December 19, 2025 • 65 mins
It's conspiracy theory week at the 3WHH, as host John Yoo guides us through the mysteries of the shootings at Brown University and MIT, the mystery of why an article about the corruption of the DEI world should suddenly go viral just now, what conspiracy theory could explain why White House chief of staff Susie Wiles would call VP Vance a "conspiracy theorist" (among other things), and last but not least, how Candace Owens stole Lucretia's tin foil hat right out from under her nose! After all this, we expect Santa will be delivering fancy new tin foil hats to us next week.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well whiskey coming fame, my pain, the holidays all ray,
oh whiskey.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Why think alone when you can drink it all In with.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and the
International Woman of Mystery Lucretia, where.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
They slapping up and David, ain't you easy on the
should happy?
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Got to give in and.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Let that whiskey.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Welcome everybody to a holiday episode of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour. We're counting that a days to Christmas, although
we will have a special Christmas episode for everyone, but
before we do. This is going to be one of
the last episodes of through Whiskey Happy Hour for twenty
twenty five, and we are joined by our holiday themed
(00:59):
co We have the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia, who
has an advent calendar that evolves skyscrapers, explosions and many guns.
What is that, Lucretia?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
What do you have there?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
It is the die Hard Christmas Official Christmas die Hard
Advent Calendar. It's nacotomy tower, explosion, helicopter and Hans Kruber
is almost splat at the bottom because it is the
eighteenth of December.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
And what are you drinking to go along with the
Advent calendar? What is the die hard appropriate liquor of choice?
Speaker 4 (01:37):
You're gonna laugh, You're gonna laugh really hard. Not only
am I not drinking liquor, I am drinking Mexican water
that I paid.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
For Mexican waterbo Chico.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
Yeah, yeah, I think it's don't you think it's kind
of funny to actually pay actual money for Mexican water
in a bottle.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
It's so funny. I never do it. I really like,
what are where you? What are you drinking? And what's
your concession to the holiday spirit?
Speaker 4 (02:07):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (02:07):
So this is really bad to me. I've been traveling
all week and I'm I'm still a little dehydrated.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
So I just finished a Gin and Tonic because I
need the tonic, you know. So I know that's bad.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
But do you have any Yeah, that's so lame. Do
you have any Christmas activities or clothing or anything that
rivals Lucretia's no die hard Advent calendar.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
That's well, there's that, And she's also for viewer, the
few viewers, so that people can watch us they want
later because I'll post the video. She's all tricked out
and you know, tricked out, dressed up and you know,
splashy Christmas looking clothing. No, I am what I did
acquire my roast beast for Christmas Day? You know, a
giant rib roast that I'm gonna, you know, figure out.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Oh so, I don't know. I would have thought Steve,
you were more of a goose man given your you know,
resemblance to Ebenezer Scrooge.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
No, no, And I will tell you if you ever
roast a duck on your on your grill and you
your dripping span put potatoes.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
In the drink.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Oh maybe that's a great idea.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Yeah, well I'm you know, because you guys were fighting
earlier today, I feel.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Done. We have known each other for so long. Do
you think a little tiff like that is going to
break a friendship.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
I was like they're getting divorced or something. It was
like I was the child of divorce again. Here, you guys,
I'm so glad the listeners never read your texts of
each other. So, because you guys are so mean to
each other, I'm going to break out the willet in
the gigantic in the giant bottle.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Here you're making me want to go get some Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Now I always offered out because I have to.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
Be at four in the morning, your guys' time, but maybe.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
I was really will damn you John? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Man, Well, like I said, you're you're you're guys bickering
and fighting is and me to drink. We're not really
to drive you guys to drink.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
We're talking past each other as usual.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Yeah, that's right, Yes, okay, much more.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
We did this not on text. We could actually probably
come to an understanding. But yeah, that's that's then. This
has happened for years, John.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Oh good god, how can you take it for that long? Anyway,
So the first topic I think we're going to discuss
is the shooting at Brown. As we are taping the show,
there's breaking news that the police have finally found the shooter.
They were all kinds of conspiracy theories circling around this
(04:41):
because the Brown, I mean the Providence police at first
caught somebody, then they released us person of interest that
they were cleared. That's been Let's see, the shooting was
on Saturday, so up until today there didn't seem to
be any progress made. There was talk that it might
be related to the shooting of an Am I tea
professor also in the last week. I'm not sure whether
(05:03):
that's true now that it turns out that the brown shooter,
according to results reports we're just getting has died at
a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire, which was surrounded
by armed police. And we'll get more details. But despite
the details, what do you all make of the brown shooting?
(05:26):
I mean, this has followed a number of shootings that
have been taking place on college campuses. Remember Charlie Kirk
was assassinated on a college campus as well. Does this
mean we need to harden and wepping up, wepping up
on campuses? Is there something we can do about this?
Is there at a political angle to any of this?
(05:49):
Is it the case that it's left wing nuts who
are taking advantage of the openness of college campuses to
shoot at people?
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Lucretia your tape, Well, let me just say that my
whole university has been completely dismantled and riled and we
have now a horrible administration. Hope they're listening because of
a shooting that took place. A Muslim graduate student who
(06:21):
was unhappy about I don't know what with an engineering
professor walked into the classroom and shot him dead. And
he had been on like all these other things, on
the radar for some time. But the police they didn't
do anything about it, and so everybody from the president,
(06:42):
the provost down ultimately the police chief, all of those
people just felt like Domino's because of that shooting was gosh,
it's probably been three years now, but I don't know.
I mean campus, If you want to be a shooter,
campus is a great place to do it, because, as
you probably know, John, the only person who's ever on
(07:05):
armed on campus, and then only in her car is me.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Oh my god, the arsenal that she drives around with
in that tesla, Oh I was. I felt bad for
any police officer who was going to pull her over
for speeding, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Before I concede to Steve the time, I just there.
I do have a serious comment about what you said,
and I do think that in so far as some
of these college university based shootings are actually, you know,
confined to universities, it's because universities are the hotbeds of
what I would consider probably the two most controversial issues
(07:48):
in American politics today, and that would be the whole
transgender debate. And then of course the Gaza Israel Zionist debate.
I mean on campuses. You guys are on campuses too,
both of you. Do you see anything more oh, what
shall we say? More salient on university campuses? And every
(08:09):
shooting that I can think of has its relationship to
one or the other. But you know, I'm not probably
thinking good Steve.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Before Steve responds and answers, another detailed just came in.
The name of the shooter was Claudia Claudia Manuel Nevez Valente,
forty eight year old former Brown graduate student and Portuguese national,
last residence was on Miami, found with two firearms on him. Steve,
(08:36):
what do you think? Well, okay, so this is.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Real information that maybe changes things a little. And three
or four things. First, most people don't pay any attention
to Rhode Island because why would you. It's the size
of a postage stamp. But it's an incredibly corrupt state.
And if you watched any of the press conferences of
the law enforcement, you saw a total clown show. What
if the babel and be said, she wighams put in
(09:02):
the investigation? You know, the big bumbling police chief from
single student who is I'm coming to all that. I
mean that the list of particulars on you know, they
picked up a lot of cats and dogs who've fired
for their jobs for incompetence, and so it's a very
corrupt state for the public employee union, such that Gina
Raymundo when she was governor was a reformer, you know,
(09:23):
she was later became you know, Biden secretary of Commerce,
uh and then at Brown. So big question marks here.
There are reports that apparently have some credibility. I'm not
sure about confirmation yet, that Brown removed lots of security
cameras after pressure from people who said, well, we don't
want to help ice and or we don't want to
(09:44):
help the police identify Gaza protesters, and that the administration
gave into that. That's not confirmed yet, but you're you're
hearing that charged And when some reporters good for them,
asked about this at one of the press conferences, got
a very heated response. That was a non response from officials.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
The third thing was is the university is something very strange.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
They have a guy I was a student, he's LGBTQ
plus xyz.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Omega whatever, all the letters, who's a you know, pro
Palestinian activist, pretty radical, and they scrubbed his information from.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
The university's website.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
By the way, he looks a lot like the physique
of the person you saw in the videos that were
put out. So a lot of people online said, hey,
I wonder if this is the guy. Now, maybe it's not.
It sounds like it's not from the information that you've
just when they do it is John. But you know,
and the university is saying, oh, we don't want people
to be docs. We were concerned for the students safety.
All you did by scrubbing him from the website was
(10:50):
called more attention to this person.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
That was I mean, again, maybe this is stupidity.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
The old Mike Yeoman rule never chuck up to malice
what could be explained by epidity, But boy, it certainly
raises suspicions that they're covering for someone that they may
have admitted who's a crazy person who might have been
So maybe it's not him, but still that was a
dumb move by the university. Then finally, last point, the
(11:17):
fact that they are investigating and by the way, it's
been set in the Wall Street Journal this evening, which
means now mainstream press that they're investigating a connection between
this shooting and the one of the Jewish mit professor
who's doing work on fusion energy. They might be connected.
That starts to look that this is not a typical
(11:37):
campus shooting or any other kind of mass shooting incident,
that this was targeted, deliberate planned out. The classroom at
Brown was on what the fourth floor of the building
or something. This was not a you know, I want
to go shoot some people because I'm mad or crazy
or angry. It's they wanted to go to that classroom
which had a Jewish professor, and one of the persons,
(11:59):
care Old was one of the leaders apparently very well
known and controversial on the campus of the College Republicans. So,
I mean, we'll see if we learn more about this,
but all these things make us looks different and very suspicious.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
What do you think about Lucretia's point, Steve, that the
reason these are taking place on college campuses is because
we've seen heighten level of violence on campus because of
the reaction to the Gods of War, which has been
far to the left on campus, I think then in
the rest of the country, and then also the ideology.
(12:36):
She said LGBTQ, or you could say woke, or you
could say a variety of things, but the extreme I
would say Marxist ideology that has infected our campuses. Do
you think that this makes universities a fertile ground for
political violence of this kind?
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
I do, I mean I do think there may be
an aspect of the what do we say, social contagion
taking place.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
Let's remember, you know mass shootings thirty years ago.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
What's the phrase we used to use is somebody going postal?
Speaker 1 (13:08):
Yeah, but that's because you had youngsters are like postal?
Speaker 4 (13:11):
What's that that welling? Right? Well?
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, well there wasn't that many, but it doesn't take
that many. You had three or four.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
It was only three or four.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
It's a very minor number. But because they were so
unusual and spectacular, you had three or four disgruntled fired
postal workers went into their postal offices usually it was
what they call the mmpc's the mail processing centers uh,
and shot up twenty people and so it was postal workers.
So the phrase going postal caught on and that died out.
(13:41):
But why did it happen more than once? Well, because
you had copycats, right, the copycat phenomenon is real. I'm
not an expert on the social science of this, but
I do think that once she starts, people say, oh,
I can shoot Charlie Kirk on a college campus. I can,
I can. I think these things vary. I mean, you
had a what an Asian student was a VM or
Virginia Tech.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yes, there was a Korean kid, you know, a troubled
I don't.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Know what that's about.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
That was that wasn't ideological and I don't think he
was nuts, that's what he was. Yeah, But the fact
that you start seeing it at college campuses, Oh, Brown
University is a gun free zone?
Speaker 3 (14:16):
How could this happen there?
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Right? I do think that people see this harket of opportunity,
and for whatever reason, I don't discount the creatious reason,
but for whatever reason, I think we should fear more
of this.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
What would you do to.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Yeah, what would you do to let's look going forward?
What would you do should this other other than other
than give out more advent calendars with about a movie
about I got a police a police officer who shoots
up with our in Los Angeles? What would you do
if we do expect to see more of this and
(14:52):
of course you know, you know, the three of us
are college professors. I mean, we know that the parents
of these families and trust these children to our care,
and our university is failing in the job of maintaining
basic security on campus. Is what would you do to
stop stem this tide of violence?
Speaker 4 (15:11):
So remember when you were when you were coming to
your wonderful visit to my campus. And I met a
couple of times with the campus police department, and especially
with their OSN'T people, their open source intelligence people who
actually explained to me, and then we talked about how
we might work together with our own academic program that
(15:34):
does that. That was part of the reason why I
got a deeper dive into it. But I think you
would be surprised how much they actually do look into,
at least the more obvious ways in which disgruntled students
former students who might put anything out there on the Internet,
on Reddit, on TikTok, on those sorts of things, and
(15:57):
are prepared for them. Those things are much more likely
to be you know, something like a famous law professor
from Berkeley comes and gives a public talk, and so
they're ready for it, and they're watching and they know
who's been who's been writing about it on social media,
posting about it. But they also sometimes can see evidence
(16:18):
of you know, but they're never going to pick up
these loaners that are are just out there stewing and
there's not much they can do. And and and everybody
on a campus in many ways I think is a
sitting dock, because no campus that I know of allows
firearms of any kind on it as far as I know,
(16:40):
you guys, Texas.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
University of Texas at Austin does well, but state law,
state law requires it. They're not allowed to stop the operations.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
There's been a there's been a big push on many
campuses to have the campus police force.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Not have weapons.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Mine doesn't really really. Yeah, actually, so you remember that
I'm on a little really quickly. I'm on a little
branch campus of the university, and we are next door
to a community college very close to within one hundred yards,
and we contract out from them our security. They're security guards.
(17:23):
If our security guard calls them and they have to
come over because something's happening, they have to go put
their guns in the locked locker whatever it's called before
they can come onto our campus. That's the policy. That's
how serious they take the idea that you're not allowed
to have a gun on campus stupid.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I mean it might be a test of that theory
whether more guns means less crime. If these people might
be attacking, just like I think they attack K through
twelve schools because they know they're soft targets, right, And
if they thought there might be people around with guns
who I don't know whether it would interfere with the
culture of openness and learning on that we're supposed to
(18:05):
try to foster on college campuses if I have more
armed guards, but I'd rather not be shot either, Steve,
I mean, well, not.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
To be label at this point, but I go back
to the nostalgia of pictures of high schools that had
shooting classes, and you used you can find pictures of
people who drove to their high school campuses and their
pickup trucks with their shotguns on the rack in the back.
That was America at sixty seventy years ago. And Okay,
I'll just stop there. You get the point.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Let's turn to our second topic, which is Lucretia was
right Donald Trump can be president for a third term.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Who knew?
Speaker 1 (18:49):
According to according to a offbed written by Alan Drschwitz
and apparently personally discussed by Dershwitz. Apparently Dershwuss has some
book that he is mentioned to Trump at the White
House Hanukkah party that argues that Trump could become president
(19:11):
for a third term, although hasn't he already been elected
three times by his count anyway he could or bad.
Apparently Miriam Addelson, the wife of Sheldon Adelson, was told
about this and during the Hanukkah Christmas party, said this
would be a great idea that we should do it,
(19:31):
and Trump apparently said something like you're going to give
another two hundred and fifty million dollars for that, which
apparently was evoked laughs. But let me, if I think
I can test this out on you lay out Dershwitz's theory. So,
if you look at the twenty second Amendment, which was
of course added to the Constitution after FDR broke the
(19:54):
two term tradition, it says no person shall be elected
to the office of President more than twice. And so
what he says, I assume is that what if Trump
became president in some of the ways you can become
president without being elected. Suppose, for example, you are the president,
(20:19):
you're running, you're the vice president. And the person running
as president wins and then steps down. Does a vice
president who becomes president? Was he actually elected to the presidency.
So that's case number one. Case number two could be
suppose this is a little more complicated, the electoral College
(20:40):
doesn't come to a majority, and the case gets thrown
into the House, where each state votes by delegation. If
the House picks you, have you been elected to the presidency.
Maybe you haven't been, Maybe you've been chosen or selected
by the House. And there's some talk, well, well, the
Republicans could run a slate and then tell their delegates
(21:02):
to just not vote. That would deprive the winner of
a majority and then would get thrown into the House.
The third possibility, which actually seems the most realistic of
these all these very low probabilit events, is suppose the
president and the vice president win and then they resign.
That means, under the law of secession, the Speaker of
(21:24):
the House becomes the president, and the Speaker of the
House is not required under the constitution to be a
member of Congress, so the House could essentially pick anyone
in the country to be the Speaker of the House,
and that person would become president. They would never have
been elected to be president, they would just be president
through the secession law. So I assume der Schwitz is
(21:45):
arguing that any of these or all of these possibilities
are ways that President Trump could be president for a
third term. Lucretia, what do you think? What do you
think about this? Would you want Trump to be president
ford term? If he were, would you want him to
resort to these you know, tricks, or maybe maybe this
(22:06):
is uh, you know, a legitimate way to interpret the
twenty second Amendment.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
What do you think?
Speaker 1 (22:11):
I mean?
Speaker 4 (22:11):
I think that that what I the only really interesting
thing I took from dershowitz article, And I don't I'm
not really trying to diss him in any way, but
I didn't think it was very compelling. What you just
said was a lot more compelling than what Dershowitz had
to say. But he came up with this wild sort
of scenario that it would take in order for say,
(22:33):
the president to have been appointed secretary of State, you know,
and after what was it?
Speaker 1 (22:41):
The Yeah, that was a stupid way to do it.
The other three I just.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
More style armageddon event where you know, practically all of Washington,
d C Is blown up, but not anyway. I hope
if I was Trump, I would entertain the idea of
a third a third term only to alleviate some of
his lame duckness, if that makes sense, right, and that otherwise, God,
(23:09):
I hope that's why he's doing it, and that makes
a lot of sense to me. I think waiting a
little bit longer and then starting to I can't use
the word that we used to use for this. It's
starting to work on getting his vice president or probably
or perhaps his secretary of State is a viable candidate.
(23:29):
All of those things make sense to me. But he's
not going to do that yet. It's too early. No,
I don't want Trump for another term, and I don't
know that I want anybody. However, I think the twenty
second Amendment was a stupid idea in the first place.
It really was. I mean, it goes against the founder's
intentions for indefinite electability re electability for a lot of reasons,
(23:50):
and one of them is that we discuss lame duckness. Right,
you are a lame duck in your second term, no
matter what. Yes, do you remember when Obama was president,
they started floating some of these ideas that Clinton could
make him her vice president, or Clinton could make him
that you know something, and uh, when she won, which
we were all certain she was going to of course,
(24:13):
that way Clinton could become and then he let her
stay for a while and then he would kick her
out and become president again. That was a big anyway.
I don't know, Steve, Look.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
I am Steve.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
What do you think?
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I am? Well, say two questions. One is it is
it possible that someone could be president three terms? And then,
even if it is, is this a good idea?
Speaker 3 (24:40):
With twelve?
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Let me go in reverse order. I am for Trump
having a third term, if only to maximize the pain
of the left in this country and the media right
that that that alone is worth. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
The first two terms weren't enough for you, Steve. You
want to tumble down.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
I want more, you Know's as someone said to me
when Clinton was president. You know, Ronald Reagan with Alzheimer's
is better than this guy. And that's that's what I
feel about Trump, right he's just now having said that.
I think there's several things going on here. I think
this is Dershowitz wanting to stay in the live light
like Dershowitz.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
Does, okay.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
In stories today because of his picture with the Epstein releases,
maybe he just wanted.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
To well, I don't know. I mean, he's been pretty
even aggressive on that stuff too. The other thing is,
I can't see this working in practice.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I mean game this out.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I mean, suppose there's a sort of one that was
left out, which was the vice president resigns, who wins
the election, and then then you'll appoint Trump to be
vice president and that's confirmed by Congress, and then the
president steps down and then becomes president. He's not elected.
But that's another way, it seems. Maybe it's in the
book that way ame out right. That seems equally plausible
to me, better than the Speaker of the House. I
(25:53):
gather that the speaker doesn't have to be a member
of the House is a contested question.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
No, well, okay, let's leave that aside. The constition just
doesn't address it at all.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Okay, I've heard arguments that has to be never mind,
let's leave that for some other day. My point is,
how does this work out in the twenty twenty eight
election campaign? Is Trump out campaigning, are you having three
candidates or And how plausible is it that the Republican
nominee say, it's JD.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
Vance, he's out campaigning.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Vote for me, but everyone knows that he's going to
step aside in favor of Trump. I just don't see
how that works very well with voters. I think a
lot of people would say, even a lot of people
who independence inclined to vote for Trump as they've done
for three elections, say no, I don't that's just too gimmicky, right,
I mean, the mechanics may be plausible, I don't think
(26:46):
the real world politics of it would work in practice,
and I think it would probably backfire.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
So that's my speculation.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
The cretia there are.
Speaker 4 (26:58):
I mean I think that that the vice presidency thing
was the thing with Obama.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
I forget, but well, this has been around forever.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
Yeah, yeah, I'll give Douschwitz a little bit of credit.
What he said was it's not going to make any
difference for Trump. This kind of catastrophic event that would
lead to this isn't going to happen. But we ought
to be debating about what was really intended by the
twenty second Amendment and whether it's a good idea at all.
That was his kind of closing argument to the whole thing.
(27:30):
Go ahead, go ahead, Steve. My second Amendment been problematic
in any way yet other than that I was passed.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
It's not quite a trivia question, John, But I wish
i'd thought this earlier and I checked it out. But
wasn't John Tyler who took office when somebody died as president.
By the way, his great his grand Tyler, Harrison, Tyler's
grandson just died last week, which is one of those
(28:00):
amazing things which shows how young the country is.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Is that amazing, amazing, that's amazing.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Guy was president what the eighteen forties, I believe.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
I believe Tyler also was alive at the time of
the Civil War with the Confederacy.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Could be.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
But my recollection was when Harrison died, they can't prefer it.
There was some question about whether he was president or
acting as president, and so you know, I mean, there's
you know, this was again the ambiguity of the twenty
second Amendment leaves the door open to being an acting president.
The twenty second Amendment was in part past to solve
(28:37):
the Tyler problem. I think but anyway, that all point
that kind of fun.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
That's a really interesting point because when I did my
book on the presidency, I came across this that today
we just accept you ascend to the presidency if the
president dies and you're just the president. But there was
actually a strong effort when Tyler became president to relegate
him to acting president and never have the full power
of the office. Right, and this is considered Tyler's major
(29:05):
contribution to the presidency. He says said, nope, I am
the president, and I get I am going to exercise
all the powers.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
Well, you guys will remember to bring this up. But
it's kind of funny. The controversy in California with Oh
Steve remind me his name, Curb, Mike Curb, who when
Jerry Brown would leave the state right right then, because
he was independently elected, et cetera, et cetera, he would
(29:33):
not only take over the powers of the governor governor,
but would have all the powers of the governor, signing
our vetoing legislation.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
And the apporting judges.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
It was fabulous.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Jerry Brown couldn't travel.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
It was hysterically funny.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
Right, Okay, I'm done.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Yeah, Okay, So the third topic we have on deck
is now Steve is making us talk about this because
Steve cares so deeply about the feelings of young generation
whatever's XYZ leftists who feels so put upon by having
(30:11):
to live under the policies they promote on society. This
is an article by a fellow named Savage who appears
to be a screenwriter of some kind in Hollywood. I've
never heard of him, but then I never know the name.
I wouldn't know the names of any screenwriters I mean,
But anyway, so he's written this article which complains about
(30:36):
the effects of DEI policies on white males in three
industries right in journalism, Hollywood, and the Academy. And the
statistics are very striking. But Steve says that this article
has gone viral, even more viral than the Helen Andrews
article about the feminization of society that we discussed a
(30:58):
few weeks ago, which also.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
Peered in compact.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Anyway, so they're both in this journal. Have I, Steve,
have I I mean, I've read the article. Have you
have I fairly described it? And why are you so
enraptured by the suffering of white male liberals who have
to live on the policies and the theories that they
forced on the rest of us. I'm like, whaah wah
(31:22):
wah oh. I feel so bad for these people who
probably voted for the policy. I'm sure they all voted
for Obama and they voted for these policies, and they
just don't like the use of race when it's done
to them, but they love the use of race when
it's done to other people. I guess, So, Steve, why
are you so raptured by this complaining generation extramillennial?
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Well, so, first of all, hats often Compact is a
fairly new online journal that's very nicely laid out. They
publish a lot of great people across the spectrum, mostly
center right though, I think, and they now had the
second sort of viral article in a few months, Helen Andrews.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
We talked about and now this article is going viral.
That's the question. Why has this article caught fire in
the space of a week. Because it's not a new argument.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
The statistics are not entirely new, And in fact, if
you look at a sort of social media comment, you
see a lot of I'll say I'll call them old
timers who were saying, hey, wait a minute, like my
friend Fred Lynch at Claremont McKenna, he's been writing about
this since nineteen ninety and he's raising his hands saying, hey,
wait a minute. You can go back to that. You
could go to the Counting by Race book by William
(32:29):
Bennett and Terry Eastland in the mid eighties. So you know,
our team has been complaining about where this was going
for a very long time. I'm not sure, by the way,
this guy's necessarily a leftist. You just say, Hollywood screenwriter.
Do you assume that's true? But the point is is,
I think the statistics are not limited to just the
(32:50):
Let me stop that. Let me set this up by saying,
people on the left are taking notice of this article.
It's not just you know, a conservative fanboys. I just
a brief survey. Some of the lefty blogs are talking
about it. Some of the lefty podcasts, the smarter ones
which is the relative term, are talking about it and
taking it seriously.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
And they're trying to put by saying.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Well, this is limited to Hollywood and universities and the media,
except it's not. So I will mention it actually wrote
about this five six years ago. Here's a headline from
twenty July twenty twenty, so it's two three months after
George Floyd headline Chevron diversity ratio to improve as layoffs progress.
(33:35):
Let that sink in. This is Chevron, you know. And
they're saying, oh, we're doing petbacks like I do from
time to time of their management ranks because they have
too many. And they said, you know, we want to
up the share of senior level jobs held by women
and ethnic minorities to up to forty five percent from
thirty five percent in the last couple of years. So
(33:57):
we're going to make senior executives reapply for their job.
If you think about what they're saying is they were
going to target white male managers for layoffs more so
than anyone else. They confessed to the country publicly they
were going to violate the Civil Rights Act. The New
York Times did a story just a couple of years ago.
(34:18):
I wonder if I can find it.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
I'm not sure. I can't here it is. I'm sorry,
Washington Posts.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
This is from I don't have the date, but it's
in the last couple of years, Corporate America pledged to
hire more people of color, it actually did. And the
change in employment from February twenty twenty two, I think
this is twenty twenty four, all the minorities went up
substantially four million in total of underrepresented minorities whites, and
(34:49):
corporate executive positions went down by nine hundred thousand. This
wasn't just the creative classes and the places that liberals takeover.
It's spilled over in the boardroom.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Now.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
The corporate have been retreating for quite a while now
from DEI and.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
They shrunckle that.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
And that's an interesting story, but I'll skip all over
all that. I think the reason this is caught on
is because put it this way, I think for all
those years from the eighties on, we had an i'll
call it an unstable equilibrium, but at least an equilibrium
which was we knew there were things wrong with this.
The Supreme Court would get cases like ad Ran.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
And words Cove and all the others.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
Grutterer, and they temporize and they make compromises, and it
got worse and worse, and then it accelerated under Obama.
That's an interesting story that needs to be played out
at longer length, I think. But and then I think
things went crazy really before George Floyd, but it started
going crazy around twenty eighteen or so, plus or minus
a year or two, and it got so out of
(35:49):
hand that now it's a crisis proportions. And as you say, John,
it did start affecting articulate younger liberals. This is not
the first guy. I mean one person I know as
a liberal. This guy I don't know him at all,
but was on Twitter as against David Austin Walsh. He's
a very left wing person, went to graduate school, published
in all the right things. Can't get a job and
(36:10):
said he got older, he get crap for this. He
said on Twitter, I can't get a job anywhere in academia,
and I think it's because I'm a white male and
boy to the left go after him for that, but
he was a lefty saying that. So I think things
got so out of hand like they did. Sorry, I'm
going on long, And here's the last point. It's like
the immigration question. You had National Review as early as
(36:32):
nineteen ninety ninety two saying immigration is a problem, the
national question is a problem. We need to think about this,
and everyone said, oh, you're a bunch of racists, and
then Joe Biden comes along and blows the lid off,
and suddenly public opinion flips. So for all these years
you've had people like Fred Lynch saying this is terrible,
it's unprinciple, it's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and most people shrugged
(36:54):
their shoulders. And now this article hits. It's timing like
Helen Andrew's article. Her article is not her argument was
not brand new either, but it quite the moment, and
it signals to me that on this and many things
I could go on, there's a vibe shift going on.
That's the phrase of twenty twenty five, right, is vibe shift.
This is another sign of the vibe shift is shifting.
(37:15):
And I'm done, sorry for the long speech.
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Yeah, whatever.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
I say.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Here's so like he's like one hundred things in there, Steve.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
It's okay. I'm going to simplify it, and I don't
you called it a vibe shift. I'm going to use
an even more cringe term. But I think it actually
is appropriate here. And I think that the Overton window
is shifted, and it's not as Steve said, because he's
(37:47):
right in many ways that you know, the things just
hit a crisis point and you know, over the top
and everything else. This is the example I'm gonna give,
and then I'll tell you what I mean. Two years ago,
the Arizona legislature had already started pushing back on on
things like hiring for you know what do they call them?
(38:09):
Diversity statements and hiring and all of that kind of stuff.
They started pushing back on it from the Arizona legislature level.
So what would happen is I would be in these
meetings with provosts and vice provosts and deans and so forth,
and they would be talking about how they could continue
to do this and get away with it and hide
it behind you know, university net id walls and things
(38:33):
like that. It was never even It wouldn't have matter
what I said, because I tried. I lived in a
different universe entirely from these people, because you know, I
would argue that this was wrong and so on. It's
not that way anymore. It's not that way because what's
(38:56):
happened with first of all, with the Supreme Courts changing
Harvard case and so on, and Trump. I mean, the
idea that Trump made DEI illegal essentially actually has changed
the way people view it. The people who always saw
that it was unjust and racist of a different kind
(39:19):
now speak about it openly in a way that they
couldn't do so before. And so this these two articles
come along, and they're, you know, they're kind of the
usual kind of les John puts it a little bit
whiny millennials, but you know, they're they're they're speaking for
a generation that that really did get kind of screwed over.
(39:39):
John's probably right, they probably mostly voted for it, but
they in many cases. But the other thing is is
that what we're seeing with the stupid nick Flintes and
Graperers and so on, is the resentment that is the
result of all of those years of being told, you know,
(40:01):
you have your only reason for existing, John Rawls style
is to make sure that your gifts are used in
the service of the marginalized and less fortunate than you,
and that that fell very hard on white men, and
that's why young white men are turning more and more
to these awful right wing sorts of viewpoints and perspectives.
(40:22):
So I don't disagree with anything Steve said. I just
think it's a little bit more than just reaching a
crisis point or you know, a mass, critical mass. I
think it's what Trump was able to do to convince
people that DEI is a bad thing. I mean even
Harvard didn't. It was after the Harvard case too, that
(40:43):
we were told we had to stop stop doing things,
stop admitting students on the basis of the race, And
they just figured out ways to do it and just
not get caught. Now I think they're still doing that,
but they're not going to say it openly in a meeting.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Well that's a that's a legal question for you, John,
except I want to defer full consideration to another time.
But the exit question here is, is there now suddenly
you talk about the Overton window moving lucretia, Is there
now suddenly a gaping legal potential, legal liability? You know,
(41:17):
the government can do Justice Department EEOC actually has said
they're interested in this. I think this week Standards and
practices investigations where you investigate deliberate discrimination against white males
and therefore big, big liability settlements from universities and corporations
and elsewhere. You have a short answer to that, because
(41:38):
I think that's a longer question.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
But yeah, no, I think there is a lot and
you know, the I mean that's what Harmeat Dylan is
up to, right, Yes, that's trying to go to court.
I mean there are hard cases to prove because these
universities are really good at cheating. Well yeah, with lots
of words, and so are corporations now too.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
But you know what, I bet there's email chains, and
I'll bet there's all kinds of bad documentary evidence.
Speaker 3 (42:04):
A lot of it maybe get being destroyed right now.
It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
But I'll bet there's lots of documentary evidence that can
be found, and oh boy.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
Would that be fun.
Speaker 4 (42:13):
Okay, so you guys are sorry. This is my second
foray into nonsensicalness. But and I don't even know if
it's still a law that I think it was called
the uner a law, and it allowed you, if i'll oversimplify,
if a bar had lady's only night, Oh, you could
(42:34):
go and sue and you could get personal damages. You
didn't have to be harmed by it. You just had
to point it out. You could go there, and they
had to pay you like two thousand or six thousand dollars.
If and so they stopped doing those kinds of ladies'
nights and if you could prove that somebody was discriminating
a business, was discriminating on the basis of sex or race,
(42:57):
even against whites, as I recall, But I wasn't even
living in California at the time, So I'm going to
defer to you guys.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
I mean, come on, Lucretia would never show up at
a lady's night in the night anyway. How why do
you even know what happened there? I mean, come on,
I know that's what I'm saying. How do you even
know this ever went on? Unless it was lady only
nights with guns? Maybe then I mean.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
Kind of girl. I'd go with amim a girl, but
that's about it. But we'd want men there. Nobody wants
to a bar that there aren't any men exactly.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
So why would you even want to go exactly? Okay, So, okay,
we're I think we've fully exhausted Steve's sympathies for winding millennials.
So you know, readers, listeners, the fourth topic we were discussed,
(43:52):
we were going to discuss. That's what triggered the fight
I was referring to earlier between Lucretia and Steve. We
were fighting over what should be the fourth topic to
close out this show, but before we turn to one,
I want to give Lucretia the chance to respond to her.
You may not realize this, but she finally is at
(44:14):
the center of a conspiracy theory herself. This has been
It's about damn time. This is not this is real news.
Can I set this out? Because I did not know
this myself, but apparently one of the highest Yes.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
Yes, three people have already texted me about it.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Oh really, okay, Well we're we're gonna address this and
hopefully maybe Lucretia herself will click this out and put
this on X and other various places where these conspiracy
theories are stewed and spawn around because she's at the
center of them. Ladies and gentlemen, how funny.
Speaker 2 (44:54):
Do you want to?
Speaker 3 (44:54):
Go ahead?
Speaker 1 (44:55):
Go ahead?
Speaker 4 (44:56):
You can give the the generic conversation.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
Well, because for once, I'm a believer, I believe everything
that she's saying.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
I want to know.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
So. Candace Owens, who seems to just exist and specialize
in conspiracy theories, claims that the US military has an
intelligence group that is learning how to infiltrate Christian groups
and it is based at Lucretiau's house. Basically at Lucretia's
house is the center. This is I was reading the
(45:29):
tree a tweet that she put up, and it said
that the military intelligence group that is investigating and infiltrating
Christian groups is located at this fort at the military
in Challenges School where Lucretia is based. Right is this?
Speaker 4 (45:45):
This is?
Speaker 1 (45:45):
This is too exquisite, This is too exquisite. I just
I just want to sit there and admire Candace Owens
for finally putting all the pieces of the puzzle together.
And Lucretius act. I think, I think Steve and I
have been in filt traded by this very clever intelligence
scheme by the military. So Lucretia tell us what this
(46:06):
is all about? And how are we supposed to disprove
conspiracy theories?
Speaker 4 (46:11):
This one, I think is a little bit easier. Let
me give you the just one sentence that someone who
is a big fan of Candace Owans, I can't watch her,
so I had to go by what they said. But
there's all of this ratioing back and forth. Anyway. She
Candace Owans reported that Fort Watchuka in Arizona could potentially
(46:37):
be an intelligence base providing military courses to soldiers. I
am reading it verbatim, folks, with the objective of teaching
them how to infiltrate Christian groups and organizations through covert
(46:59):
psychological operations to deceive and potentially overthrow them. There is
something very sinister taking place, and we can all feel it. Okay, guys,
So what I put back after a few insults and
that sort of thing for what. Chuka is in fact
(47:23):
home to something known as Yuseko US Army Intelligence Center
of Excellence. Every military intelligence soldier and officer goes through
training at this base at least twice, usually many many
(47:44):
more times. All of the big brass short of what's
in the Pentagon in military intelligence are located at Fort Wachuka. Well, okay,
it is the military intelligence base. It's not a secret,
it's not dark and sinister. Yes, they they do. In fact,
(48:06):
they teach counterintelligence, they teach psyops. Guess what so does
Lucretia's academic program. We teach.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
See as Donald Trump would say, I knew it. See
I knew it.
Speaker 2 (48:20):
I knew it.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
Half a dozen of the senior commanders at Yosekah go
to church with me. They're not infiltrating.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
We know they're not practicing, you know that just CANDUs
will just say that's.
Speaker 4 (48:42):
Oh my god, it's just well. And the only reason
I came upon this. I'd never follow Candace Owens, but
I'm I turn on X just to check and zekind
of what's going on trending Fort Wachuka. Oh my god,
what's happening at Fort Wachuka. You know sometimes we have,
you know, disasters of different kinds and so on, and
(49:03):
so I click on it and it's just like thousands
of posts about how Erica Trump, Erica Trump Ica, Yeah right,
I'm looking at Trump on my screen. And what was
his name? The chief of security for Charlie Kirk, some
guy who goes by Mitch because he had to change
(49:27):
his name because the government's been trying to kill him
for thirty five years, swear to God, Swear to God.
Thinks he saw her ponytail. And that other guy meeting
with some Arizona something on Fort woo Chuka the night
before Charlie Kirk was killed. And this has become I mean,
(49:49):
you cannot believe how many thousands of people are buying
into this nonsense. And so I am now embarrassed. I
do not want a conspiracy theory hat.
Speaker 1 (50:00):
Oh oh, Steve, we finally don't see what I told you.
Speaker 4 (50:05):
However, that being said, I do want to point out
what what because we were going to talk about we
didn't get to it. The Susie Wilds interview where in
one of the things she's allegedly said was that JD.
Vance was a conspiracy theorist. His answer brilliant. It was
absolutely brilliant. And that's the kind of conspiracy answer. His
(50:28):
answer was, yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist. When those conspiracy
theories right now in six months turn out true, true,
and the media just doesn't cover them, That's that's what
a conspiracy theorist. I will wear that hat, but I
will never wear the Candice Owan's hat. She's just vile.
I don't get it. What is the deal? Maybe you
(50:50):
guys understand I.
Speaker 1 (50:51):
Don't Steve your thoughts. Come on, Steve, you must appreciate
the deliciousness oh conspiracy. And I gotta say I listened
to her explanation and I'm not convinced one second.
Speaker 2 (51:07):
No, Now you see, John, I'm gonna talk solo. Bocha
here in the stage, whisper that candass Owners has gotten
the drop on Lucretia. You know, well a couple of
By the way, just one sentence comments on the Susie
Wiles thing we talked about.
Speaker 1 (51:26):
I was actually going to turn to that next want it, Well, okay,
I don't. Lucretia has given Lucretia's the point of Lucrete dressing.
This is to issue the official denial of these crazy people.
Let's move on to this seriousness. Well, let me just
say it was interview in vanity fair. Well, I'll just
say this.
Speaker 2 (51:42):
Well, let me do it in reverse order. Then. Look,
I have a field theory of Canda so Owans that
also applies to Tucker Carlson. I think they're extreme narcissists
who want the attention, and they've figured out how to
keep the attention on them.
Speaker 3 (51:54):
I think it's that simple. I think it's too bad.
Speaker 1 (51:56):
I always thought. By the way, Lucretia has just posted
a picture I think of her receiving an award of
the head Christian infiltrator.
Speaker 4 (52:05):
Exactly. I have received the Medal of right something whatever
it was, but that is the commanding General of Fort Chuka. Well,
I'm gonna post from my public service right.
Speaker 2 (52:19):
Anyway, For the record, John, I've always thought Candace Owens
was overrated. Ten years ago, I was telling people, I
think you guys are making mistake promoting her.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
I don't think she's that good.
Speaker 2 (52:28):
Uh, Susie Wilds thing, I can open it this way
one of the.
Speaker 1 (52:31):
Things I can I by the way, I should have
set the stage just to briefly mentioned Susie Wilds. The
chief of staff to the President gave it sounds like
one hundred ill advised interviews. Was eleven I think so questions? Yeah,
eleven interviews. I'm sorry, maybe one hundred hours could be
(52:52):
interviews to a Vanity Fair which also released I thought
some really unflattering photos of not the cabinet of the
White House staff. And Susie Wilde said a number of
things which I don't think she's actually denied saying, just
says they're all taken out of context, things like as
Lucretius said, Yeah, that JD. Vance is a conspiracy theorist,
(53:15):
I think, said Pam BONDI has whiffed on the Epstein
matter and done generally a bad job. Said President Trump
has the personality of an alcoholic, and on and on.
Steve what is your take on this is roiling roiling Washington,
DC right now.
Speaker 3 (53:33):
No, it's not.
Speaker 4 (53:33):
No.
Speaker 2 (53:34):
Here's why I say no, it's not. Lucretia put her
finger on it. Not maybe not this way I am.
It is curious to me that the White House seems
to be very well prepared and quite sure would it,
and their response to us like they knew it was coming, right.
I mean you mentioned JD. Van saying yeah, I believe
conspiracy theories that are true. That that was his opening line,
(53:54):
which is a great opening line. The mistake here, and
by the way, there seems to be no, you know,
she's not being taken to the woodshed like David Stockman
in nineteen eighty one. I'll come back to that in
a second. And maybe a couple of those comments are
in fact meant to set up.
Speaker 3 (54:14):
Some shuffling that maybe needs to happen. I'll leave that
aside too.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
The mistake, if there is one, is thinking that you
can trust the media.
Speaker 1 (54:25):
To.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
I mean, I've given a speech before. Their greatest skill
is ventriloquist journalism. I'll tell you a brief story. I
once was taken lunch by Jason de Parley of the
New York Times. It is twenty years ago now, and he.
Speaker 1 (54:38):
Was friendly and interesting.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
It gets me talking.
Speaker 2 (54:41):
These guys are geniuses at getting you relaxed. That's why
sixty minutes works. By the way, that's always their genius.
Mike Wallace would make you think he's your best buddy,
and you relax and you'd say something damaging and they'd
pull that out and make you look terrible. I know
a couple of funny stories of people who brought their
own cameras and turn the tables on him once. I'd
always bring your own camera to a TV interview, I say, well,
(55:02):
if you think it's going to be hostile anyway.
Speaker 3 (55:04):
The point is that their they're.
Speaker 2 (55:06):
Highest skill of these elite media people is making you
relaxed and say things that you probably shouldn't say or
they're ill considered. Because I remember going back after lunch
with Jason de Parley and going in to see Chris
de Muth, my very wise bosses. Oh, I had this
great lunch with Jason de Parley, and you know, it
seemed really interested and you know my thoughts on this
and that, and Chris, you know Chris, you know, gentle
(55:27):
even tempered guy, says oh no, he was out to
get you. That's his special superpower. All these guys have
that special superpower. So I mentioned David Stockman and I'll
end here. You know, in nineteen eighty one, David Stockman,
the great budget whiz kid for Reagan, agrees to sit
down with William Grider of the Atlantic Monthly, a far
left wing advocate journalist not a reporter, and Stockman, who
(55:51):
was only what thirty five years old? Really smart, but
I think intellectually unstable a lot of ways, which I
explained in my Reagan book. He thought, oh, I can
explain it all to Grider. I can convert him, I
can bring him around. Instead. The article that came out
the education of David Stockman was very damaging because Stockman
got relaxed and blurted out a lot of stupid things.
Speaker 3 (56:13):
And did Susie Wils do that?
Speaker 2 (56:15):
Maybe she seems wildier than that, haha, but maybe not.
I you know, one straw on the Wind I said,
I was done, but I'm not. One straw on the
Wind is about three weeks ago, a very harsh article
in The New York Post about Cash Betel by Carol Markowitz.
Carol Markowitz is a very pro Trump columnist at the
(56:35):
New York Post, and I thought, Ah, that's interesting. Is
this really Carol Markowitz doing her own original reporting? Maybe?
But I wonder if it's a planted story. You know,
that's one way you start turning to tables on somebody.
You know this, John, This is the way you turn
the tables on Washington is you plant stories about people
that you want to remove or pressure.
Speaker 1 (56:56):
Well, other week, it sounded like I didn't know about
such things. N I would never participate in such.
Speaker 3 (57:06):
Ahead.
Speaker 4 (57:07):
Not a different take, another take, I guess is a
better way to put it in. I think that. Let
me give you my my anecdote. Many years ago, I
in California. I was interviewed by a reporter about the
term limits that were being discussed at the time, and
I said, you know, I think term limits are a
(57:27):
bad idea. And I went through all of the reasons
why I thought term limits were a bad idea. And
you know, by the way, every reason I gave has
turned out to be true in California, just so you know.
But we won't go into that now. But but I said,
I understand why it is that voters are clamoring for
(57:48):
term limits. In many ways, their legislators don't listen to them.
They deserve, you know, they deserve to discuss that the
voter show form sometimes headline front pay legis slaters deserve disgust. Yeah,
you know that that was such a tiny thing I
said out of so many other things. Very okay that
(58:11):
everybody knows how that works. But I guess what I'm
saying is I was careful and I still let myself
say something dumb like that. The worst part about the
story on Susie Wilds wasn't just taking things out of context.
It was the tone of the whole thing. It was
the you know, look at the title of it, Power
(58:31):
and Peril. You know, immediately, immediately, you know this is
going to be something nasty, And all the way through
there's all this innuendo and insinuation, none of it having
any kind of back you know, evidence to back it up.
And the worst thing of all this is and and
(58:52):
it makes me so angry that students will fail a
paper if they try to do this to me. A
lot of people say that. Many people say that, critics
say that, you know these kind of Many people believe
that those drive me crazy because they are Weasley straw
Men arguments, you don't have any proof that anybody ever
said that, and if you do, I want to see it.
(59:13):
I don't even care about footnotes, but I want to
see proof if you put that. Stupid reporters do it
all the time.
Speaker 3 (59:18):
Critics argue that, oh right, yeah, you know ye.
Speaker 4 (59:23):
So anyway, that's not that I disagreed with anything either
of you said, but it's it's worse in some ways
because it's not just taking things out of context or
tricking somebody into saying something that they shouldn't, but it's
the framing of it too. I sorry for the phrase
force the narrative that is so insidious in my opinion. Yeah,
(59:52):
I guess I have to do Babylon then, is what
you're telling me? Yes, Babylon.
Speaker 1 (59:56):
Yeah, that wraps up the show and Babylon B headlines Lucretia.
Speaker 4 (01:00:02):
Okay, I'll make it quick ground. Oh we never talked
about and I didn't even remember to tell you guys.
This was really my big, my big thing this week,
which is that I don't think what happened in Australia
should be considered just a result of anti Semitism. I
want to make the point, over and over and over.
(01:00:24):
They don't shut down Christmas markets because of anti Semitism
is Islam. It is the evil of Islam. But okay,
next time I won't. That's not fair. But groundbreaking news
study finds Islamophobia may be partially caused by Muslims killing
people all the time. And then this one's not funny
(01:00:46):
because I read a story in the New York Post
this morning about a man who who shot somebody who
attacked him, you know, the peaceful guy, and they they
couldn't get him for it because of self defense, but
they got him for not having guns that he did license.
And he's going to go to jail. Some old guy,
Australian man who wrestled gun away from terrorists charged with
(01:01:07):
unlawful firearm possession.
Speaker 3 (01:01:09):
That's so funny.
Speaker 4 (01:01:10):
Would I heard them say that that the announcement originally
was these these This man, when he comes out of
his call, will be criminally charged.
Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
Really, I actually don't understand. I saw the video and
he was quite heroic, but then he didn't shoot the
guy yeah pointed at him, and yeah, I don't understand
why he didn't shoot the two killers.
Speaker 3 (01:01:38):
Well he might, I mean, there are several reasons for that.
Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
He might not have known how to use a gun,
in which case you don't want to improvise on the moment.
But but there's also possible that he knew that he
would be legally vulnerable if he did.
Speaker 3 (01:01:50):
I raises they're insane down there.
Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
Yeah, yeah, that's insane.
Speaker 4 (01:01:55):
You probably heard today that the House, without the help
of for slimer Republicans, passed the ban on mutilating children.
Democrats blast Republicans for trying to put hard working genital
mutilators out of work. Tragic Mandanni's aunt he slightly uncomfortable
(01:02:20):
at supermarket after Australian terror attack. Yeah, to halt violence
against Jews Australia bands hanukkah.
Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
Yeah, that's also not inaccurate, not funny this one.
Speaker 4 (01:02:37):
Media reports mass shooting in Australia. Fake news. Media reports
mass shooting in Australia. But that's impossible because guns are
illegal there. And finally, for you, Steve, because we almost
made it through without this, So just for you, struggling
chiefs trades Taylor Swift for new it Girl Sidney Sweeney
(01:02:59):
in a big to.
Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
Say this season, oh, you saved the show because Steve
mentioned her name on episode. We almost got their whole episode.
We already weaned him off the Clean Air Act and
almost wiened them off Sydney.
Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
But you mentioned.
Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
Never, So let's close out. Always drink your whiskey, meat,
buy more books, and Steve, what is the latest AI outrage.
Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
You have for us?
Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
I don't have an AI. I have a brief, one
sentence paraphrase of Henry Adams that's very topical and it
speaks for itself, and it runs as follows. Uh. You
may know the original Henry Adams quote when I say it, Uh,
the progression of Minnesota Democrats from Hubert Humphrey and Walter
Mondale to Ilhan Omar and Tim Waltz single handedly refused
the theory of evolution. He said that about Henry Adams,
(01:03:53):
said that about the progression of presidents from Washington to Grant,
which was wrong about Grant.
Speaker 3 (01:03:57):
But still it's funny.
Speaker 4 (01:03:58):
But you get the point.
Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
People we have since said that about the Adams family.
Speaker 4 (01:04:02):
I know, well, yeah, that's right, we can someday maybe
AOC becomes president.
Speaker 3 (01:04:10):
No, it's not happening.
Speaker 1 (01:04:12):
Well with that, everybody, Yeah, but great to be with
you and we'll see you next week when our in
our next special Christmas special episode of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour. Bye everybody.
Speaker 4 (01:04:30):
A hub for that'st Restaurant, because it is my favorite holiday.
Speaker 5 (01:04:34):
But all this year has been a busy. I don't
think I have the energy riding my already man roster's
consents the seasons. The perfect gift for me would be
completions and connections left from last year, tea shopping counter,
most interesting Adams number, but never the time most of anyone.
Speaker 4 (01:04:54):
Has along those lines of Jack.
Speaker 5 (01:04:55):
Those halls, term those trees, praise.
Speaker 4 (01:04:57):
I've come on Christmas.
Speaker 5 (01:04:59):
Here I snay the cat's my brothers by myself.
Speaker 3 (01:05:03):
This year, Ricochet joined the conversation
Well whiskey coming fame, my pain, the holidays all ray,
oh whiskey.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Why think alone when you can drink it all In with.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and the
International Woman of Mystery Lucretia, where.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
They slapping up and David, ain't you easy on the
should happy?
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Got to give in and.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Let that whiskey.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Welcome everybody to a holiday episode of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour. We're counting that a days to Christmas, although
we will have a special Christmas episode for everyone, but
before we do. This is going to be one of
the last episodes of through Whiskey Happy Hour for twenty
twenty five, and we are joined by our holiday themed
(00:59):
co We have the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia, who
has an advent calendar that evolves skyscrapers, explosions and many guns.
What is that, Lucretia?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
What do you have there?
Speaker 4 (01:12):
It is the die Hard Christmas Official Christmas die Hard
Advent Calendar. It's nacotomy tower, explosion, helicopter and Hans Kruber
is almost splat at the bottom because it is the
eighteenth of December.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
And what are you drinking to go along with the
Advent calendar? What is the die hard appropriate liquor of choice?
Speaker 4 (01:37):
You're gonna laugh, You're gonna laugh really hard. Not only
am I not drinking liquor, I am drinking Mexican water
that I paid.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
For Mexican waterbo Chico.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
Yeah, yeah, I think it's don't you think it's kind
of funny to actually pay actual money for Mexican water
in a bottle.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
It's so funny. I never do it. I really like,
what are where you? What are you drinking? And what's
your concession to the holiday spirit?
Speaker 4 (02:07):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (02:07):
So this is really bad to me. I've been traveling
all week and I'm I'm still a little dehydrated.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
So I just finished a Gin and Tonic because I
need the tonic, you know. So I know that's bad.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
But do you have any Yeah, that's so lame. Do
you have any Christmas activities or clothing or anything that
rivals Lucretia's no die hard Advent calendar.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
That's well, there's that, And she's also for viewer, the
few viewers, so that people can watch us they want
later because I'll post the video. She's all tricked out
and you know, tricked out, dressed up and you know,
splashy Christmas looking clothing. No, I am what I did
acquire my roast beast for Christmas Day? You know, a
giant rib roast that I'm gonna, you know, figure out.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Oh so, I don't know. I would have thought Steve,
you were more of a goose man given your you know,
resemblance to Ebenezer Scrooge.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
No, no, And I will tell you if you ever
roast a duck on your on your grill and you
your dripping span put potatoes.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
In the drink.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Oh maybe that's a great idea.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Yeah, well I'm you know, because you guys were fighting
earlier today, I feel.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Done. We have known each other for so long. Do
you think a little tiff like that is going to
break a friendship.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
I was like they're getting divorced or something. It was
like I was the child of divorce again. Here, you guys,
I'm so glad the listeners never read your texts of
each other. So, because you guys are so mean to
each other, I'm going to break out the willet in
the gigantic in the giant bottle.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Here you're making me want to go get some Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Now I always offered out because I have to.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
Be at four in the morning, your guys' time, but maybe.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
I was really will damn you John? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Man, Well, like I said, you're you're you're guys bickering
and fighting is and me to drink. We're not really
to drive you guys to drink.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
We're talking past each other as usual.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Yeah, that's right, Yes, okay, much more.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
We did this not on text. We could actually probably
come to an understanding. But yeah, that's that's then. This
has happened for years, John.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Oh good god, how can you take it for that long? Anyway,
So the first topic I think we're going to discuss
is the shooting at Brown. As we are taping the show,
there's breaking news that the police have finally found the shooter.
They were all kinds of conspiracy theories circling around this
(04:41):
because the Brown, I mean the Providence police at first
caught somebody, then they released us person of interest that
they were cleared. That's been Let's see, the shooting was
on Saturday, so up until today there didn't seem to
be any progress made. There was talk that it might
be related to the shooting of an Am I tea
professor also in the last week. I'm not sure whether
(05:03):
that's true now that it turns out that the brown shooter,
according to results reports we're just getting has died at
a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire, which was surrounded
by armed police. And we'll get more details. But despite
the details, what do you all make of the brown shooting?
(05:26):
I mean, this has followed a number of shootings that
have been taking place on college campuses. Remember Charlie Kirk
was assassinated on a college campus as well. Does this
mean we need to harden and wepping up, wepping up
on campuses? Is there something we can do about this?
Is there at a political angle to any of this?
(05:49):
Is it the case that it's left wing nuts who
are taking advantage of the openness of college campuses to
shoot at people?
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Lucretia your tape, Well, let me just say that my
whole university has been completely dismantled and riled and we
have now a horrible administration. Hope they're listening because of
a shooting that took place. A Muslim graduate student who
(06:21):
was unhappy about I don't know what with an engineering
professor walked into the classroom and shot him dead. And
he had been on like all these other things, on
the radar for some time. But the police they didn't
do anything about it, and so everybody from the president,
(06:42):
the provost down ultimately the police chief, all of those
people just felt like Domino's because of that shooting was gosh,
it's probably been three years now, but I don't know.
I mean campus, If you want to be a shooter,
campus is a great place to do it, because, as
you probably know, John, the only person who's ever on
(07:05):
armed on campus, and then only in her car is me.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Oh my god, the arsenal that she drives around with
in that tesla, Oh I was. I felt bad for
any police officer who was going to pull her over
for speeding, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Before I concede to Steve the time, I just there.
I do have a serious comment about what you said,
and I do think that in so far as some
of these college university based shootings are actually, you know,
confined to universities, it's because universities are the hotbeds of
what I would consider probably the two most controversial issues
(07:48):
in American politics today, and that would be the whole
transgender debate. And then of course the Gaza Israel Zionist debate.
I mean on campuses. You guys are on campuses too,
both of you. Do you see anything more oh, what
shall we say? More salient on university campuses? And every
(08:09):
shooting that I can think of has its relationship to
one or the other. But you know, I'm not probably
thinking good Steve.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Before Steve responds and answers, another detailed just came in.
The name of the shooter was Claudia Claudia Manuel Nevez Valente,
forty eight year old former Brown graduate student and Portuguese national,
last residence was on Miami, found with two firearms on him. Steve,
(08:36):
what do you think? Well, okay, so this is.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Real information that maybe changes things a little. And three
or four things. First, most people don't pay any attention
to Rhode Island because why would you. It's the size
of a postage stamp. But it's an incredibly corrupt state.
And if you watched any of the press conferences of
the law enforcement, you saw a total clown show. What
if the babel and be said, she wighams put in
(09:02):
the investigation? You know, the big bumbling police chief from
single student who is I'm coming to all that. I
mean that the list of particulars on you know, they
picked up a lot of cats and dogs who've fired
for their jobs for incompetence, and so it's a very
corrupt state for the public employee union, such that Gina
Raymundo when she was governor was a reformer, you know,
(09:23):
she was later became you know, Biden secretary of Commerce,
uh and then at Brown. So big question marks here.
There are reports that apparently have some credibility. I'm not
sure about confirmation yet, that Brown removed lots of security
cameras after pressure from people who said, well, we don't
want to help ice and or we don't want to
(09:44):
help the police identify Gaza protesters, and that the administration
gave into that. That's not confirmed yet, but you're you're
hearing that charged And when some reporters good for them,
asked about this at one of the press conferences, got
a very heated response. That was a non response from officials.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
The third thing was is the university is something very strange.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
They have a guy I was a student, he's LGBTQ
plus xyz.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Omega whatever, all the letters, who's a you know, pro
Palestinian activist, pretty radical, and they scrubbed his information from.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
The university's website.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
By the way, he looks a lot like the physique
of the person you saw in the videos that were
put out. So a lot of people online said, hey,
I wonder if this is the guy. Now, maybe it's not.
It sounds like it's not from the information that you've
just when they do it is John. But you know,
and the university is saying, oh, we don't want people
to be docs. We were concerned for the students safety.
All you did by scrubbing him from the website was
(10:50):
called more attention to this person.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
That was I mean, again, maybe this is stupidity.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
The old Mike Yeoman rule never chuck up to malice
what could be explained by epidity, But boy, it certainly
raises suspicions that they're covering for someone that they may
have admitted who's a crazy person who might have been
So maybe it's not him, but still that was a
dumb move by the university. Then finally, last point, the
(11:17):
fact that they are investigating and by the way, it's
been set in the Wall Street Journal this evening, which
means now mainstream press that they're investigating a connection between
this shooting and the one of the Jewish mit professor
who's doing work on fusion energy. They might be connected.
That starts to look that this is not a typical
(11:37):
campus shooting or any other kind of mass shooting incident,
that this was targeted, deliberate planned out. The classroom at
Brown was on what the fourth floor of the building
or something. This was not a you know, I want
to go shoot some people because I'm mad or crazy
or angry. It's they wanted to go to that classroom
which had a Jewish professor, and one of the persons,
(11:59):
care Old was one of the leaders apparently very well
known and controversial on the campus of the College Republicans. So,
I mean, we'll see if we learn more about this,
but all these things make us looks different and very suspicious.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
What do you think about Lucretia's point, Steve, that the
reason these are taking place on college campuses is because
we've seen heighten level of violence on campus because of
the reaction to the Gods of War, which has been
far to the left on campus, I think then in
the rest of the country, and then also the ideology.
(12:36):
She said LGBTQ, or you could say woke, or you
could say a variety of things, but the extreme I
would say Marxist ideology that has infected our campuses. Do
you think that this makes universities a fertile ground for
political violence of this kind?
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (12:53):
I do, I mean I do think there may be
an aspect of the what do we say, social contagion
taking place.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
Let's remember, you know mass shootings thirty years ago.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
What's the phrase we used to use is somebody going postal?
Speaker 1 (13:08):
Yeah, but that's because you had youngsters are like postal?
Speaker 4 (13:11):
What's that that welling? Right? Well?
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, well there wasn't that many, but it doesn't take
that many. You had three or four.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
It was only three or four.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
It's a very minor number. But because they were so
unusual and spectacular, you had three or four disgruntled fired
postal workers went into their postal offices usually it was
what they call the mmpc's the mail processing centers uh,
and shot up twenty people and so it was postal workers.
So the phrase going postal caught on and that died out.
(13:41):
But why did it happen more than once? Well, because
you had copycats, right, the copycat phenomenon is real. I'm
not an expert on the social science of this, but
I do think that once she starts, people say, oh,
I can shoot Charlie Kirk on a college campus. I can,
I can. I think these things vary. I mean, you
had a what an Asian student was a VM or
Virginia Tech.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yes, there was a Korean kid, you know, a troubled
I don't.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Know what that's about.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
That was that wasn't ideological and I don't think he
was nuts, that's what he was. Yeah, But the fact
that you start seeing it at college campuses, Oh, Brown
University is a gun free zone?
Speaker 3 (14:16):
How could this happen there?
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Right? I do think that people see this harket of opportunity,
and for whatever reason, I don't discount the creatious reason,
but for whatever reason, I think we should fear more
of this.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
What would you do to.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Yeah, what would you do to let's look going forward?
What would you do should this other other than other
than give out more advent calendars with about a movie
about I got a police a police officer who shoots
up with our in Los Angeles? What would you do
if we do expect to see more of this and
(14:52):
of course you know, you know, the three of us
are college professors. I mean, we know that the parents
of these families and trust these children to our care,
and our university is failing in the job of maintaining
basic security on campus. Is what would you do to
stop stem this tide of violence?
Speaker 4 (15:11):
So remember when you were when you were coming to
your wonderful visit to my campus. And I met a
couple of times with the campus police department, and especially
with their OSN'T people, their open source intelligence people who
actually explained to me, and then we talked about how
we might work together with our own academic program that
(15:34):
does that. That was part of the reason why I
got a deeper dive into it. But I think you
would be surprised how much they actually do look into,
at least the more obvious ways in which disgruntled students
former students who might put anything out there on the Internet,
on Reddit, on TikTok, on those sorts of things, and
(15:57):
are prepared for them. Those things are much more likely
to be you know, something like a famous law professor
from Berkeley comes and gives a public talk, and so
they're ready for it, and they're watching and they know
who's been who's been writing about it on social media,
posting about it. But they also sometimes can see evidence
(16:18):
of you know, but they're never going to pick up
these loaners that are are just out there stewing and
there's not much they can do. And and and everybody
on a campus in many ways I think is a
sitting dock, because no campus that I know of allows
firearms of any kind on it as far as I know,
(16:40):
you guys, Texas.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
University of Texas at Austin does well, but state law,
state law requires it. They're not allowed to stop the operations.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
There's been a there's been a big push on many
campuses to have the campus police force.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Not have weapons.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Mine doesn't really really. Yeah, actually, so you remember that
I'm on a little really quickly. I'm on a little
branch campus of the university, and we are next door
to a community college very close to within one hundred yards,
and we contract out from them our security. They're security guards.
(17:23):
If our security guard calls them and they have to
come over because something's happening, they have to go put
their guns in the locked locker whatever it's called before
they can come onto our campus. That's the policy. That's
how serious they take the idea that you're not allowed
to have a gun on campus stupid.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I mean it might be a test of that theory
whether more guns means less crime. If these people might
be attacking, just like I think they attack K through
twelve schools because they know they're soft targets, right, And
if they thought there might be people around with guns
who I don't know whether it would interfere with the
culture of openness and learning on that we're supposed to
(18:05):
try to foster on college campuses if I have more
armed guards, but I'd rather not be shot either, Steve,
I mean, well, not.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
To be label at this point, but I go back
to the nostalgia of pictures of high schools that had
shooting classes, and you used you can find pictures of
people who drove to their high school campuses and their
pickup trucks with their shotguns on the rack in the back.
That was America at sixty seventy years ago. And Okay,
I'll just stop there. You get the point.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Let's turn to our second topic, which is Lucretia was
right Donald Trump can be president for a third term.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Who knew?
Speaker 1 (18:49):
According to according to a offbed written by Alan Drschwitz
and apparently personally discussed by Dershwitz. Apparently Dershwuss has some
book that he is mentioned to Trump at the White
House Hanukkah party that argues that Trump could become president
(19:11):
for a third term, although hasn't he already been elected
three times by his count anyway he could or bad.
Apparently Miriam Addelson, the wife of Sheldon Adelson, was told
about this and during the Hanukkah Christmas party, said this
would be a great idea that we should do it,
(19:31):
and Trump apparently said something like you're going to give
another two hundred and fifty million dollars for that, which
apparently was evoked laughs. But let me, if I think
I can test this out on you lay out Dershwitz's theory. So,
if you look at the twenty second Amendment, which was
of course added to the Constitution after FDR broke the
(19:54):
two term tradition, it says no person shall be elected
to the office of President more than twice. And so
what he says, I assume is that what if Trump
became president in some of the ways you can become
president without being elected. Suppose, for example, you are the president,
(20:19):
you're running, you're the vice president. And the person running
as president wins and then steps down. Does a vice
president who becomes president? Was he actually elected to the presidency.
So that's case number one. Case number two could be
suppose this is a little more complicated, the electoral College
(20:40):
doesn't come to a majority, and the case gets thrown
into the House, where each state votes by delegation. If
the House picks you, have you been elected to the presidency.
Maybe you haven't been, Maybe you've been chosen or selected
by the House. And there's some talk, well, well, the
Republicans could run a slate and then tell their delegates
(21:02):
to just not vote. That would deprive the winner of
a majority and then would get thrown into the House.
The third possibility, which actually seems the most realistic of
these all these very low probabilit events, is suppose the
president and the vice president win and then they resign.
That means, under the law of secession, the Speaker of
(21:24):
the House becomes the president, and the Speaker of the
House is not required under the constitution to be a
member of Congress, so the House could essentially pick anyone
in the country to be the Speaker of the House,
and that person would become president. They would never have
been elected to be president, they would just be president
through the secession law. So I assume der Schwitz is
(21:45):
arguing that any of these or all of these possibilities
are ways that President Trump could be president for a
third term. Lucretia, what do you think? What do you
think about this? Would you want Trump to be president
ford term? If he were, would you want him to
resort to these you know, tricks, or maybe maybe this
(22:06):
is uh, you know, a legitimate way to interpret the
twenty second Amendment.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
What do you think?
Speaker 1 (22:11):
I mean?
Speaker 4 (22:11):
I think that that what I the only really interesting
thing I took from dershowitz article, And I don't I'm
not really trying to diss him in any way, but
I didn't think it was very compelling. What you just
said was a lot more compelling than what Dershowitz had
to say. But he came up with this wild sort
of scenario that it would take in order for say,
(22:33):
the president to have been appointed secretary of State, you know,
and after what was it?
Speaker 1 (22:41):
The Yeah, that was a stupid way to do it.
The other three I just.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
More style armageddon event where you know, practically all of Washington,
d C Is blown up, but not anyway. I hope
if I was Trump, I would entertain the idea of
a third a third term only to alleviate some of
his lame duckness, if that makes sense, right, and that otherwise, God,
(23:09):
I hope that's why he's doing it, and that makes
a lot of sense to me. I think waiting a
little bit longer and then starting to I can't use
the word that we used to use for this. It's
starting to work on getting his vice president or probably
or perhaps his secretary of State is a viable candidate.
(23:29):
All of those things make sense to me. But he's
not going to do that yet. It's too early. No,
I don't want Trump for another term, and I don't
know that I want anybody. However, I think the twenty
second Amendment was a stupid idea in the first place.
It really was. I mean, it goes against the founder's
intentions for indefinite electability re electability for a lot of reasons,
(23:50):
and one of them is that we discuss lame duckness. Right,
you are a lame duck in your second term, no
matter what. Yes, do you remember when Obama was president,
they started floating some of these ideas that Clinton could
make him her vice president, or Clinton could make him
that you know something, and uh, when she won, which
we were all certain she was going to of course,
(24:13):
that way Clinton could become and then he let her
stay for a while and then he would kick her
out and become president again. That was a big anyway.
I don't know, Steve, Look.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
I am Steve.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
What do you think?
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I am? Well, say two questions. One is it is
it possible that someone could be president three terms? And then,
even if it is, is this a good idea?
Speaker 3 (24:40):
With twelve?
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Let me go in reverse order. I am for Trump
having a third term, if only to maximize the pain
of the left in this country and the media right
that that that alone is worth. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
The first two terms weren't enough for you, Steve. You
want to tumble down.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
I want more, you Know's as someone said to me
when Clinton was president. You know, Ronald Reagan with Alzheimer's
is better than this guy. And that's that's what I
feel about Trump, right he's just now having said that.
I think there's several things going on here. I think
this is Dershowitz wanting to stay in the live light
like Dershowitz.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
Does, okay.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
In stories today because of his picture with the Epstein releases,
maybe he just wanted.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
To well, I don't know. I mean, he's been pretty
even aggressive on that stuff too. The other thing is,
I can't see this working in practice.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I mean game this out.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I mean, suppose there's a sort of one that was
left out, which was the vice president resigns, who wins
the election, and then then you'll appoint Trump to be
vice president and that's confirmed by Congress, and then the
president steps down and then becomes president. He's not elected.
But that's another way, it seems. Maybe it's in the
book that way ame out right. That seems equally plausible
to me, better than the Speaker of the House. I
(25:53):
gather that the speaker doesn't have to be a member
of the House is a contested question.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
No, well, okay, let's leave that aside. The constition just
doesn't address it at all.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Okay, I've heard arguments that has to be never mind,
let's leave that for some other day. My point is,
how does this work out in the twenty twenty eight
election campaign? Is Trump out campaigning, are you having three
candidates or And how plausible is it that the Republican
nominee say, it's JD.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
Vance, he's out campaigning.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Vote for me, but everyone knows that he's going to
step aside in favor of Trump. I just don't see
how that works very well with voters. I think a
lot of people would say, even a lot of people
who independence inclined to vote for Trump as they've done
for three elections, say no, I don't that's just too gimmicky, right,
I mean, the mechanics may be plausible, I don't think
(26:46):
the real world politics of it would work in practice,
and I think it would probably backfire.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
So that's my speculation.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
The cretia there are.
Speaker 4 (26:58):
I mean I think that that the vice presidency thing
was the thing with Obama.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
I forget, but well, this has been around forever.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
Yeah, yeah, I'll give Douschwitz a little bit of credit.
What he said was it's not going to make any
difference for Trump. This kind of catastrophic event that would
lead to this isn't going to happen. But we ought
to be debating about what was really intended by the
twenty second Amendment and whether it's a good idea at all.
That was his kind of closing argument to the whole thing.
(27:30):
Go ahead, go ahead, Steve. My second Amendment been problematic
in any way yet other than that I was passed.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
It's not quite a trivia question, John, But I wish
i'd thought this earlier and I checked it out. But
wasn't John Tyler who took office when somebody died as president.
By the way, his great his grand Tyler, Harrison, Tyler's
grandson just died last week, which is one of those
(28:00):
amazing things which shows how young the country is.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Is that amazing, amazing, that's amazing.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Guy was president what the eighteen forties, I believe.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
I believe Tyler also was alive at the time of
the Civil War with the Confederacy.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Could be.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
But my recollection was when Harrison died, they can't prefer it.
There was some question about whether he was president or
acting as president, and so you know, I mean, there's
you know, this was again the ambiguity of the twenty
second Amendment leaves the door open to being an acting president.
The twenty second Amendment was in part past to solve
(28:37):
the Tyler problem. I think but anyway, that all point
that kind of fun.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
That's a really interesting point because when I did my
book on the presidency, I came across this that today
we just accept you ascend to the presidency if the
president dies and you're just the president. But there was
actually a strong effort when Tyler became president to relegate
him to acting president and never have the full power
of the office. Right, and this is considered Tyler's major
(29:05):
contribution to the presidency. He says said, nope, I am
the president, and I get I am going to exercise
all the powers.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
Well, you guys will remember to bring this up. But
it's kind of funny. The controversy in California with Oh
Steve remind me his name, Curb, Mike Curb, who when
Jerry Brown would leave the state right right then, because
he was independently elected, et cetera, et cetera, he would
(29:33):
not only take over the powers of the governor governor,
but would have all the powers of the governor, signing
our vetoing legislation.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
And the apporting judges.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
It was fabulous.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Jerry Brown couldn't travel.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
It was hysterically funny.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
Right, Okay, I'm done.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Yeah, Okay, So the third topic we have on deck
is now Steve is making us talk about this because
Steve cares so deeply about the feelings of young generation
whatever's XYZ leftists who feels so put upon by having
(30:11):
to live under the policies they promote on society. This
is an article by a fellow named Savage who appears
to be a screenwriter of some kind in Hollywood. I've
never heard of him, but then I never know the name.
I wouldn't know the names of any screenwriters I mean,
But anyway, so he's written this article which complains about
(30:36):
the effects of DEI policies on white males in three
industries right in journalism, Hollywood, and the Academy. And the
statistics are very striking. But Steve says that this article
has gone viral, even more viral than the Helen Andrews
article about the feminization of society that we discussed a
(30:58):
few weeks ago, which also.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
Peered in compact.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Anyway, so they're both in this journal. Have I, Steve,
have I I mean, I've read the article. Have you
have I fairly described it? And why are you so
enraptured by the suffering of white male liberals who have
to live on the policies and the theories that they
forced on the rest of us. I'm like, whaah wah
(31:22):
wah oh. I feel so bad for these people who
probably voted for the policy. I'm sure they all voted
for Obama and they voted for these policies, and they
just don't like the use of race when it's done
to them, but they love the use of race when
it's done to other people. I guess, So, Steve, why
are you so raptured by this complaining generation extramillennial?
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Well, so, first of all, hats often Compact is a
fairly new online journal that's very nicely laid out. They
publish a lot of great people across the spectrum, mostly
center right though, I think, and they now had the
second sort of viral article in a few months, Helen Andrews.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
We talked about and now this article is going viral.
That's the question. Why has this article caught fire in
the space of a week. Because it's not a new argument.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
The statistics are not entirely new, And in fact, if
you look at a sort of social media comment, you
see a lot of I'll say I'll call them old
timers who were saying, hey, wait a minute, like my
friend Fred Lynch at Claremont McKenna, he's been writing about
this since nineteen ninety and he's raising his hands saying, hey,
wait a minute. You can go back to that. You
could go to the Counting by Race book by William
(32:29):
Bennett and Terry Eastland in the mid eighties. So you know,
our team has been complaining about where this was going
for a very long time. I'm not sure, by the way,
this guy's necessarily a leftist. You just say, Hollywood screenwriter.
Do you assume that's true? But the point is is,
I think the statistics are not limited to just the
(32:50):
Let me stop that. Let me set this up by saying,
people on the left are taking notice of this article.
It's not just you know, a conservative fanboys. I just
a brief survey. Some of the lefty blogs are talking
about it. Some of the lefty podcasts, the smarter ones
which is the relative term, are talking about it and
taking it seriously.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
And they're trying to put by saying.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Well, this is limited to Hollywood and universities and the media,
except it's not. So I will mention it actually wrote
about this five six years ago. Here's a headline from
twenty July twenty twenty, so it's two three months after
George Floyd headline Chevron diversity ratio to improve as layoffs progress.
(33:35):
Let that sink in. This is Chevron, you know. And
they're saying, oh, we're doing petbacks like I do from
time to time of their management ranks because they have
too many. And they said, you know, we want to
up the share of senior level jobs held by women
and ethnic minorities to up to forty five percent from
thirty five percent in the last couple of years. So
(33:57):
we're going to make senior executives reapply for their job.
If you think about what they're saying is they were
going to target white male managers for layoffs more so
than anyone else. They confessed to the country publicly they
were going to violate the Civil Rights Act. The New
York Times did a story just a couple of years ago.
(34:18):
I wonder if I can find it.
Speaker 3 (34:19):
I'm not sure. I can't here it is. I'm sorry,
Washington Posts.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
This is from I don't have the date, but it's
in the last couple of years, Corporate America pledged to
hire more people of color, it actually did. And the
change in employment from February twenty twenty two, I think
this is twenty twenty four, all the minorities went up
substantially four million in total of underrepresented minorities whites, and
(34:49):
corporate executive positions went down by nine hundred thousand. This
wasn't just the creative classes and the places that liberals takeover.
It's spilled over in the boardroom.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Now.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
The corporate have been retreating for quite a while now
from DEI and.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
They shrunckle that.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
And that's an interesting story, but I'll skip all over
all that. I think the reason this is caught on
is because put it this way, I think for all
those years from the eighties on, we had an i'll
call it an unstable equilibrium, but at least an equilibrium
which was we knew there were things wrong with this.
The Supreme Court would get cases like ad Ran.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
And words Cove and all the others.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
Grutterer, and they temporize and they make compromises, and it
got worse and worse, and then it accelerated under Obama.
That's an interesting story that needs to be played out
at longer length, I think. But and then I think
things went crazy really before George Floyd, but it started
going crazy around twenty eighteen or so, plus or minus
a year or two, and it got so out of
(35:49):
hand that now it's a crisis proportions. And as you say, John,
it did start affecting articulate younger liberals. This is not
the first guy. I mean one person I know as
a liberal. This guy I don't know him at all,
but was on Twitter as against David Austin Walsh. He's
a very left wing person, went to graduate school, published
in all the right things. Can't get a job and
(36:10):
said he got older, he get crap for this. He
said on Twitter, I can't get a job anywhere in academia,
and I think it's because I'm a white male and
boy to the left go after him for that, but
he was a lefty saying that. So I think things
got so out of hand like they did. Sorry, I'm
going on long, And here's the last point. It's like
the immigration question. You had National Review as early as
(36:32):
nineteen ninety ninety two saying immigration is a problem, the
national question is a problem. We need to think about this,
and everyone said, oh, you're a bunch of racists, and
then Joe Biden comes along and blows the lid off,
and suddenly public opinion flips. So for all these years
you've had people like Fred Lynch saying this is terrible,
it's unprinciple, it's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and most people shrugged
(36:54):
their shoulders. And now this article hits. It's timing like
Helen Andrew's article. Her article is not her argument was
not brand new either, but it quite the moment, and
it signals to me that on this and many things
I could go on, there's a vibe shift going on.
That's the phrase of twenty twenty five, right, is vibe shift.
This is another sign of the vibe shift is shifting.
(37:15):
And I'm done, sorry for the long speech.
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Yeah, whatever.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
I say.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Here's so like he's like one hundred things in there, Steve.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
It's okay. I'm going to simplify it, and I don't
you called it a vibe shift. I'm going to use
an even more cringe term. But I think it actually
is appropriate here. And I think that the Overton window
is shifted, and it's not as Steve said, because he's
(37:47):
right in many ways that you know, the things just
hit a crisis point and you know, over the top
and everything else. This is the example I'm gonna give,
and then I'll tell you what I mean. Two years ago,
the Arizona legislature had already started pushing back on on
things like hiring for you know what do they call them?
(38:09):
Diversity statements and hiring and all of that kind of stuff.
They started pushing back on it from the Arizona legislature level.
So what would happen is I would be in these
meetings with provosts and vice provosts and deans and so forth,
and they would be talking about how they could continue
to do this and get away with it and hide
it behind you know, university net id walls and things
(38:33):
like that. It was never even It wouldn't have matter
what I said, because I tried. I lived in a
different universe entirely from these people, because you know, I
would argue that this was wrong and so on. It's
not that way anymore. It's not that way because what's
(38:56):
happened with first of all, with the Supreme Courts changing
Harvard case and so on, and Trump. I mean, the
idea that Trump made DEI illegal essentially actually has changed
the way people view it. The people who always saw
that it was unjust and racist of a different kind
(39:19):
now speak about it openly in a way that they
couldn't do so before. And so this these two articles
come along, and they're, you know, they're kind of the
usual kind of les John puts it a little bit
whiny millennials, but you know, they're they're they're speaking for
a generation that that really did get kind of screwed over.
(39:39):
John's probably right, they probably mostly voted for it, but
they in many cases. But the other thing is is
that what we're seeing with the stupid nick Flintes and
Graperers and so on, is the resentment that is the
result of all of those years of being told, you know,
(40:01):
you have your only reason for existing, John Rawls style
is to make sure that your gifts are used in
the service of the marginalized and less fortunate than you,
and that that fell very hard on white men, and
that's why young white men are turning more and more
to these awful right wing sorts of viewpoints and perspectives.
(40:22):
So I don't disagree with anything Steve said. I just
think it's a little bit more than just reaching a
crisis point or you know, a mass, critical mass. I
think it's what Trump was able to do to convince
people that DEI is a bad thing. I mean even
Harvard didn't. It was after the Harvard case too, that
(40:43):
we were told we had to stop stop doing things,
stop admitting students on the basis of the race, And
they just figured out ways to do it and just
not get caught. Now I think they're still doing that,
but they're not going to say it openly in a meeting.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Well that's a that's a legal question for you, John,
except I want to defer full consideration to another time.
But the exit question here is, is there now suddenly
you talk about the Overton window moving lucretia, Is there
now suddenly a gaping legal potential, legal liability? You know,
(41:17):
the government can do Justice Department EEOC actually has said
they're interested in this. I think this week Standards and
practices investigations where you investigate deliberate discrimination against white males
and therefore big, big liability settlements from universities and corporations
and elsewhere. You have a short answer to that, because
(41:38):
I think that's a longer question.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
But yeah, no, I think there is a lot and
you know, the I mean that's what Harmeat Dylan is
up to, right, Yes, that's trying to go to court.
I mean there are hard cases to prove because these
universities are really good at cheating. Well yeah, with lots
of words, and so are corporations now too.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
But you know what, I bet there's email chains, and
I'll bet there's all kinds of bad documentary evidence.
Speaker 3 (42:04):
A lot of it maybe get being destroyed right now.
It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
But I'll bet there's lots of documentary evidence that can
be found, and oh boy.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
Would that be fun.
Speaker 4 (42:13):
Okay, so you guys are sorry. This is my second
foray into nonsensicalness. But and I don't even know if
it's still a law that I think it was called
the uner a law, and it allowed you, if i'll oversimplify,
if a bar had lady's only night, Oh, you could
(42:34):
go and sue and you could get personal damages. You
didn't have to be harmed by it. You just had
to point it out. You could go there, and they
had to pay you like two thousand or six thousand dollars.
If and so they stopped doing those kinds of ladies'
nights and if you could prove that somebody was discriminating
a business, was discriminating on the basis of sex or race,
(42:57):
even against whites, as I recall, But I wasn't even
living in California at the time, So I'm going to
defer to you guys.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
I mean, come on, Lucretia would never show up at
a lady's night in the night anyway. How why do
you even know what happened there? I mean, come on,
I know that's what I'm saying. How do you even
know this ever went on? Unless it was lady only
nights with guns? Maybe then I mean.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
Kind of girl. I'd go with amim a girl, but
that's about it. But we'd want men there. Nobody wants
to a bar that there aren't any men exactly.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
So why would you even want to go exactly? Okay, So, okay,
we're I think we've fully exhausted Steve's sympathies for winding millennials.
So you know, readers, listeners, the fourth topic we were discussed,
(43:52):
we were going to discuss. That's what triggered the fight
I was referring to earlier between Lucretia and Steve. We
were fighting over what should be the fourth topic to
close out this show, but before we turn to one,
I want to give Lucretia the chance to respond to her.
You may not realize this, but she finally is at
(44:14):
the center of a conspiracy theory herself. This has been
It's about damn time. This is not this is real news.
Can I set this out? Because I did not know
this myself, but apparently one of the highest Yes.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
Yes, three people have already texted me about it.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Oh really, okay, Well we're we're gonna address this and
hopefully maybe Lucretia herself will click this out and put
this on X and other various places where these conspiracy
theories are stewed and spawn around because she's at the
center of them. Ladies and gentlemen, how funny.
Speaker 2 (44:54):
Do you want to?
Speaker 3 (44:54):
Go ahead?
Speaker 1 (44:55):
Go ahead?
Speaker 4 (44:56):
You can give the the generic conversation.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
Well, because for once, I'm a believer, I believe everything
that she's saying.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
I want to know.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
So. Candace Owens, who seems to just exist and specialize
in conspiracy theories, claims that the US military has an
intelligence group that is learning how to infiltrate Christian groups
and it is based at Lucretiau's house. Basically at Lucretia's
house is the center. This is I was reading the
(45:29):
tree a tweet that she put up, and it said
that the military intelligence group that is investigating and infiltrating
Christian groups is located at this fort at the military
in Challenges School where Lucretia is based. Right is this?
Speaker 4 (45:45):
This is?
Speaker 1 (45:45):
This is too exquisite, This is too exquisite. I just
I just want to sit there and admire Candace Owens
for finally putting all the pieces of the puzzle together.
And Lucretius act. I think, I think Steve and I
have been in filt traded by this very clever intelligence
scheme by the military. So Lucretia tell us what this
(46:06):
is all about? And how are we supposed to disprove
conspiracy theories?
Speaker 4 (46:11):
This one, I think is a little bit easier. Let
me give you the just one sentence that someone who
is a big fan of Candace Owans, I can't watch her,
so I had to go by what they said. But
there's all of this ratioing back and forth. Anyway. She
Candace Owans reported that Fort Watchuka in Arizona could potentially
(46:37):
be an intelligence base providing military courses to soldiers. I
am reading it verbatim, folks, with the objective of teaching
them how to infiltrate Christian groups and organizations through covert
(46:59):
psychological operations to deceive and potentially overthrow them. There is
something very sinister taking place, and we can all feel it. Okay, guys,
So what I put back after a few insults and
that sort of thing for what. Chuka is in fact
(47:23):
home to something known as Yuseko US Army Intelligence Center
of Excellence. Every military intelligence soldier and officer goes through
training at this base at least twice, usually many many
(47:44):
more times. All of the big brass short of what's
in the Pentagon in military intelligence are located at Fort Wachuka. Well, okay,
it is the military intelligence base. It's not a secret,
it's not dark and sinister. Yes, they they do. In fact,
(48:06):
they teach counterintelligence, they teach psyops. Guess what so does
Lucretia's academic program. We teach.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
See as Donald Trump would say, I knew it. See
I knew it.
Speaker 2 (48:20):
I knew it.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
Half a dozen of the senior commanders at Yosekah go
to church with me. They're not infiltrating.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
We know they're not practicing, you know that just CANDUs
will just say that's.
Speaker 4 (48:42):
Oh my god, it's just well. And the only reason
I came upon this. I'd never follow Candace Owens, but
I'm I turn on X just to check and zekind
of what's going on trending Fort Wachuka. Oh my god,
what's happening at Fort Wachuka. You know sometimes we have,
you know, disasters of different kinds and so on, and
(49:03):
so I click on it and it's just like thousands
of posts about how Erica Trump, Erica Trump Ica, Yeah right,
I'm looking at Trump on my screen. And what was
his name? The chief of security for Charlie Kirk, some
guy who goes by Mitch because he had to change
(49:27):
his name because the government's been trying to kill him
for thirty five years, swear to God, Swear to God.
Thinks he saw her ponytail. And that other guy meeting
with some Arizona something on Fort woo Chuka the night
before Charlie Kirk was killed. And this has become I mean,
(49:49):
you cannot believe how many thousands of people are buying
into this nonsense. And so I am now embarrassed. I
do not want a conspiracy theory hat.
Speaker 1 (50:00):
Oh oh, Steve, we finally don't see what I told you.
Speaker 4 (50:05):
However, that being said, I do want to point out
what what because we were going to talk about we
didn't get to it. The Susie Wilds interview where in
one of the things she's allegedly said was that JD.
Vance was a conspiracy theorist. His answer brilliant. It was
absolutely brilliant. And that's the kind of conspiracy answer. His
(50:28):
answer was, yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist. When those conspiracy
theories right now in six months turn out true, true,
and the media just doesn't cover them, That's that's what
a conspiracy theorist. I will wear that hat, but I
will never wear the Candice Owan's hat. She's just vile.
I don't get it. What is the deal? Maybe you
(50:50):
guys understand I.
Speaker 1 (50:51):
Don't Steve your thoughts. Come on, Steve, you must appreciate
the deliciousness oh conspiracy. And I gotta say I listened
to her explanation and I'm not convinced one second.
Speaker 2 (51:07):
No, Now you see, John, I'm gonna talk solo. Bocha
here in the stage, whisper that candass Owners has gotten
the drop on Lucretia. You know, well a couple of
By the way, just one sentence comments on the Susie
Wiles thing we talked about.
Speaker 1 (51:26):
I was actually going to turn to that next want it, Well, okay,
I don't. Lucretia has given Lucretia's the point of Lucrete dressing.
This is to issue the official denial of these crazy people.
Let's move on to this seriousness. Well, let me just
say it was interview in vanity fair. Well, I'll just
say this.
Speaker 2 (51:42):
Well, let me do it in reverse order. Then. Look,
I have a field theory of Canda so Owans that
also applies to Tucker Carlson. I think they're extreme narcissists
who want the attention, and they've figured out how to
keep the attention on them.
Speaker 3 (51:54):
I think it's that simple. I think it's too bad.
Speaker 1 (51:56):
I always thought. By the way, Lucretia has just posted
a picture I think of her receiving an award of
the head Christian infiltrator.
Speaker 4 (52:05):
Exactly. I have received the Medal of right something whatever
it was, but that is the commanding General of Fort Chuka. Well,
I'm gonna post from my public service right.
Speaker 2 (52:19):
Anyway, For the record, John, I've always thought Candace Owens
was overrated. Ten years ago, I was telling people, I
think you guys are making mistake promoting her.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
I don't think she's that good.
Speaker 2 (52:28):
Uh, Susie Wilds thing, I can open it this way
one of the.
Speaker 1 (52:31):
Things I can I by the way, I should have
set the stage just to briefly mentioned Susie Wilds. The
chief of staff to the President gave it sounds like
one hundred ill advised interviews. Was eleven I think so questions? Yeah,
eleven interviews. I'm sorry, maybe one hundred hours could be
(52:52):
interviews to a Vanity Fair which also released I thought
some really unflattering photos of not the cabinet of the
White House staff. And Susie Wilde said a number of
things which I don't think she's actually denied saying, just
says they're all taken out of context, things like as
Lucretius said, Yeah, that JD. Vance is a conspiracy theorist,
(53:15):
I think, said Pam BONDI has whiffed on the Epstein
matter and done generally a bad job. Said President Trump
has the personality of an alcoholic, and on and on.
Steve what is your take on this is roiling roiling Washington,
DC right now.
Speaker 3 (53:33):
No, it's not.
Speaker 4 (53:33):
No.
Speaker 2 (53:34):
Here's why I say no, it's not. Lucretia put her
finger on it. Not maybe not this way I am.
It is curious to me that the White House seems
to be very well prepared and quite sure would it,
and their response to us like they knew it was coming, right.
I mean you mentioned JD. Van saying yeah, I believe
conspiracy theories that are true. That that was his opening line,
(53:54):
which is a great opening line. The mistake here, and
by the way, there seems to be no, you know,
she's not being taken to the woodshed like David Stockman
in nineteen eighty one. I'll come back to that in
a second. And maybe a couple of those comments are
in fact meant to set up.
Speaker 3 (54:14):
Some shuffling that maybe needs to happen. I'll leave that
aside too.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
The mistake, if there is one, is thinking that you
can trust the media.
Speaker 1 (54:25):
To.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
I mean, I've given a speech before. Their greatest skill
is ventriloquist journalism. I'll tell you a brief story. I
once was taken lunch by Jason de Parley of the
New York Times. It is twenty years ago now, and he.
Speaker 1 (54:38):
Was friendly and interesting.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
It gets me talking.
Speaker 2 (54:41):
These guys are geniuses at getting you relaxed. That's why
sixty minutes works. By the way, that's always their genius.
Mike Wallace would make you think he's your best buddy,
and you relax and you'd say something damaging and they'd
pull that out and make you look terrible. I know
a couple of funny stories of people who brought their
own cameras and turn the tables on him once. I'd
always bring your own camera to a TV interview, I say, well,
(55:02):
if you think it's going to be hostile anyway.
Speaker 3 (55:04):
The point is that their they're.
Speaker 2 (55:06):
Highest skill of these elite media people is making you
relaxed and say things that you probably shouldn't say or
they're ill considered. Because I remember going back after lunch
with Jason de Parley and going in to see Chris
de Muth, my very wise bosses. Oh, I had this
great lunch with Jason de Parley, and you know, it
seemed really interested and you know my thoughts on this
and that, and Chris, you know Chris, you know, gentle
(55:27):
even tempered guy, says oh no, he was out to
get you. That's his special superpower. All these guys have
that special superpower. So I mentioned David Stockman and I'll
end here. You know, in nineteen eighty one, David Stockman,
the great budget whiz kid for Reagan, agrees to sit
down with William Grider of the Atlantic Monthly, a far
left wing advocate journalist not a reporter, and Stockman, who
(55:51):
was only what thirty five years old? Really smart, but
I think intellectually unstable a lot of ways, which I
explained in my Reagan book. He thought, oh, I can
explain it all to Grider. I can convert him, I
can bring him around. Instead. The article that came out
the education of David Stockman was very damaging because Stockman
got relaxed and blurted out a lot of stupid things.
Speaker 3 (56:13):
And did Susie Wils do that?
Speaker 2 (56:15):
Maybe she seems wildier than that, haha, but maybe not.
I you know, one straw on the Wind I said,
I was done, but I'm not. One straw on the
Wind is about three weeks ago, a very harsh article
in The New York Post about Cash Betel by Carol Markowitz.
Carol Markowitz is a very pro Trump columnist at the
(56:35):
New York Post, and I thought, Ah, that's interesting. Is
this really Carol Markowitz doing her own original reporting? Maybe?
But I wonder if it's a planted story. You know,
that's one way you start turning to tables on somebody.
You know this, John, This is the way you turn
the tables on Washington is you plant stories about people
that you want to remove or pressure.
Speaker 1 (56:56):
Well, other week, it sounded like I didn't know about
such things. N I would never participate in such.
Speaker 3 (57:06):
Ahead.
Speaker 4 (57:07):
Not a different take, another take, I guess is a
better way to put it in. I think that. Let
me give you my my anecdote. Many years ago, I
in California. I was interviewed by a reporter about the
term limits that were being discussed at the time, and
I said, you know, I think term limits are a
(57:27):
bad idea. And I went through all of the reasons
why I thought term limits were a bad idea. And
you know, by the way, every reason I gave has
turned out to be true in California, just so you know.
But we won't go into that now. But but I said,
I understand why it is that voters are clamoring for
(57:48):
term limits. In many ways, their legislators don't listen to them.
They deserve, you know, they deserve to discuss that the
voter show form sometimes headline front pay legis slaters deserve disgust. Yeah,
you know that that was such a tiny thing I
said out of so many other things. Very okay that
(58:11):
everybody knows how that works. But I guess what I'm
saying is I was careful and I still let myself
say something dumb like that. The worst part about the
story on Susie Wilds wasn't just taking things out of context.
It was the tone of the whole thing. It was
the you know, look at the title of it, Power
(58:31):
and Peril. You know, immediately, immediately, you know this is
going to be something nasty, And all the way through
there's all this innuendo and insinuation, none of it having
any kind of back you know, evidence to back it up.
And the worst thing of all this is and and
(58:52):
it makes me so angry that students will fail a
paper if they try to do this to me. A
lot of people say that. Many people say that, critics
say that, you know these kind of Many people believe
that those drive me crazy because they are Weasley straw
Men arguments, you don't have any proof that anybody ever
said that, and if you do, I want to see it.
(59:13):
I don't even care about footnotes, but I want to
see proof if you put that. Stupid reporters do it
all the time.
Speaker 3 (59:18):
Critics argue that, oh right, yeah, you know ye.
Speaker 4 (59:23):
So anyway, that's not that I disagreed with anything either
of you said, but it's it's worse in some ways
because it's not just taking things out of context or
tricking somebody into saying something that they shouldn't, but it's
the framing of it too. I sorry for the phrase
force the narrative that is so insidious in my opinion. Yeah,
(59:52):
I guess I have to do Babylon then, is what
you're telling me? Yes, Babylon.
Speaker 1 (59:56):
Yeah, that wraps up the show and Babylon B headlines Lucretia.
Speaker 4 (01:00:02):
Okay, I'll make it quick ground. Oh we never talked
about and I didn't even remember to tell you guys.
This was really my big, my big thing this week,
which is that I don't think what happened in Australia
should be considered just a result of anti Semitism. I
want to make the point, over and over and over.
(01:00:24):
They don't shut down Christmas markets because of anti Semitism
is Islam. It is the evil of Islam. But okay,
next time I won't. That's not fair. But groundbreaking news
study finds Islamophobia may be partially caused by Muslims killing
people all the time. And then this one's not funny
(01:00:46):
because I read a story in the New York Post
this morning about a man who who shot somebody who
attacked him, you know, the peaceful guy, and they they
couldn't get him for it because of self defense, but
they got him for not having guns that he did license.
And he's going to go to jail. Some old guy,
Australian man who wrestled gun away from terrorists charged with
(01:01:07):
unlawful firearm possession.
Speaker 3 (01:01:09):
That's so funny.
Speaker 4 (01:01:10):
Would I heard them say that that the announcement originally
was these these This man, when he comes out of
his call, will be criminally charged.
Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
Really, I actually don't understand. I saw the video and
he was quite heroic, but then he didn't shoot the
guy yeah pointed at him, and yeah, I don't understand
why he didn't shoot the two killers.
Speaker 3 (01:01:38):
Well he might, I mean, there are several reasons for that.
Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
He might not have known how to use a gun,
in which case you don't want to improvise on the moment.
But but there's also possible that he knew that he
would be legally vulnerable if he did.
Speaker 3 (01:01:50):
I raises they're insane down there.
Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
Yeah, yeah, that's insane.
Speaker 4 (01:01:55):
You probably heard today that the House, without the help
of for slimer Republicans, passed the ban on mutilating children.
Democrats blast Republicans for trying to put hard working genital
mutilators out of work. Tragic Mandanni's aunt he slightly uncomfortable
(01:02:20):
at supermarket after Australian terror attack. Yeah, to halt violence
against Jews Australia bands hanukkah.
Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
Yeah, that's also not inaccurate, not funny this one.
Speaker 4 (01:02:37):
Media reports mass shooting in Australia. Fake news. Media reports
mass shooting in Australia. But that's impossible because guns are
illegal there. And finally, for you, Steve, because we almost
made it through without this, So just for you, struggling
chiefs trades Taylor Swift for new it Girl Sidney Sweeney
(01:02:59):
in a big to.
Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
Say this season, oh, you saved the show because Steve
mentioned her name on episode. We almost got their whole episode.
We already weaned him off the Clean Air Act and
almost wiened them off Sydney.
Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
But you mentioned.
Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
Never, So let's close out. Always drink your whiskey, meat,
buy more books, and Steve, what is the latest AI outrage.
Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
You have for us?
Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
I don't have an AI. I have a brief, one
sentence paraphrase of Henry Adams that's very topical and it
speaks for itself, and it runs as follows. Uh. You
may know the original Henry Adams quote when I say it, Uh,
the progression of Minnesota Democrats from Hubert Humphrey and Walter
Mondale to Ilhan Omar and Tim Waltz single handedly refused
the theory of evolution. He said that about Henry Adams,
(01:03:53):
said that about the progression of presidents from Washington to Grant,
which was wrong about Grant.
Speaker 3 (01:03:57):
But still it's funny.
Speaker 4 (01:03:58):
But you get the point.
Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
People we have since said that about the Adams family.
Speaker 4 (01:04:02):
I know, well, yeah, that's right, we can someday maybe
AOC becomes president.
Speaker 3 (01:04:10):
No, it's not happening.
Speaker 1 (01:04:12):
Well with that, everybody, Yeah, but great to be with
you and we'll see you next week when our in
our next special Christmas special episode of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour. Bye everybody.
Speaker 4 (01:04:30):
A hub for that'st Restaurant, because it is my favorite holiday.
Speaker 5 (01:04:34):
But all this year has been a busy. I don't
think I have the energy riding my already man roster's
consents the seasons. The perfect gift for me would be
completions and connections left from last year, tea shopping counter,
most interesting Adams number, but never the time most of anyone.
Speaker 4 (01:04:54):
Has along those lines of Jack.
Speaker 5 (01:04:55):
Those halls, term those trees, praise.
Speaker 4 (01:04:57):
I've come on Christmas.
Speaker 5 (01:04:59):
Here I snay the cat's my brothers by myself.
Speaker 3 (01:05:03):
This year, Ricochet joined the conversation
Popular 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
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.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.