March 26, 2025 • 39 mins
The University of Houston wants $2.5 million in taxpayer money for DEI programs. A would-be member of the Texas House claims this is necessary, but can't explain why.
Who did America fight in the Revolutionary War? Who won the Civil War? What shape is the Pentagon? If you can answer these questions, you're probably smarter than the average American spring breaker.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Who did America fight in the Revolutionary War? Who won the Civil War? What shape is the Pentagon? If you can answer these questions, you're probably smarter than the average American spring breaker.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Hey, y'all, welcome back. Who remembers Joy Reid? Probably not
many of you, I imagine I probably don't share much
of an audience with her. I don't think many of
my listeners were at all fans of Joy Reid. She
got canned over at MSNBC recently because her show was
(00:40):
frankly trash. Her opinions are trash, She's not particularly bright.
I think we talked about this. I think we've been
over this before. But believe it or not, that was
not the end of her. I thought that would be
the last I saw of her when she got canned
over at NBC. But apparently she has a podcast, which
is great because that means I am still presented with
(01:00):
clips of her being absolutely stupid that I can then
point and laugh at. Here's what's really funny. I guess
she was figuring like, Hey, I can't be the biggest
loser on my own show. Let me pull Don Lemon
and have him be a guest. You'll remember Don Lemon
as the guy that recently got canned over at CNN.
Significantly less recently. He got canned a while ago, but
(01:22):
for much the same reasons. His show was terrible. His
ratings were terrible. Nobody particularly cared about what he had
to say, frankly, because what he had to say wasn't
particularly bright. But here we are. There was the two
of them on joy Read's podcast, and she was going
on and on and on about how Canada will never
(01:42):
become the fifty first state. First of all, the fact
that she's even talking about this is a win for
Donald Trump. This is the classic example of how Donald
Trump basically distracts left wing media by saying something kind
of ridiculous and silly that nobody actually really cares about
out and while they go nuts over that, he goes
(02:02):
and actually does productive things without their interference. It's pretty genius.
This is like the political equivalent of putting on the
TV so that you can get some work done without
the kids bothering you. If you have kids, I'm sure
you've pulled that maneuver at least once. My parents would
do that to me at times, and I would even
do that to my little siblings when I was babysitting them,
(02:23):
because I have a bunch of far younger siblings, and frankly,
it's the easiest way to deal with children. You turn
on the TV and you let them be distracted by that.
That's what Donald Trump is basically doing. He's turning on
his ridiculous comment or whatever of the day and just
letting the Democrats go nuts over that. So they locked
in on this whole Canada becoming a state thing. I
don't think anybody actually takes it particularly seriously. I don't.
(02:47):
I don't think Canada will ever be a state. I
think if we wanted it really bad, we could go
get it. I think that's definitely within America's military capacity.
If we felt like it, we could conquer Canada. Why
would we do that, I don't know. Would we probably
not ever, There's no reason for it, but it could.
It could be done if it had to be sure?
Why not. It's honestly not something that I put a
(03:07):
whole lot of thought into because I know it will
never happen. I know it's ridiculous to even bother considering it.
Joy Reid doesn't understand that she and Don Lemon have
spent hours thinking about this. Joy Reid has come to
the conclusion that the only way this would ever happen
is if America started a war with Canada, and in
that situation, Canada would win the war. Her justification for this,
(03:31):
by the way, is the War of eighteen twelve. That's
where she's getting her data from. She's thinking because we
kind of fought to a standstill with the British Commonwealth
in eighteen twelve, that means Canada could defeat the United
States today. Take a listen to this, Grandy.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Trump, let's talk.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Let's talk.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
First of all, you can't make Canada the fifty first
state without going to war with them. And let me
explain how that happened, how that worked out. The la
last time we tried to go to war with Canada,
they burned the White House to the ground in eighteen
fourteen and.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Won the war.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Canada beat us in the War of eighteen twelve.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
They probably like their chances against us.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
We're not gonna beat them in a war because we
have never been able to do that. You'd have to
occupy a country that is equivalent of the size of
the United States, in which the top two thirds of
it is uninhabited, frozen forest land that touches the Arctic.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
You know how that worked out when the Nazis tried
that with Russia, which is the equivalent of Canada.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
On that part of the world.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
We don't lose.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
We don't have enough troops to occupy. They are a
country of thirty nine million.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
People who are who have about as many guns per
ca capita as we do.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
All right, So yeah, let's dig into this a little bit,
because she makes a lot of claims here, and normally
I would be inclined to ignore something like this. However,
when you question the military might of the United States
of America, something about that kind of flips a little
patriotic switch in my head, and now I have to
go ham on her. Even though this is ridiculous and frankly,
(05:22):
this entire discussion is beneath me, I'm gonna have it
anyway because I want to. First of all, the War
of eighteen twelve is widely recognized to have been a standstill,
and the treaty that we signed to end that war
pretty much reflects that. The Treaty of Ghent kind of
acknowledges the fact that, hey, neither of us really achieved
our military goals. Here, we're just gonna call it a day.
(05:44):
I will say we had the last laugh because we
kicked button Louisiana. Battle of New Orleans. Baby, they wrote
a song about it. Give it a listen, it goes hard.
The second of all, her claim that we can't beat
Canada because we'd have to occupy can and half the
country is unoccupiable. Okay, so hear me out. If Canada
(06:06):
isn't occupying that half of the country right now, what
makes you think that the United States would have to
occupy it in order to claim victory in a hypothetical
military conflict. Does that make sense to anybody? Canada can't
occupy it, We can't occupy it, so we just don't
occupy it. In this hypothetical would never happen military situation.
(06:29):
We would simply have to sack a couple of Canadian
cities and then they would bend the knee to the
United States. Almost immediately, they would be forced to sue
for peace because we could conquer that country in twenty
four hours flat, and the military wouldn't even have to
get involved. Remember, America has a population of three hundred
and forty million people to Canada's approximately forty million. Give
(06:51):
or take, forty two percent of Americans are gun owners.
Most of those people own more than one firearm, so
that means roughly one hundred and forty two million Americans,
give or take a few hundred thousand owned firearms, and again,
most of those people own several firearms, and most gun
owners in the United States are decently proficient, which means
(07:14):
we could steamroll Canada immediately. It would be so easy,
It would be so easy as laughable. And it is laughable.
This entire situation is ridiculous because this would never happen.
So the fact that Joy Reid is taking it so
seriously just to be so confidently wrong about it is
legitimately hilarious. It really is. And it just goes to
show you why nobody ever watched her show and why
(07:36):
she then got fired, because she's ridiculous, and on top
of being ridiculous, she's wrong. And I don't know which
is worse, to be ridiculous or be ridiculously wrong. It's
a fine line that she walks, but she walks it
very well. All Right, stay tuned, We'll be right back
with some actual serious news in just a second. All right,
(08:14):
we got to talk about this war plans hag seth situation.
This happened I believe yesterday's when this news kind of broke.
Here's the allegation allegedly, Allegedly, Pete Hegseth and a couple
of high ranking officials, including JD. Vance, we're all in
a signal group chat. Signal is an end to end
(08:35):
encrypted messenger. It's basically just meant to be a more
secure form of texting because your text messages can't be
read by a third party. For example, if you send
a text on signal signal, the company can't then like
intercept and read that text message. It can only be
read by whoever you sent it to. That's the pitch
as I understand it. I'm not an expert in these matters.
(08:57):
I don't fully understand signal, but that's what happened. This
is a signal group chat with jd Vance, Pete Hegseth,
and I believe a few other officials, John Ratliff, Michael Waltz.
You know, I don't have all the names, but that's
who was supposed to be in it. Allegedly, Jeffrey Goldberg,
(09:17):
who's the editor in chief of the Atlantic, which is
a left wing newspaper. That guy somehow got included in
this group chat where all these high level officials were talking.
I don't know how that happened. I don't know if
that really happened. It seems to have happened. It looks
like he did manage to make his way into this
(09:39):
group chat. Definitely worth figuring out how the hell that happened,
because we should not have just random left wing journalists
listening in to, you know, national security meetings. I don't
think that a national security meeting is what he was
privy to, but he was included in this group chat.
His allegation here is that they were discussing war plans
(10:01):
quote unquote, like detailed war plans. The left has snatched
onto this and they're acting like very important national security
information was leaked. That seems to be the implication of
Jeffrey Goldberg. I don't know if that's actually what happened.
I don't think it is, because here's what we need
to remember. This is Jeffrey Goldberg over at the Atlantic.
(10:24):
He's known for being full of crap. It's kind of
his thing. He just he makes stuff up. He was
the guy that was pushing the very fine people hoax
for a long time. He also pushed the suckers and
losers hoax, that lie that Trump was standing at Arlington
National Cemetery and called all the dead veterans their suckers
(10:45):
and losers. Everybody that was there said that didn't happen. Nevertheless,
Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic pushed that live for years,
So it's worth taking all of his claims here with
a grain of salt. But allegedly, allegedly he saw all
the classified information that was talked about in that group chat.
So I'm going to reach you some of these screenshots
(11:06):
of this group chat that have been put out I
believe by Jeffrey Goldberg as like proof that he was
in this group chat. And these do look real, but
also they could be faked. That's just a fact. You
can change nicknames and whatnot in signal. I believe you
can change profile pictures and whatnot, So you could very
easily kind of fake this and then take some screenshots
(11:28):
for a story. It doesn't look like that's what happened,
but that is a possibility. But anyway, here's some of
the screenshots that came out of this group chat. They're
supposedly talking about the airstrikes on Yemen, a big news
story where bombing Yemen again? What else is new? Here's
jd Vance saying at Pete Hegseth. If you think we
should do it, let's do it. I just hate bailing
(11:49):
Europe out again. Let's just make sure our messaging is
tight here, and if there are things we can do
upfront to minimize risk to Saudi oil facilities, we should
do it. Heg Seth responded, saying I fully share your
loathing of European freeloading. It's pathetic, but Mike is correct.
We are the only ones on the planet on our
side of the ledger who can do this. Nobody else
is even close. Question is timing. I feel like now
(12:12):
is as good a time as any given POTUS directive
to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go, but
POTIS still retains twenty four hours of decision space. Then
somebody with the name just sm chimed in. I don't
know who that is as I heard it, the President
was clear green light, but we soon make clear to
Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also
(12:34):
need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
E g.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
If Europe doesn't renumerate, then what if the US successfully
restores freedom of navigation at great cost? There needs to
be some further economic gain extracted in return hegseth then agreed,
and then there's another screenshot of a bunch of messages
later of everybody patting themselves on the back. I assume
this is after the air strikes. Now, apparently this has
been confirmed as legit by the national security spokesper which
(13:01):
is Brian Hughes. He has, I believe, confirmed that this
is authentic. Now, is it good that a random journalist
was able to get their hands on any of this?
Speaker 2 (13:11):
No?
Speaker 1 (13:11):
How did he get into this text chain? How is
Jeffrey Goldberg able to see any of this that needs
to be figured out and stopped? Now? Is any of
this like super important national security information? I would argue
not really. There's no like detailed war plans that were
discussed here. They're just talking about bombing Yemen. I assume
(13:35):
Yemen had to know already they were going to get bombed,
because Trump has like openly said that he's not exactly
very secretive about who he bombs. He usually tweets at
them like two days beforehand and says, hey, you're about
to get bombed, God bless America, and then a few
days later they get bombed. So I assume that this
is not necessarily secrets. Again, the fact that this was
(13:57):
able to get out, the fact that Jeffrey Goldberg, of
all people, was able to get into this text chain,
that is one thousand percent a problem. We need to
identify how that happened to make sure it doesn't happen again.
But is this the end of the world. No, not really.
It doesn't look great. It's kind of a bad look
for the Trump administration, but it's I mean, two weeks
from now, no one is gonna remember or care that
(14:19):
this happened. They just won't. That's the harsh reality of politics.
People have a thirty second memory. This will be gone
by next week, if not sooner, maybe a little later,
who knows for sure, but not long from now. What's
really funny is the fact that the left is seizing
onto this and basically demanding that there be something, you know,
(14:39):
super classified in this, when they're just factually was not.
And yeah, I mean, that doesn't look like detailed war plans.
It looks like just some officials discussing the possibility and
implication of bombing Yemen. And that's what hag Seth said.
He came out right after this happened, and he said, yeah, look,
nobody was discussing war plans. Here here he is saying that, can.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
You share how your information about war plans against the
Houthis and Yemen was shared with a journalist in the
Atlantic and where those details classified.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so
called journalists who's made a profession of pedaling hoaxes time
and time again, to include the I don't know the
hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the fine people on
both sides hopes or suckers and losers hopes.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
So this is the guy that pedals in garbage. This
is what he does.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
I would love to comment on the Houthie campaign because of.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
The skill and courage of our troops.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I've monitored very closely from the beginning, and you see
we've been managing four years of deferred maintenance under the
Trump administration. Our troops, our sailors were getting shot at
as targets, our ships couldn't sail through, and when they
did shoot back, it was purely defensively or at shacks
and Yemen. President Trump said no more. We will re
(16:03):
establish de terrence, we will open freedom of navigation and
we will ultimately decimate the Hoothies, which is exactly what
we're doing as we speak, from the beginning overwhelmingly.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
So yeah, he's basically pointing out the fact that the
Hoothies knew they were gonna get bombed. Nobody was saying like, hey,
we're gonna bomb this particular target at this particularcation, on
this particular time. That would be like a devastating information leak.
That's not what happened. They just got out the leak
of like, oh, we're talking about doing this, which everybody
(16:35):
knew they were talking about doing anyway, So, as far
as I'm concerned, this is a case of sort of
no harm, no foul. Is it bad? Yes, it's a
bad look. There could definitely be harm if this happens again,
which is why I say, let's get to the bottom
of how this happened. Let's make sure that it never
ever happens again. If we need to not be using
Signal for national security purposes. Again, I don't know anything
(16:58):
about the app. I don't know if that was a
good decision or not. It's supposed to be a secure
messaging service and it looks like Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally
added to this conversation, and more information will come out
about this over time, and I think that's good. We
need to investigate this, we need to look into this.
But let's not blow this up into something it's not right.
Let's be adults here. What actually got out nothing that
(17:22):
everybody didn't already know. So, I mean, I guess we'll
keep an eye on this. We'll see what comes of this.
The real question here is it's gonna lead to any
sort of major changes in the Trump administration. A lot
of people are thinking this is gonna cost somebody their job.
It probably will, but it definitely won't be pete hegseth.
But I mean, we'll see what happens. We'll keep an
eye on it. It doesn't seem like a super important
long term story, though, so who knows. All right, Uh,
(17:44):
I think that's all I've got on this. Stay tuned,
we're gonna be right back in just a second. All right,
(18:16):
let's talk about the Texas legislature. There's a lot that
we could get into here. The Texas Senate has been
doing a great job. They've been very productive. They've passed
a few bills that I don't necessarily like but they've
passed a lot of bills that I really do like,
so very proud of my state Senate. They do a
good job. I know a lot of the Senators. I
say a lot. I know a few of them. I've
(18:37):
talked to a few of them. They seem like genuine
good people. They do in the House of Representatives. Despite
the work of a few really good people that I'm
very proud of, people like Representative Briscocaine, Representative Brian Harrison,
people that I'm friendly with and quite appreciate their very
hard work, the Texas House overall has gotten really a
(19:02):
whole lot of nothing done. It's a very unproductive body.
A lot of that is due to the leadership the
Texas voters got screwed over. I could spend all day
talking about what a colossal disappointment the Texas House of
Representatives is, and I could get a few Texas representatives
on to talk with me about this and agree with me.
I might do that. We'll see what happens. I'll save
(19:24):
a lot of that because again, I could do four
or five full shows on all of that, But right
now I want to focus on something very specific. Representative
Briscocaine posted on Twitter yesterday a portion of the proposed
budget which includes two point five million dollars for DEI stuff.
(19:45):
That's diversity equity inclusion at the University of Houston. Now
I'm in Houston, most of my listeners are in Houston.
Hey guys, how are you hi, fellow h tam people.
The University of Houston is kind of a point of
pride for us. We have a really good basketball team there.
We're very happy with it for the most part. There's
some problems at the university because it is a university.
(20:05):
But all in all, I kind of liked the school.
I didn't go there, but I have some friends who
went there, and I've visited the campus a couple of
times for a couple of different things. It's nice, it's
pretty good. I don't know why they need two point
five million dollars for DEI. So, according to Brisco, and
he backed this up with the documents, it's on his Twitter.
You can go see it. This budget allocates two point
(20:26):
five million of your tax dollars for the Partnership for
Multicultural Success, a program which the University of Houston admits
is a DEI program. He goes on to say that
according to the University of Houston's legislative appropriation request, The
following reason is given for the two point five million
tax dollar request. Quote. U of h requests additional funding
(20:47):
of two point five million to expand expand its cultural
and diversity programs to meet the needs of our campus
and region. So they've already had this, This has already
been funded. Buy you the taxpayer, because remember, the University
of Houston is a public state college, which means the
state of Texas pays for it. Aside from some private
(21:08):
donations from like Tilman Fertida for the sports team or whatever,
that school is primarily funded by the taxpayer. And you've
already been paying for this DEI. Nonsense. Why how is
this a good and appropriate use of our taxpayer dollars?
Of all the things that Texas could be spending its
state budget on. We have severe road problems, we have
(21:30):
some issues with our electrical infrastructure. All of that is
stuff that we could and should be spending this money on.
In two point five million dollars would go a long
way here, But no, that money is being spent on
DEI at the University of Houston. Absolutely ridiculous. What's even more, ridiculous.
Is the ensuing conversation that I had with someone who
(21:51):
was running for the Texas House about this issue. Now,
I will give her full props for actually carrying on
a conversation with me about this. That's something we don't
see enough from politicians. I appreciate the fact that she
did this. This is Sarah McGee. She's running for Texas
House District one thirty two, that's I believe, on the
west corner of Harris County. And again, full props to
(22:15):
her for actually having a discussion with me about this.
I do appreciate that, and I think to a certain
extent she was very genuine in her discussion, though it
kind of devolved as she started to, in my opinion,
lose the argument. But here's how this all came about.
I'm looking at this post and I'm reading about it
from Briscocaine, and I see that she commented on it.
She said, come on, Brisco, do better than this, or
(22:36):
be better than this. I'm sorry. U of H is
a multicultural campus, resources to meet the needs of their students,
regardless of background. Shouldn't be attacked. This is just sad
at this point. And then she followed that up with
a screenshot of the racial makeup of the University of Houston,
which is, you know, pretty diverse, thirty three percent Latino,
(22:56):
twenty two percent Asian, twenty percent white, Black or African
American ten percent, two or more races two point seven
and then we get into the weeds. So at this point,
she's got my attention right, Clearly, this is something she's
thought about. She's ready to back up all of these
points that she's making. Okay, well, let's have a discussion,
because I disagree she wants to be a public official.
She has a different perspective. Maybe we can learn something
(23:19):
from each other and have some good, honest political discourse.
That's good, right. Everybody I think agrees that that's generally helpful.
So I asked her. I responded to her tweet at Briscocaine,
and I said, if you of h is already culturally diverse,
which it is, and I think that's not necessarily a
bad thing. I really don't think it matters. Frankly, it
shouldn't affect how we teach students. What color you are
(23:41):
doesn't affect any of the facts that these kids should
be learning at University of Houston. So it really doesn't
matter to me. So I said, if you of h
is already culturally diverse, why do they need an additional
two point five million to quote expand existing cultural and
diversity programs. I think that's a fair question. If it's
already culturally diverse, why do we need to expand these programs?
(24:05):
It would seem they've done their job right. So she says,
in case you weren't aware, serving a multicultural community requires
training to meet the needs of that community. Everyone has
different values, experiences, traditions, et cetera. We should create an environment,
especially in a university, that celebrates these differences instead of
condemning them. Now, let me stop you right there. Nobody
(24:26):
was ever arguing for condemning these differences. That's never been
a position. We just don't think all of this stuff
needs extra tax payer money, because frankly, it's ridiculous. A
lot of this stuff ends up being actually kind of
racist against white people, and that's a bad thing. That's
usually why Republicans have such a big problem with THEEI
is because it's affirmative action, and affirmative action is racist
(24:49):
and a problem. So again, we don't have a problem
with just being diverse, and being fine with that and
everybody learning from each other. I think that's a good thing,
and that's essentially what I said to her. In response,
I said, I guess I just don't understand why that
can't happen without two point five million taxpayer dollars. Sarah
responded by saying that works out to a training cost
(25:10):
of seven hundred and sixty six dollars per faculty member.
I work in healthcare. We are also required to take
annual training courses on how to best serve a diverse community.
It's the only way to ensure that everyone is treated
with dignity and respect, regardless of their background. Okay, full stop,
I reject that premise. I do not believe that a
(25:30):
seven hundred and sixty six dollars taxpayer funded training course
is the only way to ensure that people are treated
with dignity and respect. You don't need a nearly eight
hundred dollars course to know what respect looks like. And
if you do, that tells me you have a completely
different definition of dignity and respect that is probably very
politically motivated and does not reflect reality. Because again, you
(25:53):
shouldn't need an eight hundred dollars training course to know
how to respect somebody. You just need good parents who
taught you what respect is. It's not that hard. And
I said that. I said, I need to see some
hard evidence that a seven hundred and sixty six dollars
tax payer money training course is the only way that
people can get dignity and respect. I simply don't believe that.
(26:14):
I just don't. And she said, have you ever worked
in a public service capacity in a multicultural environment, With
all due respect, you simply aren't getting it. In different cultures,
they consider different things to be a sign of respect.
For instance, some cultures consider a firm handshake to be
an insult. Did you know that? Did you even care
to know that? The entire point is that treating someone
with dignity and respect looks different for every single culture.
(26:38):
You absolutely must be educated on those differences to even
be able to accomplish treating people with dignity and respect. Okay,
let's dig into that a little bit, because she actually
made somewhat of a decent point here. Traditional gestures of
respect do somewhat very culture to culture. She makes a
good point there, that is correct. I don't know about
(26:59):
her specific instance of handshakes. I haven't heard that one before.
I'm sure it's true. I don't think she would openly
lie about that, but I hadn't heard it before. I
did learn something there. Thank you, Sarah McGee for teaching
me that. I appreciate it now. I would refute that
by saying, Okay, well, we're in the United States of America.
American culture is what's important here. Most people at the
University of Houston should have some understanding of American culture.
(27:21):
But that's a point that people can disagree on, and
I think that should be kind of required for any
sort of permanent residency or visa, like do you understand
the country and the culture that you're coming to. If not,
you shouldn't be here. But that's a point that you
can disagree on. That's fair. I imagine Sarah McGee probably
does disagree with me on that. I'm not going to
falter for that. She has her opinions and I have mine.
(27:44):
But once again she makes the claim that the only
way that two people can come to an understanding about
their cultures and the differences they're in is through an
eight hundred dollars taxpayer funded course. Again, I reject that press,
there's nothing that you can learn from this course that
you couldn't learn for free, just by having a sit
(28:06):
down conversation with a person of a different culture. And
I raised that point. I said, I recognize there are
cultural differences, but I'm more than confident that any of
those cultural differences can be simply navigated by two people
having a conversation about their culture and what respect looks like,
rather than throwing taxpayer money at that problem. And from
(28:27):
that point forward, the conversation just kind of devolved. She
never did explain why a taxpayer funded training course is
the only way to bridge that gap. And if you
can't explain to me the clear and present need to
spend taxpayer money, I'm gonna say we probably shouldn't spend
the tax payer money. And she never did. She just
quit replying to me, which I take that as a
sign that I won this particular discussion. Again, credits are
(28:49):
her for actually having this discussion with me on Twitter,
because it was a detailed discussion, and I appreciate that.
But we really don't need to be spending our taxpayer
money on this, and she failed to convince me otherwise.
All Right, say to him, we're gonna be back, all right,
(29:27):
Let's talk about something that's a little bit less serious
and a little bit more serious at the same time.
I'm gonna end this segment with two videos that I
found on Twitter yesterday just because I think they're pretty good.
Let's start with this one. It's one of those videos
that you see online a lot of somebody going around
and interviewing college people on like spring break or whatever.
(29:49):
These are fairly common anytime there's like a big everybody
go out and party holiday, like spring break or Marty Gras,
you see a bunch of these, and it's basically designed
to just make the people that get interviewed. It's like
Man on the Street style interviews. Somebody with a camera
and a microphone will just walk up to random people
and say, Hey, do you want to do an interview
and ask them questions. The whole point is to embarrass
(30:11):
the people that are being asked the questions. That's the
entire point of this style of content. It's not particularly
wholesome or healthy for society as a whole, but it's
worth pointing out how stupid these people are. It really
is only because these are American college students. They should
be the best and brightest in the world. Right, We're
(30:33):
the United States of America. We are the most powerful
country on the planet. We should be the smartest. It
makes no sense that we're not. This video that I'm
about to play for you is a shocking indictment of
the United States education system. This, to me is the
evidence that the US Department of Education has got to go,
because if this is what it has wrought, we are
(30:55):
all screwed. We are because not only did these people
make it to high school and can't answer these basic questions.
And I will allow that many of them are probably
drunk and that impairs your judgment and your recall and
what have you. Still, these are shockingly simple questions that
are insanely embarrassing that Americans can't answer. So, without further ado,
(31:19):
here is the video. I don't know, I believe this
is Caitlin Bennett. I'm not familiar with her content, but
this is her going out and interviewing these people and
they are absolutely failing basic trivia questions.
Speaker 6 (31:32):
Take a listen, who did the colonists fight in the
Revolutionary War? Was?
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (31:39):
I don't know if this is right. I'm gonna sound
so stupid? Was it the Spanish? Wait?
Speaker 6 (31:42):
What are your majors?
Speaker 3 (31:44):
Business?
Speaker 6 (31:45):
Biology, elementary education?
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Oh, dear God in Heaven help us. Okay, I had
to stop it just there. I was gonna let it
play all the way through. That lady's about to be
teaching our children and she doesn't know who we thought
in the Revolutionary War? Here was the British. I'm a
history nerd. I like history. I dig in to stories
(32:08):
and whatnot about the American Revolution. I know way more
about the American Revolution than most people. But you should
be able to answer that question, especially if you're going
to be teaching kids, presumably about the American Revolution at
some point, God help us. I'm sorry. Okay, keep going.
Speaker 6 (32:25):
What shape is the US Pentagon Building?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Do you?
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Isn't it just a square? What shape is the US
Pentagon Building? Isn't it just a square? No, it's a Pentagon.
It's it the name? Oh my god? Okay.
Speaker 6 (32:44):
How many US Senators are there? How many amendments are
in the Bill of Rights?
Speaker 1 (32:53):
There's a lot, I know, I know seventeen.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Who won the Civil War?
Speaker 1 (32:58):
Oh? Shoot, it's East or West? Right, it's the Civil Wars.
Speaker 6 (33:01):
It's the civilians versus whoever was in power? How many
justices are on the Supreme Court?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Justices sot? Like when you say that, like you mean
like that?
Speaker 6 (33:10):
Bi? Who is on the one hundred dollars bill?
Speaker 1 (33:16):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (33:22):
That's the first amendment?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
What's the second?
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Right to vote?
Speaker 6 (33:25):
Name three states that border Canada? Where just do one
per person?
Speaker 1 (33:31):
I didn't know Canada to border? Honestly, What in the
name of God is happening at our schools? Legitimate? What
is happening? Are the kids learning nothing? The answer that
question is yes, By the way, as this video demonstrates,
And listen again, I'm sympathetic to the plight of these students.
(33:53):
They've probably had a few None of them are like geniuses,
nor do they claim or try to be. And that's fair.
I'm not either. These are simple, basic questions. If Americans
can't answer them, what are we doing? These are important questions.
How many senators are there? You don't have to be
a political nut to know that. You should know that
(34:15):
it's an important part of basic civics. Every state has
two senators. There are fifty states. That means one hundred senators.
This isn't hard stuff to know, and it's not unimportant.
These things do matter. Who won the Civil War. That
guy didn't even know who fought in it. That was
a critical tipping point in American history. It's important to
(34:37):
know who is involved in it and who won it,
and why a whole lot of what America is today
stems out of the American Civil War. This is critical
information that people have to have in order to be
good American citizens. We have got to figure out why
our schools can't seem to educate anybody, and we have
(34:58):
got to do something about it. This is something that
has to be fixed or America will cave in on itself.
This is the future of the United States. This is
my generation. These people are my age twenty to thirty
year olds. Pretty Soon the torch of American liberty will
be passed down to us to care for and protect
and preserve. And we're idiots. We're complete fools. America is screwed.
(35:21):
Our forefathers died for nothing because they handed this country
down to the stupidest people that has ever walked the earth. Okay,
I could go on about that for hours. Let's jump
to something else. We've talked at length about the ongoing
epidemic of left wing violence and We've talked about how
this is very mainstream, it's very common. The left has
(35:42):
normalized this, and you should be scared of it because
it is putting people's lives at risk. And that's not
just me saying that. Here's a video of a bunch
of different leftists at some leftist protest, all getting together
and openly vocalizing their support for the assassination the murder
of different right wing figures, including the president of the
(36:04):
United States. Again, these are random everyday leftists all saying, yeah,
I think it's fine if we kill these people, which
is crazy, but here it is. Take a listen, beheaded
Donald Trump. Are you calling for his death?
Speaker 3 (36:18):
I am, yes. I believe it's time that the people
straight cut his fucking head off.
Speaker 7 (36:23):
Fine says If you want to know how fascism ends,
ask Benito Mussolini.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
And they hung him right, yep.
Speaker 7 (36:29):
They hung him by his feet from a lamp post.
That's exactly what every fascist deserves. The only good fascist
is a dead fascist.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Now, are you calling for that to happen to our president?
Right now?
Speaker 7 (36:39):
I believe that the minute that Donald Trump decided to
start ignoring judicial orders, he gave up the right to
be the rightful president of the United States. He's an
enemy of the nation, and yes, I'd like to see
him hung by his feet by a lamp post.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
So you wouldn't necessarily call for violence, would you, or
are you supporting violence?
Speaker 8 (36:56):
I think there's the people in power. That's all They're
going to listen. At this point. I feel like we've
done the rallies, we've done all these things, and they
don't listen. And that was something that finally got people
to listen. So I personally don't but if that's what
we need to do for people to listen, then that's
what we need to do.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
It's worth pointing out that last chick, she's wearing a
shirt that has Luigi Mangioni's face on it. He's the
guy who assassinated the United Healthcare CEO. And I mean, hey,
you can disagree with the American healthcare industry. I think
it's kind of frankly terrible, but that doesn't justify killing
a man who had, you know, a family and children
just because he worked at a company you don't like.
(37:33):
But that's where the left is now. If you disagree
with them and their politics and how they think the
world should be run. You are worthy of death in
their eyes, and they're openly saying that. You think that's
healthy for a country. You think that's good. I mean
that last chick at least, she tries to kind of
bs her way around it. Initially, she says, no, I'm
not calling for violence. I don't support violence, But then
she immediately follows that up with, but I think that's
(37:56):
the only thing that the people will listen to. We
did all the rallies, et cetera, and they're not listening.
Now what does she mean by they're not listening. She
means she's not getting her way. She did all the
rallies in everything, but at the end of the day,
more Americans voted against her than with her, and so
she's not getting the policies that she likes, and in
her mind, the next option is, okay, well, let's just
(38:18):
do violence. Let's just start killing the people that we
don't like, the people we disagree with. That sounds pretty
fascist to me. I don't know. It seems like what
you're saying and what you say you believe don't exactly
line up with each other. Like you say, fascism is bad,
But the moment someone disagrees with you politically, and you
don't get your way, you root for murder again. These
(38:40):
are the people we're handing the country off to. They're
not the brightest. I don't have a lot of hope
for the American future just looking at these videos. But
I think there's enough people that don't think like this,
that aren't stupid, that we can't actually get some more
productive with our society. I hope I'm right. I still
am a little bit optimistic, all right. That all I've got.
(39:00):
Thank you all very much for listening. We'll see you
again on Saturday.
Hey, y'all, welcome back. Who remembers Joy Reid? Probably not
many of you, I imagine I probably don't share much
of an audience with her. I don't think many of
my listeners were at all fans of Joy Reid. She
got canned over at MSNBC recently because her show was
(00:40):
frankly trash. Her opinions are trash, She's not particularly bright.
I think we talked about this. I think we've been
over this before. But believe it or not, that was
not the end of her. I thought that would be
the last I saw of her when she got canned
over at NBC. But apparently she has a podcast, which
is great because that means I am still presented with
(01:00):
clips of her being absolutely stupid that I can then
point and laugh at. Here's what's really funny. I guess
she was figuring like, Hey, I can't be the biggest
loser on my own show. Let me pull Don Lemon
and have him be a guest. You'll remember Don Lemon
as the guy that recently got canned over at CNN.
Significantly less recently. He got canned a while ago, but
(01:22):
for much the same reasons. His show was terrible. His
ratings were terrible. Nobody particularly cared about what he had
to say, frankly, because what he had to say wasn't
particularly bright. But here we are. There was the two
of them on joy Read's podcast, and she was going
on and on and on about how Canada will never
(01:42):
become the fifty first state. First of all, the fact
that she's even talking about this is a win for
Donald Trump. This is the classic example of how Donald
Trump basically distracts left wing media by saying something kind
of ridiculous and silly that nobody actually really cares about
out and while they go nuts over that, he goes
(02:02):
and actually does productive things without their interference. It's pretty genius.
This is like the political equivalent of putting on the
TV so that you can get some work done without
the kids bothering you. If you have kids, I'm sure
you've pulled that maneuver at least once. My parents would
do that to me at times, and I would even
do that to my little siblings when I was babysitting them,
(02:23):
because I have a bunch of far younger siblings, and frankly,
it's the easiest way to deal with children. You turn
on the TV and you let them be distracted by that.
That's what Donald Trump is basically doing. He's turning on
his ridiculous comment or whatever of the day and just
letting the Democrats go nuts over that. So they locked
in on this whole Canada becoming a state thing. I
don't think anybody actually takes it particularly seriously. I don't.
(02:47):
I don't think Canada will ever be a state. I
think if we wanted it really bad, we could go
get it. I think that's definitely within America's military capacity.
If we felt like it, we could conquer Canada. Why
would we do that, I don't know. Would we probably
not ever, There's no reason for it, but it could.
It could be done if it had to be sure?
Why not. It's honestly not something that I put a
(03:07):
whole lot of thought into because I know it will
never happen. I know it's ridiculous to even bother considering it.
Joy Reid doesn't understand that she and Don Lemon have
spent hours thinking about this. Joy Reid has come to
the conclusion that the only way this would ever happen
is if America started a war with Canada, and in
that situation, Canada would win the war. Her justification for this,
(03:31):
by the way, is the War of eighteen twelve. That's
where she's getting her data from. She's thinking because we
kind of fought to a standstill with the British Commonwealth
in eighteen twelve, that means Canada could defeat the United
States today. Take a listen to this, Grandy.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Trump, let's talk.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Let's talk.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
First of all, you can't make Canada the fifty first
state without going to war with them. And let me
explain how that happened, how that worked out. The la
last time we tried to go to war with Canada,
they burned the White House to the ground in eighteen
fourteen and.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Won the war.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Canada beat us in the War of eighteen twelve.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
They probably like their chances against us.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
We're not gonna beat them in a war because we
have never been able to do that. You'd have to
occupy a country that is equivalent of the size of
the United States, in which the top two thirds of
it is uninhabited, frozen forest land that touches the Arctic.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
You know how that worked out when the Nazis tried
that with Russia, which is the equivalent of Canada.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
On that part of the world.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
We don't lose.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
We don't have enough troops to occupy. They are a
country of thirty nine million.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
People who are who have about as many guns per
ca capita as we do.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
All right, So yeah, let's dig into this a little bit,
because she makes a lot of claims here, and normally
I would be inclined to ignore something like this. However,
when you question the military might of the United States
of America, something about that kind of flips a little
patriotic switch in my head, and now I have to
go ham on her. Even though this is ridiculous and frankly,
(05:22):
this entire discussion is beneath me, I'm gonna have it
anyway because I want to. First of all, the War
of eighteen twelve is widely recognized to have been a standstill,
and the treaty that we signed to end that war
pretty much reflects that. The Treaty of Ghent kind of
acknowledges the fact that, hey, neither of us really achieved
our military goals. Here, we're just gonna call it a day.
(05:44):
I will say we had the last laugh because we
kicked button Louisiana. Battle of New Orleans. Baby, they wrote
a song about it. Give it a listen, it goes hard.
The second of all, her claim that we can't beat
Canada because we'd have to occupy can and half the
country is unoccupiable. Okay, so hear me out. If Canada
(06:06):
isn't occupying that half of the country right now, what
makes you think that the United States would have to
occupy it in order to claim victory in a hypothetical
military conflict. Does that make sense to anybody? Canada can't
occupy it, We can't occupy it, so we just don't
occupy it. In this hypothetical would never happen military situation.
(06:29):
We would simply have to sack a couple of Canadian
cities and then they would bend the knee to the
United States. Almost immediately, they would be forced to sue
for peace because we could conquer that country in twenty
four hours flat, and the military wouldn't even have to
get involved. Remember, America has a population of three hundred
and forty million people to Canada's approximately forty million. Give
(06:51):
or take, forty two percent of Americans are gun owners.
Most of those people own more than one firearm, so
that means roughly one hundred and forty two million Americans,
give or take a few hundred thousand owned firearms, and again,
most of those people own several firearms, and most gun
owners in the United States are decently proficient, which means
(07:14):
we could steamroll Canada immediately. It would be so easy,
It would be so easy as laughable. And it is laughable.
This entire situation is ridiculous because this would never happen.
So the fact that Joy Reid is taking it so
seriously just to be so confidently wrong about it is
legitimately hilarious. It really is. And it just goes to
show you why nobody ever watched her show and why
(07:36):
she then got fired, because she's ridiculous, and on top
of being ridiculous, she's wrong. And I don't know which
is worse, to be ridiculous or be ridiculously wrong. It's
a fine line that she walks, but she walks it
very well. All Right, stay tuned, We'll be right back
with some actual serious news in just a second. All right,
(08:14):
we got to talk about this war plans hag seth situation.
This happened I believe yesterday's when this news kind of broke.
Here's the allegation allegedly, Allegedly, Pete Hegseth and a couple
of high ranking officials, including JD. Vance, we're all in
a signal group chat. Signal is an end to end
(08:35):
encrypted messenger. It's basically just meant to be a more
secure form of texting because your text messages can't be
read by a third party. For example, if you send
a text on signal signal, the company can't then like
intercept and read that text message. It can only be
read by whoever you sent it to. That's the pitch
as I understand it. I'm not an expert in these matters.
(08:57):
I don't fully understand signal, but that's what happened. This
is a signal group chat with jd Vance, Pete Hegseth,
and I believe a few other officials, John Ratliff, Michael Waltz.
You know, I don't have all the names, but that's
who was supposed to be in it. Allegedly, Jeffrey Goldberg,
(09:17):
who's the editor in chief of the Atlantic, which is
a left wing newspaper. That guy somehow got included in
this group chat where all these high level officials were talking.
I don't know how that happened. I don't know if
that really happened. It seems to have happened. It looks
like he did manage to make his way into this
(09:39):
group chat. Definitely worth figuring out how the hell that happened,
because we should not have just random left wing journalists
listening in to, you know, national security meetings. I don't
think that a national security meeting is what he was
privy to, but he was included in this group chat.
His allegation here is that they were discussing war plans
(10:01):
quote unquote, like detailed war plans. The left has snatched
onto this and they're acting like very important national security
information was leaked. That seems to be the implication of
Jeffrey Goldberg. I don't know if that's actually what happened.
I don't think it is, because here's what we need
to remember. This is Jeffrey Goldberg over at the Atlantic.
(10:24):
He's known for being full of crap. It's kind of
his thing. He just he makes stuff up. He was
the guy that was pushing the very fine people hoax
for a long time. He also pushed the suckers and
losers hoax, that lie that Trump was standing at Arlington
National Cemetery and called all the dead veterans their suckers
(10:45):
and losers. Everybody that was there said that didn't happen. Nevertheless,
Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic pushed that live for years,
So it's worth taking all of his claims here with
a grain of salt. But allegedly, allegedly he saw all
the classified information that was talked about in that group chat.
So I'm going to reach you some of these screenshots
(11:06):
of this group chat that have been put out I
believe by Jeffrey Goldberg as like proof that he was
in this group chat. And these do look real, but
also they could be faked. That's just a fact. You
can change nicknames and whatnot in signal. I believe you
can change profile pictures and whatnot, So you could very
easily kind of fake this and then take some screenshots
(11:28):
for a story. It doesn't look like that's what happened,
but that is a possibility. But anyway, here's some of
the screenshots that came out of this group chat. They're
supposedly talking about the airstrikes on Yemen, a big news
story where bombing Yemen again? What else is new? Here's
jd Vance saying at Pete Hegseth. If you think we
should do it, let's do it. I just hate bailing
(11:49):
Europe out again. Let's just make sure our messaging is
tight here, and if there are things we can do
upfront to minimize risk to Saudi oil facilities, we should
do it. Heg Seth responded, saying I fully share your
loathing of European freeloading. It's pathetic, but Mike is correct.
We are the only ones on the planet on our
side of the ledger who can do this. Nobody else
is even close. Question is timing. I feel like now
(12:12):
is as good a time as any given POTUS directive
to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go, but
POTIS still retains twenty four hours of decision space. Then
somebody with the name just sm chimed in. I don't
know who that is as I heard it, the President
was clear green light, but we soon make clear to
Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also
(12:34):
need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
E g.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
If Europe doesn't renumerate, then what if the US successfully
restores freedom of navigation at great cost? There needs to
be some further economic gain extracted in return hegseth then agreed,
and then there's another screenshot of a bunch of messages
later of everybody patting themselves on the back. I assume
this is after the air strikes. Now, apparently this has
been confirmed as legit by the national security spokesper which
(13:01):
is Brian Hughes. He has, I believe, confirmed that this
is authentic. Now, is it good that a random journalist
was able to get their hands on any of this?
Speaker 2 (13:11):
No?
Speaker 1 (13:11):
How did he get into this text chain? How is
Jeffrey Goldberg able to see any of this that needs
to be figured out and stopped? Now? Is any of
this like super important national security information? I would argue
not really. There's no like detailed war plans that were
discussed here. They're just talking about bombing Yemen. I assume
(13:35):
Yemen had to know already they were going to get bombed,
because Trump has like openly said that he's not exactly
very secretive about who he bombs. He usually tweets at
them like two days beforehand and says, hey, you're about
to get bombed, God bless America, and then a few
days later they get bombed. So I assume that this
is not necessarily secrets. Again, the fact that this was
(13:57):
able to get out, the fact that Jeffrey Goldberg, of
all people, was able to get into this text chain,
that is one thousand percent a problem. We need to
identify how that happened to make sure it doesn't happen again.
But is this the end of the world. No, not really.
It doesn't look great. It's kind of a bad look
for the Trump administration, but it's I mean, two weeks
from now, no one is gonna remember or care that
(14:19):
this happened. They just won't. That's the harsh reality of politics.
People have a thirty second memory. This will be gone
by next week, if not sooner, maybe a little later,
who knows for sure, but not long from now. What's
really funny is the fact that the left is seizing
onto this and basically demanding that there be something, you know,
(14:39):
super classified in this, when they're just factually was not.
And yeah, I mean, that doesn't look like detailed war plans.
It looks like just some officials discussing the possibility and
implication of bombing Yemen. And that's what hag Seth said.
He came out right after this happened, and he said, yeah, look,
nobody was discussing war plans. Here here he is saying that, can.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
You share how your information about war plans against the
Houthis and Yemen was shared with a journalist in the
Atlantic and where those details classified.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so
called journalists who's made a profession of pedaling hoaxes time
and time again, to include the I don't know the
hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the fine people on
both sides hopes or suckers and losers hopes.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
So this is the guy that pedals in garbage. This
is what he does.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
I would love to comment on the Houthie campaign because of.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
The skill and courage of our troops.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I've monitored very closely from the beginning, and you see
we've been managing four years of deferred maintenance under the
Trump administration. Our troops, our sailors were getting shot at
as targets, our ships couldn't sail through, and when they
did shoot back, it was purely defensively or at shacks
and Yemen. President Trump said no more. We will re
(16:03):
establish de terrence, we will open freedom of navigation and
we will ultimately decimate the Hoothies, which is exactly what
we're doing as we speak, from the beginning overwhelmingly.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
So yeah, he's basically pointing out the fact that the
Hoothies knew they were gonna get bombed. Nobody was saying like, hey,
we're gonna bomb this particular target at this particularcation, on
this particular time. That would be like a devastating information leak.
That's not what happened. They just got out the leak
of like, oh, we're talking about doing this, which everybody
(16:35):
knew they were talking about doing anyway, So, as far
as I'm concerned, this is a case of sort of
no harm, no foul. Is it bad? Yes, it's a
bad look. There could definitely be harm if this happens again,
which is why I say, let's get to the bottom
of how this happened. Let's make sure that it never
ever happens again. If we need to not be using
Signal for national security purposes. Again, I don't know anything
(16:58):
about the app. I don't know if that was a
good decision or not. It's supposed to be a secure
messaging service and it looks like Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally
added to this conversation, and more information will come out
about this over time, and I think that's good. We
need to investigate this, we need to look into this.
But let's not blow this up into something it's not right.
Let's be adults here. What actually got out nothing that
(17:22):
everybody didn't already know. So, I mean, I guess we'll
keep an eye on this. We'll see what comes of this.
The real question here is it's gonna lead to any
sort of major changes in the Trump administration. A lot
of people are thinking this is gonna cost somebody their job.
It probably will, but it definitely won't be pete hegseth.
But I mean, we'll see what happens. We'll keep an
eye on it. It doesn't seem like a super important
long term story, though, so who knows. All right, Uh,
(17:44):
I think that's all I've got on this. Stay tuned,
we're gonna be right back in just a second. All right,
(18:16):
let's talk about the Texas legislature. There's a lot that
we could get into here. The Texas Senate has been
doing a great job. They've been very productive. They've passed
a few bills that I don't necessarily like but they've
passed a lot of bills that I really do like,
so very proud of my state Senate. They do a
good job. I know a lot of the Senators. I
say a lot. I know a few of them. I've
(18:37):
talked to a few of them. They seem like genuine
good people. They do in the House of Representatives. Despite
the work of a few really good people that I'm
very proud of, people like Representative Briscocaine, Representative Brian Harrison,
people that I'm friendly with and quite appreciate their very
hard work, the Texas House overall has gotten really a
(19:02):
whole lot of nothing done. It's a very unproductive body.
A lot of that is due to the leadership the
Texas voters got screwed over. I could spend all day
talking about what a colossal disappointment the Texas House of
Representatives is, and I could get a few Texas representatives
on to talk with me about this and agree with me.
I might do that. We'll see what happens. I'll save
(19:24):
a lot of that because again, I could do four
or five full shows on all of that, But right
now I want to focus on something very specific. Representative
Briscocaine posted on Twitter yesterday a portion of the proposed
budget which includes two point five million dollars for DEI stuff.
(19:45):
That's diversity equity inclusion at the University of Houston. Now
I'm in Houston, most of my listeners are in Houston.
Hey guys, how are you hi, fellow h tam people.
The University of Houston is kind of a point of
pride for us. We have a really good basketball team there.
We're very happy with it for the most part. There's
some problems at the university because it is a university.
(20:05):
But all in all, I kind of liked the school.
I didn't go there, but I have some friends who
went there, and I've visited the campus a couple of
times for a couple of different things. It's nice, it's
pretty good. I don't know why they need two point
five million dollars for DEI. So, according to Brisco, and
he backed this up with the documents, it's on his Twitter.
You can go see it. This budget allocates two point
(20:26):
five million of your tax dollars for the Partnership for
Multicultural Success, a program which the University of Houston admits
is a DEI program. He goes on to say that
according to the University of Houston's legislative appropriation request, The
following reason is given for the two point five million
tax dollar request. Quote. U of h requests additional funding
(20:47):
of two point five million to expand expand its cultural
and diversity programs to meet the needs of our campus
and region. So they've already had this, This has already
been funded. Buy you the taxpayer, because remember, the University
of Houston is a public state college, which means the
state of Texas pays for it. Aside from some private
(21:08):
donations from like Tilman Fertida for the sports team or whatever,
that school is primarily funded by the taxpayer. And you've
already been paying for this DEI. Nonsense. Why how is
this a good and appropriate use of our taxpayer dollars?
Of all the things that Texas could be spending its
state budget on. We have severe road problems, we have
(21:30):
some issues with our electrical infrastructure. All of that is
stuff that we could and should be spending this money on.
In two point five million dollars would go a long
way here, But no, that money is being spent on
DEI at the University of Houston. Absolutely ridiculous. What's even more, ridiculous.
Is the ensuing conversation that I had with someone who
(21:51):
was running for the Texas House about this issue. Now,
I will give her full props for actually carrying on
a conversation with me about this. That's something we don't
see enough from politicians. I appreciate the fact that she
did this. This is Sarah McGee. She's running for Texas
House District one thirty two, that's I believe, on the
west corner of Harris County. And again, full props to
(22:15):
her for actually having a discussion with me about this.
I do appreciate that, and I think to a certain
extent she was very genuine in her discussion, though it
kind of devolved as she started to, in my opinion,
lose the argument. But here's how this all came about.
I'm looking at this post and I'm reading about it
from Briscocaine, and I see that she commented on it.
She said, come on, Brisco, do better than this, or
(22:36):
be better than this. I'm sorry. U of H is
a multicultural campus, resources to meet the needs of their students,
regardless of background. Shouldn't be attacked. This is just sad
at this point. And then she followed that up with
a screenshot of the racial makeup of the University of Houston,
which is, you know, pretty diverse, thirty three percent Latino,
(22:56):
twenty two percent Asian, twenty percent white, Black or African
American ten percent, two or more races two point seven
and then we get into the weeds. So at this point,
she's got my attention right, Clearly, this is something she's
thought about. She's ready to back up all of these
points that she's making. Okay, well, let's have a discussion,
because I disagree she wants to be a public official.
She has a different perspective. Maybe we can learn something
(23:19):
from each other and have some good, honest political discourse.
That's good, right. Everybody I think agrees that that's generally helpful.
So I asked her. I responded to her tweet at Briscocaine,
and I said, if you of h is already culturally diverse,
which it is, and I think that's not necessarily a
bad thing. I really don't think it matters. Frankly, it
shouldn't affect how we teach students. What color you are
(23:41):
doesn't affect any of the facts that these kids should
be learning at University of Houston. So it really doesn't
matter to me. So I said, if you of h
is already culturally diverse, why do they need an additional
two point five million to quote expand existing cultural and
diversity programs. I think that's a fair question. If it's
already culturally diverse, why do we need to expand these programs?
(24:05):
It would seem they've done their job right. So she says,
in case you weren't aware, serving a multicultural community requires
training to meet the needs of that community. Everyone has
different values, experiences, traditions, et cetera. We should create an environment,
especially in a university, that celebrates these differences instead of
condemning them. Now, let me stop you right there. Nobody
(24:26):
was ever arguing for condemning these differences. That's never been
a position. We just don't think all of this stuff
needs extra tax payer money, because frankly, it's ridiculous. A
lot of this stuff ends up being actually kind of
racist against white people, and that's a bad thing. That's
usually why Republicans have such a big problem with THEEI
is because it's affirmative action, and affirmative action is racist
(24:49):
and a problem. So again, we don't have a problem
with just being diverse, and being fine with that and
everybody learning from each other. I think that's a good thing,
and that's essentially what I said to her. In response,
I said, I guess I just don't understand why that
can't happen without two point five million taxpayer dollars. Sarah
responded by saying that works out to a training cost
(25:10):
of seven hundred and sixty six dollars per faculty member.
I work in healthcare. We are also required to take
annual training courses on how to best serve a diverse community.
It's the only way to ensure that everyone is treated
with dignity and respect, regardless of their background. Okay, full stop,
I reject that premise. I do not believe that a
(25:30):
seven hundred and sixty six dollars taxpayer funded training course
is the only way to ensure that people are treated
with dignity and respect. You don't need a nearly eight
hundred dollars course to know what respect looks like. And
if you do, that tells me you have a completely
different definition of dignity and respect that is probably very
politically motivated and does not reflect reality. Because again, you
(25:53):
shouldn't need an eight hundred dollars training course to know
how to respect somebody. You just need good parents who
taught you what respect is. It's not that hard. And
I said that. I said, I need to see some
hard evidence that a seven hundred and sixty six dollars
tax payer money training course is the only way that
people can get dignity and respect. I simply don't believe that.
(26:14):
I just don't. And she said, have you ever worked
in a public service capacity in a multicultural environment, With
all due respect, you simply aren't getting it. In different cultures,
they consider different things to be a sign of respect.
For instance, some cultures consider a firm handshake to be
an insult. Did you know that? Did you even care
to know that? The entire point is that treating someone
with dignity and respect looks different for every single culture.
(26:38):
You absolutely must be educated on those differences to even
be able to accomplish treating people with dignity and respect. Okay,
let's dig into that a little bit, because she actually
made somewhat of a decent point here. Traditional gestures of
respect do somewhat very culture to culture. She makes a
good point there, that is correct. I don't know about
(26:59):
her specific instance of handshakes. I haven't heard that one before.
I'm sure it's true. I don't think she would openly
lie about that, but I hadn't heard it before. I
did learn something there. Thank you, Sarah McGee for teaching
me that. I appreciate it now. I would refute that
by saying, Okay, well, we're in the United States of America.
American culture is what's important here. Most people at the
University of Houston should have some understanding of American culture.
(27:21):
But that's a point that people can disagree on, and
I think that should be kind of required for any
sort of permanent residency or visa, like do you understand
the country and the culture that you're coming to. If not,
you shouldn't be here. But that's a point that you
can disagree on. That's fair. I imagine Sarah McGee probably
does disagree with me on that. I'm not going to
falter for that. She has her opinions and I have mine.
(27:44):
But once again she makes the claim that the only
way that two people can come to an understanding about
their cultures and the differences they're in is through an
eight hundred dollars taxpayer funded course. Again, I reject that press,
there's nothing that you can learn from this course that
you couldn't learn for free, just by having a sit
(28:06):
down conversation with a person of a different culture. And
I raised that point. I said, I recognize there are
cultural differences, but I'm more than confident that any of
those cultural differences can be simply navigated by two people
having a conversation about their culture and what respect looks like,
rather than throwing taxpayer money at that problem. And from
(28:27):
that point forward, the conversation just kind of devolved. She
never did explain why a taxpayer funded training course is
the only way to bridge that gap. And if you
can't explain to me the clear and present need to
spend taxpayer money, I'm gonna say we probably shouldn't spend
the tax payer money. And she never did. She just
quit replying to me, which I take that as a
sign that I won this particular discussion. Again, credits are
(28:49):
her for actually having this discussion with me on Twitter,
because it was a detailed discussion, and I appreciate that.
But we really don't need to be spending our taxpayer
money on this, and she failed to convince me otherwise.
All Right, say to him, we're gonna be back, all right,
(29:27):
Let's talk about something that's a little bit less serious
and a little bit more serious at the same time.
I'm gonna end this segment with two videos that I
found on Twitter yesterday just because I think they're pretty good.
Let's start with this one. It's one of those videos
that you see online a lot of somebody going around
and interviewing college people on like spring break or whatever.
(29:49):
These are fairly common anytime there's like a big everybody
go out and party holiday, like spring break or Marty Gras,
you see a bunch of these, and it's basically designed
to just make the people that get interviewed. It's like
Man on the Street style interviews. Somebody with a camera
and a microphone will just walk up to random people
and say, Hey, do you want to do an interview
and ask them questions. The whole point is to embarrass
(30:11):
the people that are being asked the questions. That's the
entire point of this style of content. It's not particularly
wholesome or healthy for society as a whole, but it's
worth pointing out how stupid these people are. It really
is only because these are American college students. They should
be the best and brightest in the world. Right, We're
(30:33):
the United States of America. We are the most powerful
country on the planet. We should be the smartest. It
makes no sense that we're not. This video that I'm
about to play for you is a shocking indictment of
the United States education system. This, to me is the
evidence that the US Department of Education has got to go,
because if this is what it has wrought, we are
(30:55):
all screwed. We are because not only did these people
make it to high school and can't answer these basic questions.
And I will allow that many of them are probably
drunk and that impairs your judgment and your recall and
what have you. Still, these are shockingly simple questions that
are insanely embarrassing that Americans can't answer. So, without further ado,
(31:19):
here is the video. I don't know, I believe this
is Caitlin Bennett. I'm not familiar with her content, but
this is her going out and interviewing these people and
they are absolutely failing basic trivia questions.
Speaker 6 (31:32):
Take a listen, who did the colonists fight in the
Revolutionary War? Was?
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (31:39):
I don't know if this is right. I'm gonna sound
so stupid? Was it the Spanish? Wait?
Speaker 6 (31:42):
What are your majors?
Speaker 3 (31:44):
Business?
Speaker 6 (31:45):
Biology, elementary education?
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Oh, dear God in Heaven help us. Okay, I had
to stop it just there. I was gonna let it
play all the way through. That lady's about to be
teaching our children and she doesn't know who we thought
in the Revolutionary War? Here was the British. I'm a
history nerd. I like history. I dig in to stories
(32:08):
and whatnot about the American Revolution. I know way more
about the American Revolution than most people. But you should
be able to answer that question, especially if you're going
to be teaching kids, presumably about the American Revolution at
some point, God help us. I'm sorry. Okay, keep going.
Speaker 6 (32:25):
What shape is the US Pentagon Building?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Do you?
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Isn't it just a square? What shape is the US
Pentagon Building? Isn't it just a square? No, it's a Pentagon.
It's it the name? Oh my god? Okay.
Speaker 6 (32:44):
How many US Senators are there? How many amendments are
in the Bill of Rights?
Speaker 1 (32:53):
There's a lot, I know, I know seventeen.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Who won the Civil War?
Speaker 1 (32:58):
Oh? Shoot, it's East or West? Right, it's the Civil Wars.
Speaker 6 (33:01):
It's the civilians versus whoever was in power? How many
justices are on the Supreme Court?
Speaker 1 (33:07):
Justices sot? Like when you say that, like you mean
like that?
Speaker 6 (33:10):
Bi? Who is on the one hundred dollars bill?
Speaker 1 (33:16):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (33:22):
That's the first amendment?
Speaker 2 (33:23):
What's the second?
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Right to vote?
Speaker 6 (33:25):
Name three states that border Canada? Where just do one
per person?
Speaker 1 (33:31):
I didn't know Canada to border? Honestly, What in the
name of God is happening at our schools? Legitimate? What
is happening? Are the kids learning nothing? The answer that
question is yes, By the way, as this video demonstrates,
And listen again, I'm sympathetic to the plight of these students.
(33:53):
They've probably had a few None of them are like geniuses,
nor do they claim or try to be. And that's fair.
I'm not either. These are simple, basic questions. If Americans
can't answer them, what are we doing? These are important questions.
How many senators are there? You don't have to be
a political nut to know that. You should know that
(34:15):
it's an important part of basic civics. Every state has
two senators. There are fifty states. That means one hundred senators.
This isn't hard stuff to know, and it's not unimportant.
These things do matter. Who won the Civil War. That
guy didn't even know who fought in it. That was
a critical tipping point in American history. It's important to
(34:37):
know who is involved in it and who won it,
and why a whole lot of what America is today
stems out of the American Civil War. This is critical
information that people have to have in order to be
good American citizens. We have got to figure out why
our schools can't seem to educate anybody, and we have
(34:58):
got to do something about it. This is something that
has to be fixed or America will cave in on itself.
This is the future of the United States. This is
my generation. These people are my age twenty to thirty
year olds. Pretty Soon the torch of American liberty will
be passed down to us to care for and protect
and preserve. And we're idiots. We're complete fools. America is screwed.
(35:21):
Our forefathers died for nothing because they handed this country
down to the stupidest people that has ever walked the earth. Okay,
I could go on about that for hours. Let's jump
to something else. We've talked at length about the ongoing
epidemic of left wing violence and We've talked about how
this is very mainstream, it's very common. The left has
(35:42):
normalized this, and you should be scared of it because
it is putting people's lives at risk. And that's not
just me saying that. Here's a video of a bunch
of different leftists at some leftist protest, all getting together
and openly vocalizing their support for the assassination the murder
of different right wing figures, including the president of the
(36:04):
United States. Again, these are random everyday leftists all saying, yeah,
I think it's fine if we kill these people, which
is crazy, but here it is. Take a listen, beheaded
Donald Trump. Are you calling for his death?
Speaker 3 (36:18):
I am, yes. I believe it's time that the people
straight cut his fucking head off.
Speaker 7 (36:23):
Fine says If you want to know how fascism ends,
ask Benito Mussolini.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
And they hung him right, yep.
Speaker 7 (36:29):
They hung him by his feet from a lamp post.
That's exactly what every fascist deserves. The only good fascist
is a dead fascist.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Now, are you calling for that to happen to our president?
Right now?
Speaker 7 (36:39):
I believe that the minute that Donald Trump decided to
start ignoring judicial orders, he gave up the right to
be the rightful president of the United States. He's an
enemy of the nation, and yes, I'd like to see
him hung by his feet by a lamp post.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
So you wouldn't necessarily call for violence, would you, or
are you supporting violence?
Speaker 8 (36:56):
I think there's the people in power. That's all They're
going to listen. At this point. I feel like we've
done the rallies, we've done all these things, and they
don't listen. And that was something that finally got people
to listen. So I personally don't but if that's what
we need to do for people to listen, then that's
what we need to do.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
It's worth pointing out that last chick, she's wearing a
shirt that has Luigi Mangioni's face on it. He's the
guy who assassinated the United Healthcare CEO. And I mean, hey,
you can disagree with the American healthcare industry. I think
it's kind of frankly terrible, but that doesn't justify killing
a man who had, you know, a family and children
just because he worked at a company you don't like.
(37:33):
But that's where the left is now. If you disagree
with them and their politics and how they think the
world should be run. You are worthy of death in
their eyes, and they're openly saying that. You think that's
healthy for a country. You think that's good. I mean
that last chick at least, she tries to kind of
bs her way around it. Initially, she says, no, I'm
not calling for violence. I don't support violence, But then
she immediately follows that up with, but I think that's
(37:56):
the only thing that the people will listen to. We
did all the rallies, et cetera, and they're not listening.
Now what does she mean by they're not listening. She
means she's not getting her way. She did all the
rallies in everything, but at the end of the day,
more Americans voted against her than with her, and so
she's not getting the policies that she likes, and in
her mind, the next option is, okay, well, let's just
(38:18):
do violence. Let's just start killing the people that we
don't like, the people we disagree with. That sounds pretty
fascist to me. I don't know. It seems like what
you're saying and what you say you believe don't exactly
line up with each other. Like you say, fascism is bad,
But the moment someone disagrees with you politically, and you
don't get your way, you root for murder again. These
(38:40):
are the people we're handing the country off to. They're
not the brightest. I don't have a lot of hope
for the American future just looking at these videos. But
I think there's enough people that don't think like this,
that aren't stupid, that we can't actually get some more
productive with our society. I hope I'm right. I still
am a little bit optimistic, all right. That all I've got.
(39:00):
Thank you all very much for listening. We'll see you
again on Saturday.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
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