague and didn't really say whether heg Seth said kill
them all before the strike began, which is how I
understood it, or whether he said it mid strike or
after the first strike, which is how a lot of
other people understood it.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
I have to imagine that's by design. Personally, What do
you think?
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Well, a couple things. My smart friend Tom Bevan of
Real Clear Politics noted that the New York Times story
has five sources. The Washington Post had two, so we
do have more people on this. I think, look likely
there's a version of this story that's between Washington Posts,
New York Times, and Pete Hegseth's version. But there was
the initial response from the Pentagon that was like this
(04:10):
is all fake news basically, and then there was like,
oh wait, no, we did hit the vote twice.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Now.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I would like the legal ramifications of the narco terrorism
attacks to be addressed in an adult manner. In general,
we are dealing with Congress, so like that's not going
to happen. They're going to call for hearings and then they're
just going to give a bunch of lectures. But I
wish they would actually engage in this, and I want
the administration to engage it and say this is legal
for these reasons. This is why we're undertaking it. This
(04:38):
is why this wasn't a violation. Right, Yeah, that's better
than meming it on x. We got a little closer
to that. Here's a little bit of Hegseeth speaking to
Trump at the and to the press at the Cabinet
meeting this week.
Speaker 5 (04:51):
The thing was on fire. I was exploded in fire
or smoke. You can't see any you got digital there.
This is called the fog of war. This is what
you and the press understand. You sit in your air
conditioned offices, you're up on Capitol Hill, and you nitpick,
and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about
kill everybody, phrases on anonymous sources, not based in anything,
(05:12):
not based in any truth at all. And then you
want to throw up really irresponsible terms about American heroes,
about the judgment that they made. I wrote a whole
book on this topic. Because of what politicians and the
press does to warfighters. President Trump has empowered commanders, commanders
to do what is necessary, which is dark and difficult
things in the dead of night on behalf of the
(05:33):
American people. We support them, and we will stop the
poisoning of the American people.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Donald Trump's face as Pete Hegseth is criticizing the press
is so perfect.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
He's just like, that's my book.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Well, and like they seemed very comfortable together here. I
think people when they saw the meeting, we're looking for clues,
is like, is the White House upset with Hegseth And
it didn't look like it in this moment. But there
is an interesting thing going on here where Trump is
saying they're basically sort of both disavowing somebody while trying
to sound like they're not so. Trump is like, oh yeah, yeah, no,
(06:06):
he sits right next to me. The only thing I
know about this is from him, Like he just gives
me the information. I totally trust him.
Speaker 4 (06:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
HeiG Seth is like, this admiral is great. He was
in charge of all of this. I wasn't even in
the room. But he's awesome and we trust him. And
I'm like, okay, well, there is a thing. We're empowering
people to make their own decisions is important. But a
little bit You're like, I wasn't there. This was on him. Yeah,
while you're also saying he's amazing, Like there's a weird
dance going on.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Here, right, Yeah, it's yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Look, I think that the people who are hoping that
Trump is gonna throw hag Seth under the bus here
are just it's folly because it's not going to happen.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
I don't see Trump saying.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Oh, we were too vicious here, and therefore you're going
to have to be fired or have to resign.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I just don't don't think any of that's happening.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Look, your point is a good one that.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
They should be clear about the legal ramifications of all
of this. It's look, I'm not a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
The people that I follow that our lawyers feel pretty
comfortable that these strikes are legal. But if the administration
could give some more clarity on that, I think that
would be a good thing.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
All around the.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
New York one watching, they'll never be satisfied. It's not like, yeah, okay,
you guys say that it's legal. That's cool, it's legal.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
There.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
I gonna say that.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
A couple of things. One, where were the Washington Posts
in New York Times when Biden blew up a whole
Afghan family because he was smarting from his terrible Afghanistan withdrawal?
Those things should have been you know, hearing worthy as well.
People should have been held accountable for those things. So
I understand people getting upset. I have no illusions that
I'm like a normal person for having this concern, Like
(07:43):
a lot of normal people are like, I don't know,
they seem like they're right drug drug dealers on a boat.
That seems fine with me. It's inter national waters. So
I don't think that I am indicative.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Right. Look, you know also Congressman Rand Paul, who has
clashed with the president a lot, and is you know,
libertarian more libertarian member of Congress. He tweeted Coast Guard
records show that prior to the reign of blow them
to Smithereens quote unquote, twenty one percent of boats stopped
off the coast of Venezuela possessed no drugs.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
I don't know how.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
He tweets this as some sort of criticism of the strikes.
That means eighty percent of the boats have drugs.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Well, that's because if one hundred percent of the people
you target you're killing, twenty percent.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Of them might not have had any drugs, right, That's
I mean, yeah, but they're not targeting one hundred percent
of the boats, right, So that's where that's where he
loses me and I.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Understand that I'm on the other side of that one.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
If you're accidentally killing twenty one percent who are innocent,
that's going to be a problem, right, But.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
We don't know that they're killing twenty one percent.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I didn't take that to mean that we're killing twenty
one percent at all. I took that to mean the
great majority of boats.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Because we're not just trying all the boats that are
that are in that area. It's a very targeted attacks.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Now, this is true. And another point on your side,
which is the Rubio went up and gave a briefing
about the behind the scenes stuff, which is where you
can present evidence that you can't present in public ostensibly,
and there was quite a bit less complaining after he
went and gave that briefing, which is indicates that what
you're saying that this is very targeted and ameliorates those concerns.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Yes, obviously, if we were destroying all the boats in
the region and twenty percent of them wearess in people,
that would be a problem. But that's not how I
read that. I read that as of all the boats,
eighty percent or carrying drugs and that's quite a lot.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Another note just from the cabinet meeting, because it's fun
to actually listen to the nitty gritty of these things
beyond the sexier story, which is this one in the
politics of the hegsets Trump relationship. Doug Collins at the
VA reported that they have cut the backlog, which is
famously gigantic at the VA for treating veterans, by fifty
(09:52):
seven percent in a year, and that is with a
reduced workforce. Now, I'll shave off a little bit of
that because the government always gives itself more credit than
it deserves. But like, even if you take it down
ten percent, Yeah, that is a huge accomplishment. So appreciate
that that he's been working on that in concert with
heg Seth in many ways because the VA and the
(10:14):
War Department now work together. But that was a cool
thing to hear.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
The other story that we covered earlier in the week
was the special election happening in Tennessee. Matt Vennepps versus
Aten Ben and Ben had made a lot of noise
and people thought that the Democrat might win this seat.
Matt Vanepps, the Republican did end up winning rights Roger L. Simon,
(10:39):
who lives in Tennessee. The possibility that Ben would win
in a district that Donald Trump won by twenty two
points in twenty twenty four had Democrats and all the
ships in their legacy media ce salivating. Would they be
going for a third pick up after New Jersey and Virginia,
but this time in a certifiably red state. Better yet,
Miss Ben was a progressives progressive already dubbed Tennessee's AOC.
(11:01):
This could be a national trend. Of course, VENEPS ended
up winning by a relatively comfortable nine percent.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
Is it a sign? Is it a sign of anything?
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Is every election supposed to be a sign?
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Look, you can always overread special elections because they are
sort of weird. But there is a special election trend,
and the special election trend shows over about five different
special elections that Democrats are outperforming Kamala's numbers by thirteen
to eighteen percent.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
So Kamala so like.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
One it says that Kamala is bad. Two it says
that there might be a real environmental problem here for
Republicans who are not responding to something that the voters
need to hear. Three it says that the left is
very fired up, and I think Bain probably got a
little bit. I don't know whether her leftism worked against
her or for her in this red district, because on
(11:55):
one hand, you rile up a bunch of lefties and
get them out to vote in a special election, which
is weird and generally low turnout, although the turnout numbers
are really close to twenty twenty two for this special election,
so it wasn't that low turnout here. What I think
is probably good for Republicans is that lefties are going
to be like, we just needed to be more left
(12:17):
than afton bag, and then they'll start recruiting.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Yeah, Tennessee's AOC. I'm not sure about that. That's really
gonna fly anywhere, not even in Tennessee.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
So I liked that at the very end. Remember she
had she had a famous viral clip in her OPO
about hating Nashville and hating country music, and then in
her concession speech she shows up in like a newdi suit,
like a Rhyanstone grand Ole Opry suit with like big
padded shoulders and done up like a country star. And
(12:50):
I was like, too little, too late, girl, you should
have done this earlier.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
Yeah, I hate country music in Nashville.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
I mean not a great quote, not a great right.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And Scott Jennings pointed out on CNN that she also
didn't walk back any of her previous comments, like, I'll
this has become this thing where when a Democrat says
something before they run for office, or maybe when they
were in a different office, it's no longer admissible because
they don't run on it in this campaign. But if
you're saying you want to defund the police, you know,
(13:21):
four years ago as a private citizen, that still counts.
Like the idea that like, oh you said something as
a private citizen, but you're not saying it as a
as a running of candidate, that nobody cares.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
It's the same thing.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
So yeah, she was a far lefty and Tennessee said no,
thank you to that.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
So but I would say Republicans just beware, man. The
trend here and the swings don't look great. No for
the midterms.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yeah, yeah, Republicans should maybe focus on that a little
bit more. We'll be watching because that's what we do here.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
So we'll be right.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Back with more on normally and the mRNA vaccine, was
it necessary?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
For children. Yes, we're still mad Bro, be right back.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Okay, we were back on normally with some news that
we are still mad about Bro. Really for real. This
is over the last weekend of twenty of November and
twenty twenty five a memo circulated through the Federal Food
and Drug Administration that outlined that ven A Prisod, who
of whom we are a fan, had ordered that they
(14:32):
go through the vaccine Adverse Reactions database and look at
deaths possibly associated among children with administration of the vaccine.
And they did this because at one point another doctor
and Venaprisod had said, like, look, there were real safety
signals on myo carditis for young people that we were ignoring.
(14:54):
Let's actually look at the data and these individual cases
and determine what happened here. And this intern nal memo
suggests that ten of those Venaporsad says, conservatively speaking, because
they were trying to be very fair about what information
they had and what they could deem was causal ten
deaths in children associated with the vaccine, which, of course
(15:15):
in many places was mandated right for children for many
activities was mandated for children, and that this information was
something they either hid, or weren't interested in, or refused
to contemplate.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Right, the big problem of the vaccine for kids, the
COVID vaccine for kids, is that it wasn't like other
vaccines where by the time the kid got it, we
still believed it would stop spread. Yes, by the time
kids were eligible to get that vaccine, we knew it
didn't stop spread. So it wasn't like, oh, you have
(15:49):
to get it to protect the community.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
It was absolutely not about that at all.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
And kids risk of dying of COVID was statistically zero,
and as you and I's saying at the time, you
can't bring zero down any further. So when kids were
getting the vaccine and then the booster, it was like,
you're still at zero. You remained in the same place
that you were before you got this vaccine. The dishonesty,
the dishonesty is just it's gonna be so long before
(16:16):
we recover from this. People just don't trust anything from
the government anymore. They don't trust anything from anywhere anymore.
And it's terrible. Low trust society is a dangerous society,
and that's where we are right now.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Well, and of course the reaction but from many in
mainstream organizations and from all the public health folks on
x is to say, oh, Ven Aprosod has always been
a skeptic, and he's bad for all these reasons. They
had analyzed ninety six deaths and found ten related. The
memo notes this is a profound revelation. For the first time,
the US FDA will acknowledge that COVID nineteen vaccines have
(16:49):
killed American children. Healthy young children who faced tremendously low
risk of death were coerced at the behest of the
Biden administration via school and work mandates to receive a
vaccine that could result than death. In many cases, such
mandates were harmful, and he said it's difficult to even
read through these cases when you think that this is
the conclusion you must come to.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
He also notes that these agencies had information while this
was happening that they were not disclosing. These agencies did
not quickly attempt mitigation strategies, such as spacing doses apart
or lowering doses. Worst, the FDA delayed acknowledgment of the
safety signal until after it could extend marketing authorization to
younger boys twelve to fifteen, which is the demographic in
(17:32):
which this was the most problematic.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Yeah, yeah, just thinking back to that time where any
conversation about this was simply not permitted, and we kept
finding that.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
The CDC was lying to us in case after case.
I remember David's wy writing.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
About the myocarditis story and it being I think I
believe he wrote it a vice, but it was just
not hitting the mainstream at all, And it still is
not really in the main stream, and it's where that
loss of trust comes from.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Well, and it remains the case that people in the
mainstream and sort of left leaning public health figures still
say that anyone who notices you'll notice a theme, like
with the Minnesota fraud, if you notice the safety signal,
if you point out that these things are real, you're
the problem with trust. Now, you're the problem with trust
because you're not reckoning with the facts.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
That's what we need, which used to be with science
was about facts right, and getting to a conclusion, not
starting with a conclusion and altering everything on the way there.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
And giving people information that they can use to make
real decisions. A lot of people in this cohort of
young men, mothers of young men would have liked to
have had this information.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
And taking everything away from them until they did what
you demanded of them also so wrong. I don't know
we're ever going to get a real reckoning on this.
I mean, I love what's happening now with our health agencies.
I think that there we have the people that we
trust in them. But I'd love to see a bigger investigation,
a bigger look into what really happened in so many
(19:09):
of these cases.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
I'm glad to have an Aprosad there. I do think
he's a voice of reason. And of course in his
memo he says, I acknowledge fully that vaccines are really
good in all of these ways and help. But he
was like, certain medicines you give to certain people with
certain ailments and certain risk profiles, right, you don't give
them to other people where you might cause harm, right, period?
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (19:30):
Or you know the risk profile is important.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
I remember at the time, you know, where the Gavin
Newsom's were like all vaccines are good, and you take
all of them. I was like, so give your kids
the malaria vaccine? Like why not give them all of them?
Like why are you stopping at just COVID? Like continue on.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
With all the vaccines that have no reason to be
given to these kids.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Still mad, bro, But we're having the conversation even if
people are incapable in many sectors.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
We will be right back with more on nor Mali.
No football segment this time. I know you all loved it.
I'll be talking the Dells giving out two hundred and
fifty dollars to millions of kids to change their lives.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Be right back, all right now, time for some good
news on normally. I love this story. So Michael, the
CEO of Dell Technologies, they have committed six point two
five billion to fund investment accounts for some twenty five
million American children. The couple's donation, this is in CNBC reporting,
(20:31):
will be the largest ever devoted to American children, according
to invest America, a nonprofit advocacy group partnered with the Dells.
Now this money is so, it's two hundred and fifty
per kid for twenty five million kids. It's going directly
into a tax advantaged savings and investment account called a
Trump account created created in the One Big Beautiful Bill,
(20:55):
and the idea behind them is to give a bunch
of kids access to the idea of saving an investment
to encourage saving an investment. And while I don't always
love a government mechanism for such things, name yeah, I
like the idea that this could give more people a
start doing this kind of thing. Now there's a there's
(21:18):
one thousand dollars credit coming from taxpayers that is going
into these accounts, but the dells, of their own volition
are throwing into fifty and I love that part unabashedly.
This seems smart and innovative. And I know the lefties
are going to be like, you should give it to
whatever climate change organization. It's like, no, let's give it
straight to the kids.
Speaker 4 (21:39):
That's straight to the Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
And actually this reminded me of that time that the
I forgot her name, the New York Times editorial person
was on TV and said that Michael Bloomberg could give
every American a million dollars because he had spent three
hundred million dollars or something on his presidential race. And
it's like, no, six point two five billion dollars, twenty
(22:01):
five million children two hundred and fifty dollars each. But look,
you know people are saying, is this going to matter?
Is this going to make any difference? In the lives
of these kids. And I think those people need to
look up compound interest, which is what these people are
relying on to make a difference in these kids, it'll
(22:21):
be invested for them, that money will grow. They can
potentially use it for retirement. Yeah, they're probably not going
to use it when when they're eighteen years old it's
going to be further down the line.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Well, and they can only be they can be used
in like low risk US stock indices. And Dell himself,
I think started his company with like one thousand dollars
of capital, right Yeah, And to me, this is such
a beautiful story about wealth generation, which I know that
our liberal friends think is a myth. But this six
(22:53):
point two five billion dollars would not exist if Rifldell
hadn't created something that was worth six point twenty five
billion dollars and then some. And so he's able to
give a little capital fund to twenty five million American
children who might get a taste for building and investing
in saving and think when I'm older and I have
access to this, what could I do with it? They
(23:16):
don't get access to it until they're eighteen, and then
I think there are restrictions on how you can take
it out and what you can use it for, but
you can use it for like starting businesses, buying a house,
and it just seems like of all the things you
could throw money at, this seems like it encourages the
right stuff.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Yeah, we love it, but if Michael Bloomberg wants to
give us each a million dollars, will take it.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
He can do that too well.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
Thanks for joining us on Normally.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe anywhere
you get your podcasts. Get in touch with us at
Normallythepod at gmail dot com. Actually, we're soliciting your anonymous
questions for some episodes later this month, so please send
us your questions that you want to hear us answer
on the show. Thanks for listening, and when things get
weird at normal Lee y
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.