December 5, 2025 • 59 mins
Lucretia hosts this week's episode with the running theme that there's too much pearl clutching going on among the hand-wringers in Washington and the media. We flop our pearls of wisdom on the Tennessee special election, the J6 bomber arrest, the double-tap bombings on Venezuelan "fishing boats," the Minnesota welfare scandal, and the related immigration control issues it raises. We have some diversions into the latest Trumpian nomenclature, including his rehabilitation of "third world countries" and the "R-word," as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calls it, and how Sydney Sweeney might react to listening to an episode of the 3WHH (because it is the new Kantian Categorical Imperative that Sydney Sweeney must be kept in the news).
Exit music this week is “Clutchin’ Pearls,” by Ross Kleiner and the Thrill. Key lyric that does not apply to our hostess with the mostest: “She’s so mad/I left her clutchin’ pearls!”
Exit music this week is “Clutchin’ Pearls,” by Ross Kleiner and the Thrill. Key lyric that does not apply to our hostess with the mostest: “She’s so mad/I left her clutchin’ pearls!”
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, whiskey, come and take my pain, the Hondys, my brain,
Oh whiskey, Why think alone when you can drink it
all in with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour, Join your bartenders,
Steve Hayward, John You, and the international woman of mystery,
Lucretia where the slapping up? And David Hain't you easy
(00:28):
on the soul? Chaps?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Got it?
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Give me and let that whiskey flow.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Welcome everyone to this special edition of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour because we're all together at our usual spots
and able to drink alcohol, because it is a decent
time for drinking alcohol. But John, those of you who
have live feed or watching a video just got out
of the shower and didn't bother to pick up a
(00:54):
bottle of whiskey on his way from the shower. So
I'm I are you?
Speaker 2 (01:00):
I know, mister Lucretia in your household has them strategically
placed every fifty feet so that you're never far from
a ball.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
My house is small enough that you're probably right, but
I am prepared to cover down for you on both Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
So wait, so John, I mean you're at the Olympic Club.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Is that what you said no, not the Olympic famous
club in San Francisco. But you existed Gym's University, so
people would train for the Olympics at places like this.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
You know, you're starting to remind me of Lances Zuomi
a little bit. Who you know is this Japanese guy
who was very British, Right, he goes to Scottish games,
resides over Scotch whiskey tastings, and I swear it doesn't
drink and doesn't mean he's a spiritual Scotsman. And see,
and you're the most Okay, He's.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Got a lot of fuss. He's got a lot of
problems because he wants to be someone else, but then
he wants to be Scottish. That's his big problem.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Well, my point is you are the most clubbable person
I know. I'm hard pressed to think of a club
that you don't belong to. That's all.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
I love clubs.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
See what's so bad?
Speaker 2 (02:04):
You know?
Speaker 3 (02:04):
I don't love any clubs? John? You know why don't you?
Because I would have anyone that would have me as
a member.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Right, it's just because you give them my name whenever
you go and one.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
And they like that is true. I've been to more
than one. That on on on your coat tails? John Right, So,
how are you, gentlemen this evening?
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Well? I am good, I am so. You know last
week I mentioned my discovery of Kill Karen Kill. You know,
I keep getting different. I was chastised by listeners that
I was pronouncing it wrong, and I looked it up
on the internet, so it must be true that it's
kill Karen or kill Karena. There's disputes about this, but anyway,
that's what I'm drinking and it's great. Yeah, since I
(02:46):
was telling you last week, it's the one. I got
spirits and spices there in Connecticut Avenue and heavily peted
so that we'll.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Have the bottle left.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Steve, Well, I got two of them. How do you know?
Speaker 3 (02:58):
That's why I am drinking scotch enough to vote again.
Some people will stop accusing me of those horrible things
like being a cougar, and it's lovely, but I'm going
to finish my one first, so we are very happy
to be here. My theme for tonight, and I almost
forgot to put them on till the last minute, is
that they will not the three Whiskey Happy Hour will
(03:20):
not engage in pearl clutching, like the rest of the
damn world has been over practically everything this week, and
it's been driving me crazy. The most made up controversies
on the planet cause people to hyperventilate and and and
need their fans and and and have you know their
their smelling salts starting with well.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
What you mean you mean? We mean we're getting about
a fake news? Is that what you're saying? And and
and what if those pearls were on the dead bodies
of drug runners were killing in the Caribbean, I would
clutch those pearls and take them to the jeweler, but
which I.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Don't know if I'd want to touch them, but I'm
not desperate. I had four strands of them, so I'll
leave them there. We have to go way back in
the I mean ancient history. There was an election last
week on Tuesday. Today is Thursday, and you know, the
whole world has gone crazy four times around since Tuesday.
(04:19):
But on Tuesday, the Republican won in a Republican district,
the Republican that President Trump and Mike Johnson both endorsed.
But everybody is clutching their pearls over the fact that
he only won by nine points, and this is proof
that the Republicans are done for. They are toast in
(04:40):
the twenty six midterms. Everybody is saying so, even on
the right. Or am I wrong?
Speaker 1 (04:47):
No, I'm actually Henry Olsen, who's normally kind of gloomy
about these things. He wrote that Republicans should be worried
about the election, but this was not the portent of
doom that so many people are saying, and he does
the typical Henry ola and run for the numbers about it.
So I think there are two takeaways. One is the
Democrats nominated an insane woman. I mean she makes AOC well, yes,
(05:10):
but the point is she might have one if they
nominated a sensible person, but the Democrats like to nominate
crazy people. The other thing is it was a district
that Trump won by twenty two points, so there's some
considerable erosion there. But the third thing is is the
polls showed it within two or three points and the
(05:30):
guy won by like eight or nine. So I think
that everybody should calm down. It's going to be you know,
it could be a tough year for Republicans next year,
depending on circumstances, but turnout will improve when you have
a general election in November of next year, so everybody
calmed down and quit watching your pearls.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
What do you think, John, I know, I agree it's
too far out to really tell. On the other hand,
it's not It would not be strange for the president
to lose a lot of seats and the mid ten elections,
and so if they lose the House majority, I wouldn't
be surprised. What I wouldn't be surprised about would be
if the Republicans lost the Senate majority, because there are
(06:11):
very very few I think maybe there are almost no
vulnerable Republicans up in the right in the midterm, so
they would have to be a real wave for Republicans
to lose the Senate.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Is Susan Collins considered at all vulnerable? In Maine?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
I believe the governor is running against hers. I mean,
they got a high quality candidate to run against her,
but she always seems to pull it out at the end.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
They haven't had the primary yet. Remember it's the tattoo
the Nazi tattoo guy who's actually way ahead of the
governor and the Democratic primary.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
So who I just wondered, Look six years ago, well
five years ago, but the last time Collins was up,
all the reputable polls had her trailing by eight to
ten points, and she won by five points. So Maine
is a peal. I would bet on her to be reelected.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
One of the things I want to throw one thing
out there, and that was that something we've talked about before,
the Republican ground game in some of these places is
is pitiful. Republicans don't seem to have the same organizations,
grassroots efforts. Tons of money poured into those grassroots efforts
(07:25):
and so on, and they tend to act like establishment
Republicans and not necessarily, especially those not affiliated with the
National Trump Organization. They just they want to do politics
the old way. I don't know if that's true, and
if that had anything to do with why that woman
came as close as she did, and she was a
(07:47):
you're write a total nut job, Oh my god. And
then my favorite thing was, you know, she said she
hated country music and she hated Nashville. And she shows
up at her victory party, which heared out of course,
to be the defeat party in this god awful thing
that you couldn't have gotten Roseanne Cash to where in
(08:07):
nineteen sixty three. It was the ugliest country western glittery.
It was horrendous. And that kind of pandriy just makes
me laugh. I don't know what else to say.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Now, there you go again with your lookism. Well look,
I mean the trainout thing is something I know a
little bit about, not from so much direct experience, but
from well old experience. So I think you know this.
My dad back in the late sixties and thirty seventies
was on the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee. He
(08:44):
was elected. That was an elected office back then. And
my dad in nineteen six I love to brag about this.
My dad in nineteen sixty eight beat a rock, a
fellow Republican incumbent. The guy's name was Richard Reardon. And
isn't that funny, right? My dad beat him by eight
Oh sorry, this is worth a detour. My dad beat
him by I think twelve votes in the initial count.
(09:07):
And Reardon, you know, rich guy always he paid for
a recount for a stupid little party office, which is insane,
and recount I think had my dad up by sixteen
votes or something ridiculous. So, but the point was is
that in a number of special elections in those years.
My dad, who you know, had a business to run
and you know, lots of stuff to do. He was
(09:27):
also on the school board in my hometown at the
same time. But when they'd had any special elections, they
look up and say, that's a Democratic district for Congress
or a state legislative seat. And it's a Democratic district
by two or three points. I'll bet we can steal
it if we organize a really good get out the
vote drive, And they did in a couple of cases,
but it's very much They had a good candidate in
(09:49):
one race I remember in particular. But the point is
is that it's kind of ad hoc and that's kind
of the way Republicans do it. What you know, the
last election, you heard, oh, Trump is going to outsource
to turn out to Turning Point USA, And I thought, oh, dear,
I'm not sure that's a good idea. But I think
it turned out to be a very good idea. Kirk
and his organization really did turn out the young people
(10:10):
and all the rest of that. The Democrats, though, you're right,
they have you know, the George Soros funded and the
labor unions and the others. They have a turnout machine
that goes back decades. It works like clockwork, and our
team is more ad hoc and inconsistent, but we know
how to do it if we put our minds to it.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
So I have a confession. First of all, I went
door to door canvassing for Bob Dole.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
How is that? I knew it?
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I knew it, knew this cruciate things all in that,
well I was.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
I was a little bit naive back in those days.
But even back then, I remember thinking, why the hell
would somebody do this? Either they're going to vote for
Bob Dole or they're going to vote for Bill Clinton.
There's no convincing them. You know, everybody's made up their mind.
This is the way my mo I object my own
I know, I project my own moral certainty and political
certainty onto the rest of the world. The other day
(11:07):
I was talking with we shall call him a blue
collar worker. Have you set Mexican guy who was moving
furniture for me at the university, taking old furniture out
and so forth, And somehow the subject of the military
base came up and the university. He says, well, the
university has to hate this place because of the military base,
(11:28):
and and you know, all that stuff about shooting fishermen
out of the water and who you know, and he
just went on and he said and then he said
and Gaza. He said, Israel's only been there for two
hundred years, and Palestine's been there since the beginning of time.
And oh my god, and this guy's moving to my furniture.
So I'm just, oh, no, Israel actually hasn't even been there.
(11:50):
The modern Israel's only been there since nineteen forty eight.
But then again Palestine. But he didn't care. And I thought, Okay,
there are a lot of really stupid people out there
who only get their news from one side, and they
I don't know. Anyway, it was it was eye opening
to me, at my ripe old age of sixty five,
(12:11):
that there was anybody who could be that dumb, well
passionate about it.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
I thought you were bringing up was your personal contact
with voters. This is something I'm amazed has not been
more carefully studied by political scientists who like to count
things and run regression models, because if you go back to,
for example, in nineteen sixty eight, the clean for gene
kids who cut their hair and shave their beards, and
descend it on New Hampshire had a lot to do
with Jean McCarthy almost defeating Lynnon Johnson and driving him
(12:39):
out of the race. And I could give several examples.
Now they're anecdotal, except I know of some candidates who
won because they knocked on ten thousand doors and met
the voters face to face. And you know what, people
like to be asked for their vote. They love it
from the candidate. But if they have volunteers who aren't crazy,
and you know, nutjobs who were, you'd be surprised how
many votes you get to do it. And in the
(13:00):
close legislative or congressional ranks, I think that can make
a difference.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
And as I suppose a woman I knew in Sacramento,
Steve who nobody came out of nowhere and uh knocked
on and and and her. At the end of her campaign,
I remember the friend of the Sacramento b showed her
with her shoe yep, holding her shoe that had a
hole in the sole of it, that she'd walked so
far and knocked on so many doors and she won.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Was that Barbara Albie? I'm thinking, well, she was the
legendary person that never mind, it matter.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
The case said most voters, there's a huge block of independence,
and people who are uncertain, they don't make up their
minds until, you know, two three weeks before the election
of that, and so they could be persuaded by the
personal touch and that absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
And you know, we theorists like Lucretian may or law
professors like you don't tend to think in those sort
of you know, grassroots types of things. But and I'm
amazed the political scientists haven't studied that more closely, because
I'm convinced that.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
I thought they did. They haven't.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Wow, I don't think so, not very much.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
I can't even imagine my vote.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Well, I do know. I do know of one study
done a few years ago by a UCLA graduate student,
and it was about I wrote the sub powerline at
the time, ten years ago. Now it's a graduate student
who had said, oh, people door knocking against same sex
marriage initiative in California whatever that was in two thousand
and eight. They made a huge difference. Turned out the
guy had made up all of his data and the
(14:27):
study was retracted. So there you go. Okay, Oh so.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Another clutching moment. Brian Cole has been junior. Brian Cole
Junior has been named as the J six bomber planter guy.
And when it first came out that this is a
short time period, by the way, folks, it was everywhere
(14:55):
on every news channel, all across social media that the
guy was a white suprema syst It turns out when
they finally released the picture of which Brian Cole Junior
they were talking about, and the actual person, he happens
to be a black guy who's a leftist, anarchist sociopath.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
That's that's looks like maybe lives in his parents' basement.
I mean he's from a you know his parents.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Yeah, okay, mom's one of those radical she's a what's
Barack Obama's mother's name. What was her name?
Speaker 1 (15:31):
I forget now, but whatever.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
It is, you know that proud of the fact that
she so she's a white woman and says the white
white people should be embarrassed about how racist white people are.
And so anyway, sorry, all of this came out in
the last couple of hours.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
I think the interesting question to me is it will
be By the way, I have a running theme for
several of your items here Lucretian. I'm going to hold
it for a couple more of them, but I'll hint
at it by saying, one question to me is how
the media is going to report this, not just the
accuracy of the person and his anarchist ties or whatever,
but is someone going to ask why did it take
(16:08):
the Trump FBI to reopen this investigation in a serious way?
Why did the Biden people simply ignore this question, which
apparently they did at least that's the early reporting about it,
is that the Trump FBI reopened it and devoted resources
to finding this person. There wasn't a.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Lot of iffy things, sure, right, Yeah, Julie Kelly's been
sort of dogged about all of this. I don't follow
every single thing she does, but there are just a
lot of inconsistencies. But if they actually had some sense
of who this person was, it's clear why they didn't
come out and if they knew who he was way
(16:43):
back when or because of the inconsistencies in the whole situation.
You know what they did about Kamala Harris once they
found the bomb was there, and some other weird things
that happened. I don't remember all of it. They just
didn't want to get to the bottom of it, too
busy chasing after Grandma's who walked into the capitol. I
guess that's the pat line we get. We say, who
(17:08):
knows if we'll ever hear the whole story on it. Yeah, John,
you're the non conspiracy theorist here.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I wear that title proudly. Yes, but I don't think.
I mean, you don't really think the FBI under Biden
covered this up. I mean the reports look like it
just looks like they had to. I was reading one
of the reports of the link was they had to
go through two hundred thousand purchases of a certain kind
(17:40):
of blasting cap Is that right to find this guy?
And it just took enormous numbers of main power. Yeah,
it just took enormous man power to figure to correlate
all the data. But they I bet a I could
have caught him in five minutes. I guess.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Well, I don't know if we know that they dropped
the case, but I'm sure it was a low priority
and if they look the things that were done in
the last few months to find this guy could have
been done four years ago but weren't. And I think
there's a legitimate question as to why so. I don't
I make no assumptions on what happened, but simply the
saying that's a question that should be asked by about
the media and congressional committees.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
I could totally see the Biden Justice Departments thinking and
saying I don't know if they said it into public,
but I'm sure they said convicting the people who broke
into the Capitol in January sixth is a higher priority.
You know, there are more of them. They're violent, we
see there are on tape. It's easier to prosecute them
then you know, finding this one needle in a haystack. Guy.
(18:43):
I mean that's I could see them saying that, and
then the American people could decide where they liked that
when they had the last election, which they did.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Well, the violence, I will remind you, was much more
one sided against the five people who died as a
result of the uh FBI and the Capitol police. But
we'll just change the subject and move on to oh,
another very controversial subject. I got quite a few reports
about you, John said CNN. I got it. It came
(19:21):
across Twitter to me. Take biting in hook line and
sinker on the faulty Washington Post reporting on what happened
in the double top strike of the Venezuelan boat on
what September two, and very upset with you for getting
your news from the Washington Post before the whole story.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Came out week. I said, if I said, if the
facts and the story are true, and I did make
a point of saying, we don't know what the facts are,
but if they're true, you can't give an order of
no quarter and no survivors, right, That's pretty clear. And
I said, so anybody who gave such an order be
(20:01):
illegal and no one would be able to carry it out.
But I did say I have no idea what happened.
We still I'm not sure even after the hearings today
we know exactly what happened. So what I saw in
the New York Times, which actually has been contradicting, which
actually has been almost calling the Post, as Steve said,
(20:24):
almost saying the Post has been lying ye the New
York Times set. It's very interesting if you look at
the Post and Time stories today about Admiral Bradley's testimony,
the Post almost doesn't repeat what is the most important
fact that Admiral Bradley testified that no one gave any order,
saying no quarter, no survivors. That really is the most
(20:44):
important thing in the whole story, because if Admiral Bradley
didn't receive that order, then all the stuff about Hegseeth
turns out to be made up, and then it really
is just a question of and Admiral Bradley didn't think
he was carrying out any order like that, then all
of it really boils down to is did Admiral Bradley
exercise the proper military discretion when he ordered a second
(21:09):
strike on the boat? That's not an outright violation of
the laws of war order sing no survivors would be.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Yeah, So the this smacks to me, LUCRETI M with you.
This smacks to me is a I won't say, a
contrive story. But you know, somehow this idea got out
that heg Seth had made his order. The media and
Democrats are out to get hag Seth, and so they
ran with it, and the Post ran with it as
the host, as the Post did with other hoaxes, post hoaxes.
(21:41):
That would be a great breakfast cereal, would you be?
But look, Dan, the interesting thing, though, is the New
York Times contradicting it. Usually the New York Times goes
all in for the attack dog stories against Republicans, and
this is curious, and I'm I'll just speculate here. There's
a couple of possible motives. One is that the New
York Times, and by the way, I give other examples
(22:02):
in other areas, the New York Times is actually trying
to do a better job of journalism because they realized
they'd gotten way out of whack. But it's also possible
that they have it in for the Washington Post because
the Post is the other rivals, the authoritative political newspaper,
and the Washington Post is moving to the right in
its editorial pages now its news pages. And maybe the
(22:25):
Time he says, well, right, and he said I want
to And they have been hiring people. They've been firing
crazy people and hiring sensible people. I think it still
isn't excuse me, coherent yet, but that's an interesting And
maybe the Times wants to punish the Post Post for
deviating from the editorial party, like I don't know. Those
are just speculations, but I thought that was very interesting
(22:45):
that the New York Times was out so firmly with
a different account of things that was that repudiated the
Post account and long time.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
I'm sure the Times tried to confirm the story and
they would have been more than happy to print the
story that said we found the same things out as
the Post, but instead they got denial after denial. In fact,
they couldn't find a single person involved with the mission
who verified the Post's account.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
So remember the accounts.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
I said on the CNN show. Only if the facts
in the Post story are true and we're still waiting
to find out what happened, you know.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
What the problem with that, John is. And I don't
mean this as a slam on you in any way,
shape or form, But if you're on CNN and parroting
the line that they want you to pairt even with
all of the qualifiers your your detractors are going to
get upset with you. They're not going to give you
the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
But that being said, I'm really upset to hear that.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
I can tell you what, but you have redeemed yourself
in my eyes for the moment, for the moment. But
I do want to say this, I'm gonna you guys
never bought me all the nice things I do for you,
still never bought me my products tinfoil hat. So I
can't put it on right now. But I actually, I
don't know that the Washington Post is necessarily complicit in this,
(24:06):
but certainly wanting to push it along. Remember that the
Sedition six, Seditious six, whatever we're calling them, were really
quite humiliated by the fact that they they, you know,
came out with this video encouraging members of the military
to violate, to refuse to carry out any illegal orders
(24:27):
and you know, oh, we're just stating the law as
it is, which isn't exactly accurate. But when they were
pressed on the point, not one of them, not one
of them, could name a single even ambiguous instance where
the where Trump had violated some law that the military
should not be following. And this gave them the perfect example.
(24:50):
I know that because that ugly despicable pos troll Mary Kelly,
most despicable creature on the plane Gollum. Yes, yes, and
he's on every damn He's on more news shows than
(25:12):
John is, and and he shouldn't be because John's Hansom
and Mark Kelly looks like like Gollum.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Well at the very end, can I jump in here
and say that, first of all, I'm i'm I get
my tea. Well, hat on. I wonder if those six
people knew that the story was in the works.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
That I bet, no, I bet what happened was there
are enemies of Hegseth within the Pentagon, perhaps JAG attorneys,
and they leaked this to follow on with the effects
of that video, which you know, in the left wing
media is the greatest thing right well, you know, if
you listen, if you listen to their echo chamber, they
(25:50):
think it was a throwing down the gauntlet to Trump
and identifying outrageous violations of the rules of war, and
so this they think they're piling on with more momentum,
I think, and that I think the video encouraged some
people in the uniform military who are lawyers or civilian
civilian civil servants and the Pentagon to exaggerate what happened
(26:14):
and to spin it in a way that looked like
hag Seth had given this order.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
You are so because you should be pissed that you've
lied to Yeah, you you are so right that that
that cohort within the Pentagon is usually the worst of
the worst. I know quite a few of them personally,
and they are just they're They're awful. They're truly, truly awful.
But all I want to say is what John Kennedy,
Senator John Kennedy had to say about it. Uh, they've
(26:41):
clearly exceeded the limits of their meds. Was really quick
thing about this? Back to my my not so bright
furniture mover guy. Uh, most Senator Jack Reid from Rhode Island.
Most narco traffickers are not in those boats. They pay
(27:03):
people to do that. It's the way they make money.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Yeah, I'm gonna leave it. If any of our listeners
cannot follow my point on that one, go move to
Rhode Island and vote for Jack Reid. Wow, what an idiot?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
I call them Jack the thin read.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
But yeah, yeah, can I make of make a point
that there's a difference between Uh. I think the media
and people are confusing two things. And even I even
heard some people on the National Review podcast, which I
love listening to, but I've found them confusing a few
things that they were getting confused. What's a legitimate target
(27:40):
in a war with how you treat right people like
shipwrecked people, the wounded in a war. I don't think
there's any doubt if we were with Venezuela, those boats
are legitimate targets, right. You're allowed to stop the enemy
from moving around things like you're allowed to bomb network
you know, train networks, communication networks, electrical networks. Why would
(28:03):
you not be allowed to stop Venezuela from sending illegal
drugs abroad and getting money back? It seems like, I think,
But I think people get that confused with the other question.
What if you blow one up in their survivors, what
do you do with the survivors? That's that would be
true no matter what the target is. I think people
are confusing the legality of the war itself with how
(28:26):
you fight it, and they're different questions.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
I agree, But I also think that the latter question
they're confusing. The un or excuse me, the Geneva Convention
says that you you basically you can't do a double
tap strike after you've you've hit something, because you're not
supposed to be targeting rescue workers and whatnot. Who come
(28:51):
to pull the survivors out of some strike. That's the
I'm oversimplifying it, but I mean that's actually I think
it depends your fans. Yes, go ahead a lot of
That's the thing.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
That's the thing that I find about, what if it
is a jig attorneys who are leaking this, I think
they're what they're doing is pretending that the laws of
war are clear and give you bright line answers for
everything beforehand. And I was talking to reporter today, I
was trying to explain the laws of war give a
lot of discretion to the military. And we don't even
(29:25):
have lawyers go around with police officers, you know, we
don't have this idea that lawyers should drive around in
a police cruiser and tell the police officer beforehand, oh
that's an acceptable arrest, that's not accept We trained the
police officers and expect them to do their job, and
then if something violates the rules, and we investigated after.
(29:45):
And these JAG attorneys have assumed enormous power where they
sit there, and they I think bless or veto almost
every targeting decision. I don't think people realize how they Yeah,
who's happy here, Yeah, it's been happening for whiles. Actually
I blame it on the Clinton It was that way
when I worked in the Justice Department. I was astounded
(30:06):
when I worked in the Just Department, and after nine
to eleven I saw the level of how much lawyer
there was in basic military operations. I think that people
would people would be shocked if they saw, you know,
just lawyers saying yes no on every missile stripe. But
that's essentially what's going on now.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
So two points one is and look, some of these
stories are well known, but American troops in the closing
months of World War Two committed what would now be
described as war crimes, you know, shooting Germans that they'd captured.
I think oftened with a very good reason. I don't
remember specific incidents, but that's what happens in war, right.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
No.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
No, there's a broader story here, though, John and Lucretia,
which is, we have this huge flotilla of the Navy
and Marines down near Venezuela, and we are, as the
old saying goes, saber rattling, and we still haven't heard
from Trump or anyone in the administration what exactly is
going on here. I mean, we want to force Maduro out,
we say that, but I do wish that someone would
(31:11):
make the case that which I have several times on
this podcast, made that Venezuela is a bad actor, right,
and and you know, we have all kinds of castes
of belly with them. Now. I think Trump's reluctant to
because he is a non interventionist, right, he does not
want to be you know, ill Forever wars nonsense and
all the rest of that. But I do think there's
(31:31):
a president here, and it you know, goes back to
my favorite president before Trump. We invaded Grenada in nineteen
October of nineteen eighty three, but in March of eighty three,
Reagan gave an Oval office address, which presidents don't do anymore,
and it was all about Central America, and it was
why niic Araga was bad and why we're supporting resistance
to them, and oh, by the way, why are the
(31:53):
Cubans building a ten thousand foot runway on this little
island of Grenada. Bad things are happening there and we
have keep our eye on that too. So he telegraphed
ahead of time that we've been watching bad stuff happening
in Central America. And then, and by the way, you know,
after he invaded Grenada, the Nicaraguan's called up our secretary
of State Shultz at the time and said, you know,
(32:14):
if you ever want to get Americans out of Nicaragua,
just call us on the phone and will help. It
was very effective and sending a signal.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Okay, all right, John. Credit to John, he said the
same thing a little bit more intellectually solid in his Now,
I don't mean it like that. I mean what I
mean is he actually provided a constitutional separation of powers
explanation for why it is it's safe to trust the
(32:43):
president and as commander in chief to make some of
these kinds of decisions, but the importance of having Congress
first and foremost support that, and then by extension from
Congress public support as well. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Well it was probably when my internet was out a
couple of minutes ago. I'm having problems here listeners tonight,
So you guys know what to do when I'm okay, sorry,
go ahead, okay.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
So, speaking of bad things are happening, I am. I'm
gonna go ahead and be never mind a conspiracy theorist.
I'm just gonna be a bigot. I agree with Trump.
We don't need any damn somalis here. We don't need
be much more. I'm gonna be much more serious than that.
I believe that Islam is the greatest source of evil
(33:29):
in the world, and that it is not a religion,
it is an evil ideology event on world domination. We
will have to tolerate religious expressions of Islam to some
extent because we have a commitment to religious freedom and
I'm not gonna be in the business of deciding what
(33:50):
religions should get it and what shouldn't. However, there is nothing, nothing,
despite Richard Stupid Richard Gear claims the entire planet has
far off a cliff. Do you really think these refugees
and immigrants are different than us? Yes?
Speaker 1 (34:05):
I do, Yes, I do.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Our friend Jeremy Carl had a really interesting article yesterday,
I think in American mind probably, and he outlined all
the ways in which Somali immigrants and immigrants from other
Muslim countries, that the things that they practice, the things
that they believe in. You know, you tying up these
(34:29):
god awful men, Islamic men, tie up little boys and
make them dance and rape them and you know, marry
their three year old and beat their women. Today. You know,
we could go on and on and on about all
of the ways they are are subhuman, barbaric, vile creatures
who do not belong in Western society. We have not
(34:51):
demanded that they assimilate.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
I you know, I do think there is an element
of what you say which is right. But I think
to generalize it to all Somalis are to all Muslims,
I think it goes too far. I mean, there are
I think a record of successful assimilation in the country,
people coming from Egypt, from Lebanon, from Jordan. I mean,
(35:15):
there are very patriotic Muslims in the nice to serve
in the armed forces. You guys know this. We had
this wonderful guy who worked at the Claremont Institute. I'm
not gonna say his name because I don't want him to,
you know, get all these marriage proposals. He's already married.
(35:36):
But you know, he was a Muslim. He volunteered and
served in the Marine Corps and actually was part of
the unit that retook the very village in Iraq that
he was born in. Amazing. He was a sergeant in
the Marine Corps, and then he went to college, and
then he got went to got admitted to the PhD program. Company.
So they're gonna be good and bad people from these
(35:58):
countries just there are from all the all countries. I
don't disagree with you that there may be countries that
we should block all migration from. If right, there's we
need to vet people more who are coming from places
like Somalia. Right if they are engaged in all kinds
of criminal activity back in Somalia, we shouldn't be letting
(36:19):
them in. But I don't think that being a Somali
or being Muslim is, you know, sort of prima facia
a reason that someone shouldn't come to the country. There
are Muslim countries I think that we have an interest
in being allied with that are very successful, that aren't
as terrible as some of the ones you describe, Like Indonesia,
(36:41):
for example, I think is a country where Islam is
practiced in a much more moderate way. You don't hear
about these kinds of abuses there, and they're an important
ally to us in the Pacific. So I wouldn't just
brought paint with such a broad no, I know.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
So let me defend myself a little, because this is
never the correct venue to make a sweeping statement like
that and not get the subtleties in. Let me go
the other way. So that idiot Frey Fry, whatever his
name is, the mayor, the police chief. Their political power
(37:18):
depends entirely now upon support from the Somali community, so
they will not even tolerate anyone saying anything that might
in the least bit hint at the fact that Somalis aren't,
you know, perfectly great Americans, and that this whole thing
about fraud is nothing but racism. You have the woman
(37:39):
who's beat with the ugly stick, Jaya Paul, however you
say your name, This country was built by Somali's, Indians, Latinos,
and Africans. Sorry, honey, being ugly doesn't make you right.
You are so wrong about that. Now, have they contributed maybe?
But the other so has this crazy rhetoric that refuses
(38:03):
to allow even the most basic kind of discussion about, yeah,
maybe we ought to consider uh stopping some of this
uh refugee and immigration from these countries because they're not
assimilating and they're bringing their god awful Islamic practices here
(38:24):
to America. Honor killings, and you know, on and on
and on, and look at what's happening in dearborn Michigan. Ah.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
Now that there's the there's there you raise the key point,
which is why are they not assimilating. I think there's
two reasons. One is the the the dominance of the
multicultural ethic in this country, which explains why Mayrifry and
some of these other people in Minnesota will say the
ridiculous things they do. But second, when you allow populations
(38:51):
to concentrate the way they have with Somalis in Minnesota,
Arabs and very large numbers, very fast, and the dearborn
Michigan and other places, then you prevent that from happening.
Because there are with John, there are lots of examples
of successful I think we do a better job than
most countries do of assimilating. There is no assimilation in England,
Well we did, I think we still know. I mean,
(39:13):
or France, those my two, or Germany, right, none of
the Europe even the great you know social democracies that
our liberals love, like Denmark and Sweden, there's no assimilation
going on there. We still have some of it, but
it's when you have smaller numbers and when they're more
widely exposed to and dispersed in the American population. That's
why it's always worked. I mean, I think of you know,
(39:36):
I on her Clee, my favorite Somali right now. Her
assimilation took actually took place in Europe, and that's, you know,
maybe idiosyncratic story, but it shows that it can happen.
I think my internet quit when I was mentioning my
great Pakistani taxi driver driver I used to use in Washington,
who was head of Muslims for Romney in twenty twelve
on the issue of same sex marriage. He was all
(39:58):
for Romney because he.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Fit in his taxi cab too.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
Well. I don't know, that's the interesting point. He'd been
here a long time, came as a refugee when he
was like ten years old. So there are stories like that.
I think if you do all makes it.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
I think you make a good point though that the
Trump administration I think could be more successful if they
married the criticism I think very vould criticism of what's
going with Somali fraud of welfare programs in Minnesota, which
looks just outrageous, but marry it to a positive agenda
of restoring the melting pot idea and assimilation which they
(40:37):
don't make enough of. And I think that's I think.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
Look, I.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
I I am not with the Trump administration, how vigorous
they've been in the internal you know, enforcement of the
immigration laws. And I think they're starting to lose votes.
You know, the one thing this does go to the
midterm point. It does seem you know, I don't. I
do think it's still early, but it does look like
the Tina vote is not retire. Learning back to the
Republican Party the way they did for Trump's election, a
(41:05):
lot to do with it, has a lot to do
with the immigration enforcement.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Well we'll see. But you know, the old days, how
did a similation work when you had high rates of
immigration from what we're thought by the way to be
undesirable populations in the eighteen nineties and up to nineteen
twenty four, you know, polls, Italians, Romanians, let me finish, me,
let me finish for a minute.
Speaker 2 (41:28):
And how was that done.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
It was done by those big city machines that say, okay,
we're going to help you out. You vote for us
and you take orders. Right. There was the confidence. I mean,
never mind how corrupt Hamley Hall might have been. That
was the kind of corruption that worked in a certain way.
And that's what the country doesn't have anymore, and especially
the Democratic Party who ought to be good at this
does not have any more at all. That quite the opposite.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
Well, they saw it.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
They don't believe in it, exactly, it's worse than not
believing it. They're against it.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
They should have listened to Jefferson, who, by the way,
war that we shouldn't even be letting in immigrants from
European countries who had absolute monarchies. He said, is you know,
nothing can be more opposed than the maximum of absolute monarchies.
Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number
of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of
(42:18):
government they leave imbibed in their early youth, etc. Etc.
And if they are able to throw them off, it
will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness. So you
know that this is not a new debate. What I
think is new is the way one of you, just
one of you just said it, which is that the
Democrats are opposed to the idea of forcing assimilation. Not
(42:42):
so much to our culture. I think that one of
the things that we have done exceptionally well is embrace
lots of culture. You know, I can still tell you
some of my Swedish culture that I grew up when
you know the grandparents who immigrated here from Sweden. John
obviously has hold k Pop h Demon hunt.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
In fact, it was Steam that made me watch Demon Hunters.
I was not watch it because I'm Korean high culture,
not Korean local.
Speaker 3 (43:12):
I got it the but but the point is is
that it's not that's not necessary to destroy those aspects
of culture that are not in any way undermining the
more important things like understanding the principles of free government.
And that's what you How many places are there, si
(43:34):
are they trying to enforce sharia law in Texas? Of
all the god awful places can you imagine? And so
that's I I I think that I'm being extreme because
like Trump was being extreme. I really believe that.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
I mean Trump person to person is it doesn't have
a mean bone in his body. Uh, I believe. But
but we can't go on and let the Ja of
Paul and the the Tim whatever his name is, phrase
of the world besetting our agenda here on these things
or the Tim waltzs oh wait, I have one half
(44:10):
to get and then I'll move on to our more.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Important Well, well, can I mention here an additional theme,
this is my running theme for these stories is once
again the media. The New York Times has been surprising
about this. Their story this week was your rampant welfare
fraud welfare front among the Somala community under Governor Waltz's watch,
(44:33):
was their headline. And first of all, why at the
Times ignored the story for four or five years? I
mean this has been known for a while. Scott Johnson's
been writing about this forever, and john and others and
and Rufou and the City Journal people, and why the
Times do a big story on this. Well, I'm not
sure why, but a headline like that is very damaging
(44:53):
when you put it that way, and headlines are important
in this world. Quick story, Uh, I should try and
find it. This whole thing. Back in two thousand and seven,
I think it was I did my own little forty
five minute movie refuting Al Gore's whatever. His climate change
movie was an inconvenient truth, and we long story how
(45:14):
but we canned the New York Times and then doing
a culture piece about a screening in San Francisco, and
the headline of New York Times it was at like
page ten. It wasn't The front page was you know,
finally a faux for Gore and it had my picture
and I told about this the movie and described me
I was large in as I right. Okay, so you
know the whole thing. Well, the interesting thing was the
(45:36):
Times got flamed over the headline, and so the early
edition had, you know, a faux for Gore at last.
Right by the afternoon, that headline had been scrubbed from
the online version and changed to something more anadyne you know,
film critical of Gore shows it some little And the
point is headlines are really important. And the fact that
and the time that it is not lost on Times editors.
(45:57):
So the fact they went with that very damaging head
line to Tim Waltz, I think is also a sign
that there's something up with the media.
Speaker 3 (46:04):
Okay, well there's something up with Tim Waltz. Oh he's
very upset because the R word. And believe it or not,
the reason I think this is so funny is because
this has been a thing in my house. One of
the little college students around here said, you can't use
the R word in front of me. Oh my god,
(46:26):
was she sorry? She said that I'm just gonna leave it.
That that is so gay and retarded. Sorry, but this
is this is Waltz. This creates danger. Trump calling him
a retard. People are driving by my house and using
the R word. This is shameful, But he's actually saying
that that Trump calling him a retard, and other people
(46:51):
then driving by his house and using the R word.
Oh my god, the R word is going to create
danger and violence because that's what it leads to.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
Soay, no, you can't say retarded.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
Well yeah, you can say gay if you're part of
the official you know, the Hamman tern as I call it.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Job.
Speaker 1 (47:19):
You finally got it right. The Trump does this on purpose,
not to be mean, but for a good reason. I mean, uh,
just stick with Gulf of America, right, this is outright
Gulf of America. This is ridiculous. Well, you know, the
left has been renaming things for the last ten years.
(47:39):
We renamed all of our novels, named several military bases
because the people were bad. So I think this is
Trump fighting back against politically correct speech and the way
the left is tried to define and constrain our political
discourse by saying what words and concepts we could and
couldn't use. So, you know, forget retard, for a moment
for Waltz, which, by the way, kind of a lies.
(48:00):
I mean, that guy is really a dupeless But he said,
we don't want immigration from third world countries. You're not
supposed to say third world countries anymore, he said, I
said that all the time in class. Yeah, but people
know that you're you know, a retrogade or something like that. Oh.
He also uses the word illegal immigrant. Remember for years now,
(48:20):
it's been no, no, we call them undocumented immigrants, not
illegal immigrants. And actually this week the person who really
slammed the reporters on this was uh, Governor flor Governor Florida,
I'm blanking DeSantis, he said, I'm just saying this for years,
but finally you hear a Republican politician saying this. Wait
(48:41):
a minute, that's not an accurate term. An awful lot
of the people in the country have documents, they have
visas and other conditional documents that were given that they're
in violation of. That makes them what in violation of
the law, hence illegal immigrants. That's a precise term, of course.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Right.
Speaker 3 (49:02):
Sorry, I know we're short on times. This is the
best story I'm in this city leadership thing and we
go visit. Believe it or not, we go visit the
city landfill refuse center to it all works okay. And
so then we're in this little seminar and the guy's
talking and he talks about how one of the biggest
(49:22):
problems for waste management in the county here is the
amount of trash left behind by undocumented Oh, he says.
And he says something on the order of I'm going
to make it up five hundred tons a year of
trash they collect from the desert left behind by undocumented workers.
(49:44):
And I turned to the person next to me, but
loud enough for everybody to hear, I said, isn't it
interesting how they can document the trash of undocumented workers.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Well, I have said for a long time that, oh
did you Oh, good for you. Well I've been I've
had a sort of a joke about this for a
wrong time. Except it's not a joke, of course, which
is nomenclature rules these things. So you know, we never
cared about the jungle until it became a rain forest.
We're never worried about the dump until it became a landfill,
(50:19):
and we never worried about the swamp until it became
a wet land which needs to be preserved, right, so
we do those kind of euphemisms, and euphemisms rule us.
And again this is why Trump says to help with
all that. And I think he does it on purpose,
and I think he's calculated that. I think he's absolutely right.
And no one else seems to get it, except, as
I say, DeSantis gets it to some extent.
Speaker 3 (50:39):
And Lucretia, well, yes, because she.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
Before all of them.
Speaker 1 (50:45):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
Okay, so we you know, we're running out of time
because these guys have really important lives and they have
places to be. But we do have one last topic though,
in order to keep on our schedule of thisscussing things
related to the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the
founding of our country, we do want to put a
(51:09):
bunch of these things in the perspective. And I think
we did a halfway decent job so far about talking
why it is immigrants they can keep their culture, assuming
again it's not a malicious, horrible culture, but they have
to assimilate by believing. What have you guys ever taken
the citizenship test just for the fun of it.
Speaker 2 (51:32):
I did a few years ago. I looked at the questions.
They're kind of tough for I think a lot of
Americans couldn't pass it.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3 (51:40):
I would always give it in my American government classes,
and I would rarely have a student who could pass
it at the beginning, and then I give it to
him again.
Speaker 2 (51:47):
At the end, and then the scores were worse.
Speaker 3 (51:51):
No, they actually were.
Speaker 1 (51:52):
Actually.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
The funny thing was I would have the local political
reporter from the Sam Bernardino Sun would come and go
with and we would do it together, and he would
write about it pretty much every every quarter in the
quarter system. So anyway, don't.
Speaker 2 (52:07):
Give it that. You see San Diego, Oh god, we
don't talk about that yet.
Speaker 3 (52:14):
Yeah, let's tell it quick, because I think I can
pull it in. No.
Speaker 2 (52:19):
No, I mean a shocking number of you see San
Diego freshmen can't even do middle school math. I have
to take. They're offering these huge medial classes in algebra
that it's unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (52:33):
Yeah, and you see, San Diego is not a community college.
You have to actually qualify to get in. It's it's
merit based.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
Or suppose no, it's it's a very strong science and
technology campus. I mean they've got several Nobel Prize winners there.
They have the ugliest library in the world. But never
mind that, okay, but the nicest speech. You might have
something to say about that anyway, Okay, all.
Speaker 1 (52:58):
Right, I did.
Speaker 3 (52:59):
Most most beaches on California are still beautiful, Steve. It's
just the Russa state that sucks these days, you know,
and not the land is still beautiful. So how do
we push the idea? This is I think it's actually
very important. I'm going to leave aside because we're not
going to have time. We're going to we are going
to pick it up next time. Steve wants to discuss
(53:21):
the issue, which I think is the other side of
the question of post liberalism and our friends on the
right who want to reject the very things that our
friends like Somali's and our idiot former President Obama. This
is what I mean. He really believes that it's the
(53:42):
fact that we don't all look alike, that this makes
this country exceptional. Remember he's the same idiot who when
asked about it as president, when asked what he thought
American exceptionalism meant, he said, well, I you know, I
think America is exceptional, just like I'm sure France thinks
they're exceptional. And you know, he's just so.
Speaker 1 (54:01):
He never saw the incredibles, did he? Yeah? Right, what
everybody's special? No one is right.
Speaker 3 (54:07):
But if you're the president of the United States and
you do not know the basic principles that make America
truly exceptional, that's a really really, it's a huge indictment
if you ask me, and I believe it is what
drives especially the left. We'll keep it to the left
for today because we don't have time to hound our
(54:29):
hands on the right that they don't understand what the
true meaning of equality is and they have usurped the
true meaning of equality that came from the Declaration, turned
it into something that the right, some people at least
on the right, are quite willing to say we want
to reject. Does that make sense, I'm probably going too
(54:50):
fast on this. H you take it over?
Speaker 1 (54:53):
Well, I can't. I mean, there's too much to unpack there.
But let's just do like an half the whole episode
on this, and let's.
Speaker 2 (55:02):
Do first liberalism next week and then tied in with this.
Speaker 1 (55:06):
Yeah, and you know, do the leftist and Luke creature
you bait me. Let's be bad. This is your well,
let's got you three minutes left in the.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
Genius.
Speaker 1 (55:21):
I'm gonna be twitching all night. I bet I gotta
pour another whiskey here. Okay, sorry, go ahead, It's okay.
Speaker 3 (55:27):
If we have three minutes, I don't again. We'll pick
it up next time, and we'd be happy to see
some comments about that. I got some specific comments about
different things that I actually addressed in this podcast, So
I'm hoping people.
Speaker 1 (55:41):
Here's I'll do. I'll do. I'll do a post on
our political question substack, saying here's what's on our mind.
I've been meaning to write an IAM about this because
of questions I've been getting for people. So I'll write
something and flag it for people, and then we'll use
it next week. Okay, but now we need babbyl on
bees and and then I've got it. I've got are
you okay? Good?
Speaker 3 (56:02):
The Babylon be sometimes reads my mind? What can I say?
Or simpatico or you know, the Vulcan mind and whatever
it is. Black Hawk Down remake to be filmed in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2 (56:18):
Oh Man January six.
Speaker 3 (56:22):
Bombing suspect disinvited from FBI Christmas party. Better those guys,
American patriots in Minnesota paint their doorways red, white and
blue so that ice will pass over their houses. You'll
(56:44):
like this, Steve, Minnesota Vikings changed name to Minnesota Somali Pirates.
Speaker 1 (56:49):
Yeah right, I saw that one too.
Speaker 3 (56:52):
Yeah yeah, ok uh one, last one? Sorry I lost it.
Government accidentally shuts itself down with ban on non essential businesses.
Speaker 1 (57:08):
I think, but yeah, right, okay, oh what last one?
Speaker 3 (57:14):
Elean Omar argues she should be able to stay in
horrible country she hates. Yeah, there is the encapsulation of
my whole point today.
Speaker 1 (57:24):
Yeah right, so all right, your turn.
Speaker 2 (57:27):
John, Oh, always drink your whiskey, need buy more books?
And Steve, what is the latest command from your AI overlords? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (57:38):
So I have a whole bunch of them, But the
one I'm gonna use here is I asked AI to
give us a sort of script of Sydney Sweeney listening
to the three Whiskey Happy Hour, and I'm just gonna
be part of.
Speaker 2 (57:52):
Just obsessing because Sydney Sweeny, it's.
Speaker 1 (57:54):
A it's a Did you see the news this week,
by the way that American eagle outfitter Stock is swored
because of her endorsements and I said, if you're inside trader,
you want to find out what products she's going to
endorse next. Okay, I'm just gonna give you a portion
of this. I think it's very good. She's in Sydney
Sweeney's in her kitchen listening to the podcast. Lucretia's voice
(58:15):
came in sharp, dry, and amused, already min analysis of
some historical parallel no one else would have thought to make.
Sidney paused, midsip of her coffee. Okay, who is this woman?
She whispered to no one. Lucretia delivered a jab wrapped
in academic vocabulary. Sydney snorted, nearly choking on her matcha.
She leaned against the island, crossing her arms, listening harder.
(58:38):
Sidney let out a laugh that bounced around the empty kitchen. Damn,
she's bold, and she go out to skip a little bit.
She's like your smartest friend who starts arguments at dinner
parties on purpose, Sydney said to her dog, who had
wandered in and flopped at her feet. The podcast continued.
When the episode ended, she stared at a speaker for
a beat. Okay, Cresha, she murmured, for with a smile.
(59:02):
You're kind of badass. She hit the play next episode button.
Speaker 3 (59:09):
I like that nicest compliment I've had all days.
Speaker 1 (59:11):
Steve Well, I you know, hey, look, I know what
I want to do if I want to stay on
your good side. So all right, bye bye everybody, This
is fun.
Speaker 2 (59:19):
Bye everybody.
Speaker 1 (59:21):
Jeema, I can't put you on top of the world
and jump bed no bad. I left chucked to lutch him.
Speaker 2 (59:32):
I can't give it you watch and need you turn
around and run away.
Speaker 1 (59:36):
Tomly, she's old man.
Speaker 2 (59:38):
I left chunk.
Speaker 1 (59:43):
Oh fast high jam in that look everywhere your song.
Ricochet joined the conversation
Well, whiskey, come and take my pain, the Hondys, my brain,
Oh whiskey, Why think alone when you can drink it
all in with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour, Join your bartenders,
Steve Hayward, John You, and the international woman of mystery,
Lucretia where the slapping up? And David Hain't you easy
(00:28):
on the soul? Chaps?
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Got it?
Speaker 1 (00:30):
Give me and let that whiskey flow.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Welcome everyone to this special edition of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour because we're all together at our usual spots
and able to drink alcohol, because it is a decent
time for drinking alcohol. But John, those of you who
have live feed or watching a video just got out
of the shower and didn't bother to pick up a
(00:54):
bottle of whiskey on his way from the shower. So
I'm I are you?
Speaker 2 (01:00):
I know, mister Lucretia in your household has them strategically
placed every fifty feet so that you're never far from
a ball.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
My house is small enough that you're probably right, but
I am prepared to cover down for you on both Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
So wait, so John, I mean you're at the Olympic Club.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Is that what you said no, not the Olympic famous
club in San Francisco. But you existed Gym's University, so
people would train for the Olympics at places like this.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
You know, you're starting to remind me of Lances Zuomi
a little bit. Who you know is this Japanese guy
who was very British, Right, he goes to Scottish games,
resides over Scotch whiskey tastings, and I swear it doesn't
drink and doesn't mean he's a spiritual Scotsman. And see,
and you're the most Okay, He's.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Got a lot of fuss. He's got a lot of
problems because he wants to be someone else, but then
he wants to be Scottish. That's his big problem.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Well, my point is you are the most clubbable person
I know. I'm hard pressed to think of a club
that you don't belong to. That's all.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
I love clubs.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
See what's so bad?
Speaker 2 (02:04):
You know?
Speaker 3 (02:04):
I don't love any clubs? John? You know why don't you?
Because I would have anyone that would have me as
a member.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Right, it's just because you give them my name whenever
you go and one.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
And they like that is true. I've been to more
than one. That on on on your coat tails? John Right, So,
how are you, gentlemen this evening?
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Well? I am good, I am so. You know last
week I mentioned my discovery of Kill Karen Kill. You know,
I keep getting different. I was chastised by listeners that
I was pronouncing it wrong, and I looked it up
on the internet, so it must be true that it's
kill Karen or kill Karena. There's disputes about this, but anyway,
that's what I'm drinking and it's great. Yeah, since I
(02:46):
was telling you last week, it's the one. I got
spirits and spices there in Connecticut Avenue and heavily peted
so that we'll.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Have the bottle left.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Steve, Well, I got two of them. How do you know?
Speaker 3 (02:58):
That's why I am drinking scotch enough to vote again.
Some people will stop accusing me of those horrible things
like being a cougar, and it's lovely, but I'm going
to finish my one first, so we are very happy
to be here. My theme for tonight, and I almost
forgot to put them on till the last minute, is
that they will not the three Whiskey Happy Hour will
(03:20):
not engage in pearl clutching, like the rest of the
damn world has been over practically everything this week, and
it's been driving me crazy. The most made up controversies
on the planet cause people to hyperventilate and and and
need their fans and and and have you know their
their smelling salts starting with well.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
What you mean you mean? We mean we're getting about
a fake news? Is that what you're saying? And and
and what if those pearls were on the dead bodies
of drug runners were killing in the Caribbean, I would
clutch those pearls and take them to the jeweler, but
which I.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Don't know if I'd want to touch them, but I'm
not desperate. I had four strands of them, so I'll
leave them there. We have to go way back in
the I mean ancient history. There was an election last
week on Tuesday. Today is Thursday, and you know, the
whole world has gone crazy four times around since Tuesday.
(04:19):
But on Tuesday, the Republican won in a Republican district,
the Republican that President Trump and Mike Johnson both endorsed.
But everybody is clutching their pearls over the fact that
he only won by nine points, and this is proof
that the Republicans are done for. They are toast in
(04:40):
the twenty six midterms. Everybody is saying so, even on
the right. Or am I wrong?
Speaker 1 (04:47):
No, I'm actually Henry Olsen, who's normally kind of gloomy
about these things. He wrote that Republicans should be worried
about the election, but this was not the portent of
doom that so many people are saying, and he does
the typical Henry ola and run for the numbers about it.
So I think there are two takeaways. One is the
Democrats nominated an insane woman. I mean she makes AOC well, yes,
(05:10):
but the point is she might have one if they
nominated a sensible person, but the Democrats like to nominate
crazy people. The other thing is it was a district
that Trump won by twenty two points, so there's some
considerable erosion there. But the third thing is is the
polls showed it within two or three points and the
(05:30):
guy won by like eight or nine. So I think
that everybody should calm down. It's going to be you know,
it could be a tough year for Republicans next year,
depending on circumstances, but turnout will improve when you have
a general election in November of next year, so everybody
calmed down and quit watching your pearls.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
What do you think, John, I know, I agree it's
too far out to really tell. On the other hand,
it's not It would not be strange for the president
to lose a lot of seats and the mid ten elections,
and so if they lose the House majority, I wouldn't
be surprised. What I wouldn't be surprised about would be
if the Republicans lost the Senate majority, because there are
(06:11):
very very few I think maybe there are almost no
vulnerable Republicans up in the right in the midterm, so
they would have to be a real wave for Republicans
to lose the Senate.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Is Susan Collins considered at all vulnerable? In Maine?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
I believe the governor is running against hers. I mean,
they got a high quality candidate to run against her,
but she always seems to pull it out at the end.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
They haven't had the primary yet. Remember it's the tattoo
the Nazi tattoo guy who's actually way ahead of the
governor and the Democratic primary.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
So who I just wondered, Look six years ago, well
five years ago, but the last time Collins was up,
all the reputable polls had her trailing by eight to
ten points, and she won by five points. So Maine
is a peal. I would bet on her to be reelected.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
One of the things I want to throw one thing
out there, and that was that something we've talked about before,
the Republican ground game in some of these places is
is pitiful. Republicans don't seem to have the same organizations,
grassroots efforts. Tons of money poured into those grassroots efforts
(07:25):
and so on, and they tend to act like establishment
Republicans and not necessarily, especially those not affiliated with the
National Trump Organization. They just they want to do politics
the old way. I don't know if that's true, and
if that had anything to do with why that woman
came as close as she did, and she was a
(07:47):
you're write a total nut job, Oh my god. And
then my favorite thing was, you know, she said she
hated country music and she hated Nashville. And she shows
up at her victory party, which heared out of course,
to be the defeat party in this god awful thing
that you couldn't have gotten Roseanne Cash to where in
(08:07):
nineteen sixty three. It was the ugliest country western glittery.
It was horrendous. And that kind of pandriy just makes
me laugh. I don't know what else to say.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Now, there you go again with your lookism. Well look,
I mean the trainout thing is something I know a
little bit about, not from so much direct experience, but
from well old experience. So I think you know this.
My dad back in the late sixties and thirty seventies
was on the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee. He
(08:44):
was elected. That was an elected office back then. And
my dad in nineteen six I love to brag about this.
My dad in nineteen sixty eight beat a rock, a
fellow Republican incumbent. The guy's name was Richard Reardon. And
isn't that funny, right? My dad beat him by eight
Oh sorry, this is worth a detour. My dad beat
him by I think twelve votes in the initial count.
(09:07):
And Reardon, you know, rich guy always he paid for
a recount for a stupid little party office, which is insane,
and recount I think had my dad up by sixteen
votes or something ridiculous. So, but the point was is
that in a number of special elections in those years.
My dad, who you know, had a business to run
and you know, lots of stuff to do. He was
(09:27):
also on the school board in my hometown at the
same time. But when they'd had any special elections, they
look up and say, that's a Democratic district for Congress
or a state legislative seat. And it's a Democratic district
by two or three points. I'll bet we can steal
it if we organize a really good get out the
vote drive, And they did in a couple of cases,
but it's very much They had a good candidate in
(09:49):
one race I remember in particular. But the point is
is that it's kind of ad hoc and that's kind
of the way Republicans do it. What you know, the
last election, you heard, oh, Trump is going to outsource
to turn out to Turning Point USA, And I thought, oh, dear,
I'm not sure that's a good idea. But I think
it turned out to be a very good idea. Kirk
and his organization really did turn out the young people
(10:10):
and all the rest of that. The Democrats, though, you're right,
they have you know, the George Soros funded and the
labor unions and the others. They have a turnout machine
that goes back decades. It works like clockwork, and our
team is more ad hoc and inconsistent, but we know
how to do it if we put our minds to it.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
So I have a confession. First of all, I went
door to door canvassing for Bob Dole.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
How is that? I knew it?
Speaker 2 (10:38):
I knew it, knew this cruciate things all in that,
well I was.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
I was a little bit naive back in those days.
But even back then, I remember thinking, why the hell
would somebody do this? Either they're going to vote for
Bob Dole or they're going to vote for Bill Clinton.
There's no convincing them. You know, everybody's made up their mind.
This is the way my mo I object my own
I know, I project my own moral certainty and political
certainty onto the rest of the world. The other day
(11:07):
I was talking with we shall call him a blue
collar worker. Have you set Mexican guy who was moving
furniture for me at the university, taking old furniture out
and so forth, And somehow the subject of the military
base came up and the university. He says, well, the
university has to hate this place because of the military base,
(11:28):
and and you know, all that stuff about shooting fishermen
out of the water and who you know, and he
just went on and he said and then he said
and Gaza. He said, Israel's only been there for two
hundred years, and Palestine's been there since the beginning of time.
And oh my god, and this guy's moving to my furniture.
So I'm just, oh, no, Israel actually hasn't even been there.
(11:50):
The modern Israel's only been there since nineteen forty eight.
But then again Palestine. But he didn't care. And I thought, Okay,
there are a lot of really stupid people out there
who only get their news from one side, and they
I don't know. Anyway, it was it was eye opening
to me, at my ripe old age of sixty five,
(12:11):
that there was anybody who could be that dumb, well
passionate about it.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
I thought you were bringing up was your personal contact
with voters. This is something I'm amazed has not been
more carefully studied by political scientists who like to count
things and run regression models, because if you go back to,
for example, in nineteen sixty eight, the clean for gene
kids who cut their hair and shave their beards, and
descend it on New Hampshire had a lot to do
with Jean McCarthy almost defeating Lynnon Johnson and driving him
(12:39):
out of the race. And I could give several examples.
Now they're anecdotal, except I know of some candidates who
won because they knocked on ten thousand doors and met
the voters face to face. And you know what, people
like to be asked for their vote. They love it
from the candidate. But if they have volunteers who aren't crazy,
and you know, nutjobs who were, you'd be surprised how
many votes you get to do it. And in the
(13:00):
close legislative or congressional ranks, I think that can make
a difference.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
And as I suppose a woman I knew in Sacramento,
Steve who nobody came out of nowhere and uh knocked
on and and and her. At the end of her campaign,
I remember the friend of the Sacramento b showed her
with her shoe yep, holding her shoe that had a
hole in the sole of it, that she'd walked so
far and knocked on so many doors and she won.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Was that Barbara Albie? I'm thinking, well, she was the
legendary person that never mind, it matter.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
The case said most voters, there's a huge block of independence,
and people who are uncertain, they don't make up their
minds until, you know, two three weeks before the election
of that, and so they could be persuaded by the
personal touch and that absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
And you know, we theorists like Lucretian may or law
professors like you don't tend to think in those sort
of you know, grassroots types of things. But and I'm
amazed the political scientists haven't studied that more closely, because
I'm convinced that.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
I thought they did. They haven't.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Wow, I don't think so, not very much.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
I can't even imagine my vote.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Well, I do know. I do know of one study
done a few years ago by a UCLA graduate student,
and it was about I wrote the sub powerline at
the time, ten years ago. Now it's a graduate student
who had said, oh, people door knocking against same sex
marriage initiative in California whatever that was in two thousand
and eight. They made a huge difference. Turned out the
guy had made up all of his data and the
(14:27):
study was retracted. So there you go. Okay, Oh so.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
Another clutching moment. Brian Cole has been junior. Brian Cole
Junior has been named as the J six bomber planter guy.
And when it first came out that this is a
short time period, by the way, folks, it was everywhere
(14:55):
on every news channel, all across social media that the
guy was a white suprema syst It turns out when
they finally released the picture of which Brian Cole Junior
they were talking about, and the actual person, he happens
to be a black guy who's a leftist, anarchist sociopath.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
That's that's looks like maybe lives in his parents' basement.
I mean he's from a you know his parents.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Yeah, okay, mom's one of those radical she's a what's
Barack Obama's mother's name. What was her name?
Speaker 1 (15:31):
I forget now, but whatever.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
It is, you know that proud of the fact that
she so she's a white woman and says the white
white people should be embarrassed about how racist white people are.
And so anyway, sorry, all of this came out in
the last couple of hours.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
I think the interesting question to me is it will
be By the way, I have a running theme for
several of your items here Lucretian. I'm going to hold
it for a couple more of them, but I'll hint
at it by saying, one question to me is how
the media is going to report this, not just the
accuracy of the person and his anarchist ties or whatever,
but is someone going to ask why did it take
(16:08):
the Trump FBI to reopen this investigation in a serious way?
Why did the Biden people simply ignore this question, which
apparently they did at least that's the early reporting about it,
is that the Trump FBI reopened it and devoted resources
to finding this person. There wasn't a.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Lot of iffy things, sure, right, Yeah, Julie Kelly's been
sort of dogged about all of this. I don't follow
every single thing she does, but there are just a
lot of inconsistencies. But if they actually had some sense
of who this person was, it's clear why they didn't
come out and if they knew who he was way
(16:43):
back when or because of the inconsistencies in the whole situation.
You know what they did about Kamala Harris once they
found the bomb was there, and some other weird things
that happened. I don't remember all of it. They just
didn't want to get to the bottom of it, too
busy chasing after Grandma's who walked into the capitol. I
guess that's the pat line we get. We say, who
(17:08):
knows if we'll ever hear the whole story on it. Yeah, John,
you're the non conspiracy theorist here.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I wear that title proudly. Yes, but I don't think.
I mean, you don't really think the FBI under Biden
covered this up. I mean the reports look like it
just looks like they had to. I was reading one
of the reports of the link was they had to
go through two hundred thousand purchases of a certain kind
(17:40):
of blasting cap Is that right to find this guy?
And it just took enormous numbers of main power. Yeah,
it just took enormous man power to figure to correlate
all the data. But they I bet a I could
have caught him in five minutes. I guess.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Well, I don't know if we know that they dropped
the case, but I'm sure it was a low priority
and if they look the things that were done in
the last few months to find this guy could have
been done four years ago but weren't. And I think
there's a legitimate question as to why so. I don't
I make no assumptions on what happened, but simply the
saying that's a question that should be asked by about
the media and congressional committees.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
I could totally see the Biden Justice Departments thinking and
saying I don't know if they said it into public,
but I'm sure they said convicting the people who broke
into the Capitol in January sixth is a higher priority.
You know, there are more of them. They're violent, we
see there are on tape. It's easier to prosecute them
then you know, finding this one needle in a haystack. Guy.
(18:43):
I mean that's I could see them saying that, and
then the American people could decide where they liked that
when they had the last election, which they did.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Well, the violence, I will remind you, was much more
one sided against the five people who died as a
result of the uh FBI and the Capitol police. But
we'll just change the subject and move on to oh,
another very controversial subject. I got quite a few reports
about you, John said CNN. I got it. It came
(19:21):
across Twitter to me. Take biting in hook line and
sinker on the faulty Washington Post reporting on what happened
in the double top strike of the Venezuelan boat on
what September two, and very upset with you for getting
your news from the Washington Post before the whole story.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Came out week. I said, if I said, if the
facts and the story are true, and I did make
a point of saying, we don't know what the facts are,
but if they're true, you can't give an order of
no quarter and no survivors, right, That's pretty clear. And
I said, so anybody who gave such an order be
(20:01):
illegal and no one would be able to carry it out.
But I did say I have no idea what happened.
We still I'm not sure even after the hearings today
we know exactly what happened. So what I saw in
the New York Times, which actually has been contradicting, which
actually has been almost calling the Post, as Steve said,
(20:24):
almost saying the Post has been lying ye the New
York Times set. It's very interesting if you look at
the Post and Time stories today about Admiral Bradley's testimony,
the Post almost doesn't repeat what is the most important
fact that Admiral Bradley testified that no one gave any order,
saying no quarter, no survivors. That really is the most
(20:44):
important thing in the whole story, because if Admiral Bradley
didn't receive that order, then all the stuff about Hegseeth
turns out to be made up, and then it really
is just a question of and Admiral Bradley didn't think
he was carrying out any order like that, then all
of it really boils down to is did Admiral Bradley
exercise the proper military discretion when he ordered a second
(21:09):
strike on the boat? That's not an outright violation of
the laws of war order sing no survivors would be.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Yeah, So the this smacks to me, LUCRETI M with you.
This smacks to me is a I won't say, a
contrive story. But you know, somehow this idea got out
that heg Seth had made his order. The media and
Democrats are out to get hag Seth, and so they
ran with it, and the Post ran with it as
the host, as the Post did with other hoaxes, post hoaxes.
(21:41):
That would be a great breakfast cereal, would you be?
But look, Dan, the interesting thing, though, is the New
York Times contradicting it. Usually the New York Times goes
all in for the attack dog stories against Republicans, and
this is curious, and I'm I'll just speculate here. There's
a couple of possible motives. One is that the New
York Times, and by the way, I give other examples
(22:02):
in other areas, the New York Times is actually trying
to do a better job of journalism because they realized
they'd gotten way out of whack. But it's also possible
that they have it in for the Washington Post because
the Post is the other rivals, the authoritative political newspaper,
and the Washington Post is moving to the right in
its editorial pages now its news pages. And maybe the
(22:25):
Time he says, well, right, and he said I want
to And they have been hiring people. They've been firing
crazy people and hiring sensible people. I think it still
isn't excuse me, coherent yet, but that's an interesting And
maybe the Times wants to punish the Post Post for
deviating from the editorial party, like I don't know. Those
are just speculations, but I thought that was very interesting
(22:45):
that the New York Times was out so firmly with
a different account of things that was that repudiated the
Post account and long time.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
I'm sure the Times tried to confirm the story and
they would have been more than happy to print the
story that said we found the same things out as
the Post, but instead they got denial after denial. In fact,
they couldn't find a single person involved with the mission
who verified the Post's account.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
So remember the accounts.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
I said on the CNN show. Only if the facts
in the Post story are true and we're still waiting
to find out what happened, you know.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
What the problem with that, John is. And I don't
mean this as a slam on you in any way,
shape or form, But if you're on CNN and parroting
the line that they want you to pairt even with
all of the qualifiers your your detractors are going to
get upset with you. They're not going to give you
the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
But that being said, I'm really upset to hear that.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
I can tell you what, but you have redeemed yourself
in my eyes for the moment, for the moment. But
I do want to say this, I'm gonna you guys
never bought me all the nice things I do for you,
still never bought me my products tinfoil hat. So I
can't put it on right now. But I actually, I
don't know that the Washington Post is necessarily complicit in this,
(24:06):
but certainly wanting to push it along. Remember that the
Sedition six, Seditious six, whatever we're calling them, were really
quite humiliated by the fact that they they, you know,
came out with this video encouraging members of the military
to violate, to refuse to carry out any illegal orders
(24:27):
and you know, oh, we're just stating the law as
it is, which isn't exactly accurate. But when they were
pressed on the point, not one of them, not one
of them, could name a single even ambiguous instance where
the where Trump had violated some law that the military
should not be following. And this gave them the perfect example.
(24:50):
I know that because that ugly despicable pos troll Mary Kelly,
most despicable creature on the plane Gollum. Yes, yes, and
he's on every damn He's on more news shows than
(25:12):
John is, and and he shouldn't be because John's Hansom
and Mark Kelly looks like like Gollum.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Well at the very end, can I jump in here
and say that, first of all, I'm i'm I get
my tea. Well, hat on. I wonder if those six
people knew that the story was in the works.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
That I bet, no, I bet what happened was there
are enemies of Hegseth within the Pentagon, perhaps JAG attorneys,
and they leaked this to follow on with the effects
of that video, which you know, in the left wing
media is the greatest thing right well, you know, if
you listen, if you listen to their echo chamber, they
(25:50):
think it was a throwing down the gauntlet to Trump
and identifying outrageous violations of the rules of war, and
so this they think they're piling on with more momentum,
I think, and that I think the video encouraged some
people in the uniform military who are lawyers or civilian
civilian civil servants and the Pentagon to exaggerate what happened
(26:14):
and to spin it in a way that looked like
hag Seth had given this order.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
You are so because you should be pissed that you've
lied to Yeah, you you are so right that that
that cohort within the Pentagon is usually the worst of
the worst. I know quite a few of them personally,
and they are just they're They're awful. They're truly, truly awful.
But all I want to say is what John Kennedy,
Senator John Kennedy had to say about it. Uh, they've
(26:41):
clearly exceeded the limits of their meds. Was really quick
thing about this? Back to my my not so bright
furniture mover guy. Uh, most Senator Jack Reid from Rhode Island.
Most narco traffickers are not in those boats. They pay
(27:03):
people to do that. It's the way they make money.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Yeah, I'm gonna leave it. If any of our listeners
cannot follow my point on that one, go move to
Rhode Island and vote for Jack Reid. Wow, what an idiot?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
I call them Jack the thin read.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
But yeah, yeah, can I make of make a point
that there's a difference between Uh. I think the media
and people are confusing two things. And even I even
heard some people on the National Review podcast, which I
love listening to, but I've found them confusing a few
things that they were getting confused. What's a legitimate target
(27:40):
in a war with how you treat right people like
shipwrecked people, the wounded in a war. I don't think
there's any doubt if we were with Venezuela, those boats
are legitimate targets, right. You're allowed to stop the enemy
from moving around things like you're allowed to bomb network
you know, train networks, communication networks, electrical networks. Why would
(28:03):
you not be allowed to stop Venezuela from sending illegal
drugs abroad and getting money back? It seems like, I think,
But I think people get that confused with the other question.
What if you blow one up in their survivors, what
do you do with the survivors? That's that would be
true no matter what the target is. I think people
are confusing the legality of the war itself with how
(28:26):
you fight it, and they're different questions.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
I agree, But I also think that the latter question
they're confusing. The un or excuse me, the Geneva Convention
says that you you basically you can't do a double
tap strike after you've you've hit something, because you're not
supposed to be targeting rescue workers and whatnot. Who come
(28:51):
to pull the survivors out of some strike. That's the
I'm oversimplifying it, but I mean that's actually I think
it depends your fans. Yes, go ahead a lot of
That's the thing.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
That's the thing that I find about, what if it
is a jig attorneys who are leaking this, I think
they're what they're doing is pretending that the laws of
war are clear and give you bright line answers for
everything beforehand. And I was talking to reporter today, I
was trying to explain the laws of war give a
lot of discretion to the military. And we don't even
(29:25):
have lawyers go around with police officers, you know, we
don't have this idea that lawyers should drive around in
a police cruiser and tell the police officer beforehand, oh
that's an acceptable arrest, that's not accept We trained the
police officers and expect them to do their job, and
then if something violates the rules, and we investigated after.
(29:45):
And these JAG attorneys have assumed enormous power where they
sit there, and they I think bless or veto almost
every targeting decision. I don't think people realize how they Yeah,
who's happy here, Yeah, it's been happening for whiles. Actually
I blame it on the Clinton It was that way
when I worked in the Justice Department. I was astounded
(30:06):
when I worked in the Just Department, and after nine
to eleven I saw the level of how much lawyer
there was in basic military operations. I think that people
would people would be shocked if they saw, you know,
just lawyers saying yes no on every missile stripe. But
that's essentially what's going on now.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
So two points one is and look, some of these
stories are well known, but American troops in the closing
months of World War Two committed what would now be
described as war crimes, you know, shooting Germans that they'd captured.
I think oftened with a very good reason. I don't
remember specific incidents, but that's what happens in war, right.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
No.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
No, there's a broader story here, though, John and Lucretia,
which is, we have this huge flotilla of the Navy
and Marines down near Venezuela, and we are, as the
old saying goes, saber rattling, and we still haven't heard
from Trump or anyone in the administration what exactly is
going on here. I mean, we want to force Maduro out,
we say that, but I do wish that someone would
(31:11):
make the case that which I have several times on
this podcast, made that Venezuela is a bad actor, right,
and and you know, we have all kinds of castes
of belly with them. Now. I think Trump's reluctant to
because he is a non interventionist, right, he does not
want to be you know, ill Forever wars nonsense and
all the rest of that. But I do think there's
(31:31):
a president here, and it you know, goes back to
my favorite president before Trump. We invaded Grenada in nineteen
October of nineteen eighty three, but in March of eighty three,
Reagan gave an Oval office address, which presidents don't do anymore,
and it was all about Central America, and it was
why niic Araga was bad and why we're supporting resistance
to them, and oh, by the way, why are the
(31:53):
Cubans building a ten thousand foot runway on this little
island of Grenada. Bad things are happening there and we
have keep our eye on that too. So he telegraphed
ahead of time that we've been watching bad stuff happening
in Central America. And then, and by the way, you know,
after he invaded Grenada, the Nicaraguan's called up our secretary
of State Shultz at the time and said, you know,
(32:14):
if you ever want to get Americans out of Nicaragua,
just call us on the phone and will help. It
was very effective and sending a signal.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Okay, all right, John. Credit to John, he said the
same thing a little bit more intellectually solid in his Now,
I don't mean it like that. I mean what I
mean is he actually provided a constitutional separation of powers
explanation for why it is it's safe to trust the
(32:43):
president and as commander in chief to make some of
these kinds of decisions, but the importance of having Congress
first and foremost support that, and then by extension from
Congress public support as well. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Well it was probably when my internet was out a
couple of minutes ago. I'm having problems here listeners tonight,
So you guys know what to do when I'm okay, sorry,
go ahead, okay.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
So, speaking of bad things are happening, I am. I'm
gonna go ahead and be never mind a conspiracy theorist.
I'm just gonna be a bigot. I agree with Trump.
We don't need any damn somalis here. We don't need
be much more. I'm gonna be much more serious than that.
I believe that Islam is the greatest source of evil
(33:29):
in the world, and that it is not a religion,
it is an evil ideology event on world domination. We
will have to tolerate religious expressions of Islam to some
extent because we have a commitment to religious freedom and
I'm not gonna be in the business of deciding what
(33:50):
religions should get it and what shouldn't. However, there is nothing, nothing,
despite Richard Stupid Richard Gear claims the entire planet has
far off a cliff. Do you really think these refugees
and immigrants are different than us? Yes?
Speaker 1 (34:05):
I do, Yes, I do.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Our friend Jeremy Carl had a really interesting article yesterday,
I think in American mind probably, and he outlined all
the ways in which Somali immigrants and immigrants from other
Muslim countries, that the things that they practice, the things
that they believe in. You know, you tying up these
(34:29):
god awful men, Islamic men, tie up little boys and
make them dance and rape them and you know, marry
their three year old and beat their women. Today. You know,
we could go on and on and on about all
of the ways they are are subhuman, barbaric, vile creatures
who do not belong in Western society. We have not
(34:51):
demanded that they assimilate.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
I you know, I do think there is an element
of what you say which is right. But I think
to generalize it to all Somalis are to all Muslims,
I think it goes too far. I mean, there are
I think a record of successful assimilation in the country,
people coming from Egypt, from Lebanon, from Jordan. I mean,
(35:15):
there are very patriotic Muslims in the nice to serve
in the armed forces. You guys know this. We had
this wonderful guy who worked at the Claremont Institute. I'm
not gonna say his name because I don't want him to,
you know, get all these marriage proposals. He's already married.
(35:36):
But you know, he was a Muslim. He volunteered and
served in the Marine Corps and actually was part of
the unit that retook the very village in Iraq that
he was born in. Amazing. He was a sergeant in
the Marine Corps, and then he went to college, and
then he got went to got admitted to the PhD program. Company.
So they're gonna be good and bad people from these
(35:58):
countries just there are from all the all countries. I
don't disagree with you that there may be countries that
we should block all migration from. If right, there's we
need to vet people more who are coming from places
like Somalia. Right if they are engaged in all kinds
of criminal activity back in Somalia, we shouldn't be letting
(36:19):
them in. But I don't think that being a Somali
or being Muslim is, you know, sort of prima facia
a reason that someone shouldn't come to the country. There
are Muslim countries I think that we have an interest
in being allied with that are very successful, that aren't
as terrible as some of the ones you describe, Like Indonesia,
(36:41):
for example, I think is a country where Islam is
practiced in a much more moderate way. You don't hear
about these kinds of abuses there, and they're an important
ally to us in the Pacific. So I wouldn't just
brought paint with such a broad no, I know.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
So let me defend myself a little, because this is
never the correct venue to make a sweeping statement like
that and not get the subtleties in. Let me go
the other way. So that idiot Frey Fry, whatever his
name is, the mayor, the police chief. Their political power
(37:18):
depends entirely now upon support from the Somali community, so
they will not even tolerate anyone saying anything that might
in the least bit hint at the fact that Somalis aren't,
you know, perfectly great Americans, and that this whole thing
about fraud is nothing but racism. You have the woman
(37:39):
who's beat with the ugly stick, Jaya Paul, however you
say your name, This country was built by Somali's, Indians, Latinos,
and Africans. Sorry, honey, being ugly doesn't make you right.
You are so wrong about that. Now, have they contributed maybe?
But the other so has this crazy rhetoric that refuses
(38:03):
to allow even the most basic kind of discussion about, yeah,
maybe we ought to consider uh stopping some of this
uh refugee and immigration from these countries because they're not
assimilating and they're bringing their god awful Islamic practices here
(38:24):
to America. Honor killings, and you know, on and on
and on, and look at what's happening in dearborn Michigan. Ah.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
Now that there's the there's there you raise the key point,
which is why are they not assimilating. I think there's
two reasons. One is the the the dominance of the
multicultural ethic in this country, which explains why Mayrifry and
some of these other people in Minnesota will say the
ridiculous things they do. But second, when you allow populations
(38:51):
to concentrate the way they have with Somalis in Minnesota,
Arabs and very large numbers, very fast, and the dearborn
Michigan and other places, then you prevent that from happening.
Because there are with John, there are lots of examples
of successful I think we do a better job than
most countries do of assimilating. There is no assimilation in England,
Well we did, I think we still know. I mean,
(39:13):
or France, those my two, or Germany, right, none of
the Europe even the great you know social democracies that
our liberals love, like Denmark and Sweden, there's no assimilation
going on there. We still have some of it, but
it's when you have smaller numbers and when they're more
widely exposed to and dispersed in the American population. That's
why it's always worked. I mean, I think of you know,
(39:36):
I on her Clee, my favorite Somali right now. Her
assimilation took actually took place in Europe, and that's, you know,
maybe idiosyncratic story, but it shows that it can happen.
I think my internet quit when I was mentioning my
great Pakistani taxi driver driver I used to use in Washington,
who was head of Muslims for Romney in twenty twelve
on the issue of same sex marriage. He was all
(39:58):
for Romney because he.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Fit in his taxi cab too.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
Well. I don't know, that's the interesting point. He'd been
here a long time, came as a refugee when he
was like ten years old. So there are stories like that.
I think if you do all makes it.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
I think you make a good point though that the
Trump administration I think could be more successful if they
married the criticism I think very vould criticism of what's
going with Somali fraud of welfare programs in Minnesota, which
looks just outrageous, but marry it to a positive agenda
of restoring the melting pot idea and assimilation which they
(40:37):
don't make enough of. And I think that's I think.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
Look, I.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
I I am not with the Trump administration, how vigorous
they've been in the internal you know, enforcement of the
immigration laws. And I think they're starting to lose votes.
You know, the one thing this does go to the
midterm point. It does seem you know, I don't. I
do think it's still early, but it does look like
the Tina vote is not retire. Learning back to the
Republican Party the way they did for Trump's election, a
(41:05):
lot to do with it, has a lot to do
with the immigration enforcement.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Well we'll see. But you know, the old days, how
did a similation work when you had high rates of
immigration from what we're thought by the way to be
undesirable populations in the eighteen nineties and up to nineteen
twenty four, you know, polls, Italians, Romanians, let me finish, me,
let me finish for a minute.
Speaker 2 (41:28):
And how was that done.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
It was done by those big city machines that say, okay,
we're going to help you out. You vote for us
and you take orders. Right. There was the confidence. I mean,
never mind how corrupt Hamley Hall might have been. That
was the kind of corruption that worked in a certain way.
And that's what the country doesn't have anymore, and especially
the Democratic Party who ought to be good at this
does not have any more at all. That quite the opposite.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
Well, they saw it.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
They don't believe in it, exactly, it's worse than not
believing it. They're against it.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
They should have listened to Jefferson, who, by the way,
war that we shouldn't even be letting in immigrants from
European countries who had absolute monarchies. He said, is you know,
nothing can be more opposed than the maximum of absolute monarchies.
Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number
of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of
(42:18):
government they leave imbibed in their early youth, etc. Etc.
And if they are able to throw them off, it
will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness. So you
know that this is not a new debate. What I
think is new is the way one of you, just
one of you just said it, which is that the
Democrats are opposed to the idea of forcing assimilation. Not
(42:42):
so much to our culture. I think that one of
the things that we have done exceptionally well is embrace
lots of culture. You know, I can still tell you
some of my Swedish culture that I grew up when
you know the grandparents who immigrated here from Sweden. John
obviously has hold k Pop h Demon hunt.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
In fact, it was Steam that made me watch Demon Hunters.
I was not watch it because I'm Korean high culture,
not Korean local.
Speaker 3 (43:12):
I got it the but but the point is is
that it's not that's not necessary to destroy those aspects
of culture that are not in any way undermining the
more important things like understanding the principles of free government.
And that's what you How many places are there, si
(43:34):
are they trying to enforce sharia law in Texas? Of
all the god awful places can you imagine? And so
that's I I I think that I'm being extreme because
like Trump was being extreme. I really believe that.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
I mean Trump person to person is it doesn't have
a mean bone in his body. Uh, I believe. But
but we can't go on and let the Ja of
Paul and the the Tim whatever his name is, phrase
of the world besetting our agenda here on these things
or the Tim waltzs oh wait, I have one half
(44:10):
to get and then I'll move on to our more.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Important Well, well, can I mention here an additional theme,
this is my running theme for these stories is once
again the media. The New York Times has been surprising
about this. Their story this week was your rampant welfare
fraud welfare front among the Somala community under Governor Waltz's watch,
(44:33):
was their headline. And first of all, why at the
Times ignored the story for four or five years? I
mean this has been known for a while. Scott Johnson's
been writing about this forever, and john and others and
and Rufou and the City Journal people, and why the
Times do a big story on this. Well, I'm not
sure why, but a headline like that is very damaging
(44:53):
when you put it that way, and headlines are important
in this world. Quick story, Uh, I should try and
find it. This whole thing. Back in two thousand and seven,
I think it was I did my own little forty
five minute movie refuting Al Gore's whatever. His climate change
movie was an inconvenient truth, and we long story how
(45:14):
but we canned the New York Times and then doing
a culture piece about a screening in San Francisco, and
the headline of New York Times it was at like
page ten. It wasn't The front page was you know,
finally a faux for Gore and it had my picture
and I told about this the movie and described me
I was large in as I right. Okay, so you
know the whole thing. Well, the interesting thing was the
(45:36):
Times got flamed over the headline, and so the early
edition had, you know, a faux for Gore at last.
Right by the afternoon, that headline had been scrubbed from
the online version and changed to something more anadyne you know,
film critical of Gore shows it some little And the
point is headlines are really important. And the fact that
and the time that it is not lost on Times editors.
(45:57):
So the fact they went with that very damaging head
line to Tim Waltz, I think is also a sign
that there's something up with the media.
Speaker 3 (46:04):
Okay, well there's something up with Tim Waltz. Oh he's
very upset because the R word. And believe it or not,
the reason I think this is so funny is because
this has been a thing in my house. One of
the little college students around here said, you can't use
the R word in front of me. Oh my god,
(46:26):
was she sorry? She said that I'm just gonna leave it.
That that is so gay and retarded. Sorry, but this
is this is Waltz. This creates danger. Trump calling him
a retard. People are driving by my house and using
the R word. This is shameful, But he's actually saying
that that Trump calling him a retard, and other people
(46:51):
then driving by his house and using the R word.
Oh my god, the R word is going to create
danger and violence because that's what it leads to.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
Soay, no, you can't say retarded.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
Well yeah, you can say gay if you're part of
the official you know, the Hamman tern as I call it.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Job.
Speaker 1 (47:19):
You finally got it right. The Trump does this on purpose,
not to be mean, but for a good reason. I mean, uh,
just stick with Gulf of America, right, this is outright
Gulf of America. This is ridiculous. Well, you know, the
left has been renaming things for the last ten years.
(47:39):
We renamed all of our novels, named several military bases
because the people were bad. So I think this is
Trump fighting back against politically correct speech and the way
the left is tried to define and constrain our political
discourse by saying what words and concepts we could and
couldn't use. So, you know, forget retard, for a moment
for Waltz, which, by the way, kind of a lies.
(48:00):
I mean, that guy is really a dupeless But he said,
we don't want immigration from third world countries. You're not
supposed to say third world countries anymore, he said, I
said that all the time in class. Yeah, but people
know that you're you know, a retrogade or something like that. Oh.
He also uses the word illegal immigrant. Remember for years now,
(48:20):
it's been no, no, we call them undocumented immigrants, not
illegal immigrants. And actually this week the person who really
slammed the reporters on this was uh, Governor flor Governor Florida,
I'm blanking DeSantis, he said, I'm just saying this for years,
but finally you hear a Republican politician saying this. Wait
(48:41):
a minute, that's not an accurate term. An awful lot
of the people in the country have documents, they have
visas and other conditional documents that were given that they're
in violation of. That makes them what in violation of
the law, hence illegal immigrants. That's a precise term, of course.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Right.
Speaker 3 (49:02):
Sorry, I know we're short on times. This is the
best story I'm in this city leadership thing and we
go visit. Believe it or not, we go visit the
city landfill refuse center to it all works okay. And
so then we're in this little seminar and the guy's
talking and he talks about how one of the biggest
(49:22):
problems for waste management in the county here is the
amount of trash left behind by undocumented Oh, he says.
And he says something on the order of I'm going
to make it up five hundred tons a year of
trash they collect from the desert left behind by undocumented workers.
(49:44):
And I turned to the person next to me, but
loud enough for everybody to hear, I said, isn't it
interesting how they can document the trash of undocumented workers.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Well, I have said for a long time that, oh
did you Oh, good for you. Well I've been I've
had a sort of a joke about this for a
wrong time. Except it's not a joke, of course, which
is nomenclature rules these things. So you know, we never
cared about the jungle until it became a rain forest.
We're never worried about the dump until it became a landfill,
(50:19):
and we never worried about the swamp until it became
a wet land which needs to be preserved, right, so
we do those kind of euphemisms, and euphemisms rule us.
And again this is why Trump says to help with
all that. And I think he does it on purpose,
and I think he's calculated that. I think he's absolutely right.
And no one else seems to get it, except, as
I say, DeSantis gets it to some extent.
Speaker 3 (50:39):
And Lucretia, well, yes, because she.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
Before all of them.
Speaker 1 (50:45):
That's true.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
Okay, so we you know, we're running out of time
because these guys have really important lives and they have
places to be. But we do have one last topic though,
in order to keep on our schedule of thisscussing things
related to the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the
founding of our country, we do want to put a
(51:09):
bunch of these things in the perspective. And I think
we did a halfway decent job so far about talking
why it is immigrants they can keep their culture, assuming
again it's not a malicious, horrible culture, but they have
to assimilate by believing. What have you guys ever taken
the citizenship test just for the fun of it.
Speaker 2 (51:32):
I did a few years ago. I looked at the questions.
They're kind of tough for I think a lot of
Americans couldn't pass it.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3 (51:40):
I would always give it in my American government classes,
and I would rarely have a student who could pass
it at the beginning, and then I give it to
him again.
Speaker 2 (51:47):
At the end, and then the scores were worse.
Speaker 3 (51:51):
No, they actually were.
Speaker 1 (51:52):
Actually.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
The funny thing was I would have the local political
reporter from the Sam Bernardino Sun would come and go
with and we would do it together, and he would
write about it pretty much every every quarter in the
quarter system. So anyway, don't.
Speaker 2 (52:07):
Give it that. You see San Diego, Oh god, we
don't talk about that yet.
Speaker 3 (52:14):
Yeah, let's tell it quick, because I think I can
pull it in. No.
Speaker 2 (52:19):
No, I mean a shocking number of you see San
Diego freshmen can't even do middle school math. I have
to take. They're offering these huge medial classes in algebra
that it's unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (52:33):
Yeah, and you see, San Diego is not a community college.
You have to actually qualify to get in. It's it's
merit based.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
Or suppose no, it's it's a very strong science and
technology campus. I mean they've got several Nobel Prize winners there.
They have the ugliest library in the world. But never
mind that, okay, but the nicest speech. You might have
something to say about that anyway, Okay, all.
Speaker 1 (52:58):
Right, I did.
Speaker 3 (52:59):
Most most beaches on California are still beautiful, Steve. It's
just the Russa state that sucks these days, you know,
and not the land is still beautiful. So how do
we push the idea? This is I think it's actually
very important. I'm going to leave aside because we're not
going to have time. We're going to we are going
to pick it up next time. Steve wants to discuss
(53:21):
the issue, which I think is the other side of
the question of post liberalism and our friends on the
right who want to reject the very things that our
friends like Somali's and our idiot former President Obama. This
is what I mean. He really believes that it's the
(53:42):
fact that we don't all look alike, that this makes
this country exceptional. Remember he's the same idiot who when
asked about it as president, when asked what he thought
American exceptionalism meant, he said, well, I you know, I
think America is exceptional, just like I'm sure France thinks
they're exceptional. And you know, he's just so.
Speaker 1 (54:01):
He never saw the incredibles, did he? Yeah? Right, what
everybody's special? No one is right.
Speaker 3 (54:07):
But if you're the president of the United States and
you do not know the basic principles that make America
truly exceptional, that's a really really, it's a huge indictment
if you ask me, and I believe it is what
drives especially the left. We'll keep it to the left
for today because we don't have time to hound our
(54:29):
hands on the right that they don't understand what the
true meaning of equality is and they have usurped the
true meaning of equality that came from the Declaration, turned
it into something that the right, some people at least
on the right, are quite willing to say we want
to reject. Does that make sense, I'm probably going too
(54:50):
fast on this. H you take it over?
Speaker 1 (54:53):
Well, I can't. I mean, there's too much to unpack there.
But let's just do like an half the whole episode
on this, and let's.
Speaker 2 (55:02):
Do first liberalism next week and then tied in with this.
Speaker 1 (55:06):
Yeah, and you know, do the leftist and Luke creature
you bait me. Let's be bad. This is your well,
let's got you three minutes left in the.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
Genius.
Speaker 1 (55:21):
I'm gonna be twitching all night. I bet I gotta
pour another whiskey here. Okay, sorry, go ahead, It's okay.
Speaker 3 (55:27):
If we have three minutes, I don't again. We'll pick
it up next time, and we'd be happy to see
some comments about that. I got some specific comments about
different things that I actually addressed in this podcast, So
I'm hoping people.
Speaker 1 (55:41):
Here's I'll do. I'll do. I'll do a post on
our political question substack, saying here's what's on our mind.
I've been meaning to write an IAM about this because
of questions I've been getting for people. So I'll write
something and flag it for people, and then we'll use
it next week. Okay, but now we need babbyl on
bees and and then I've got it. I've got are
you okay? Good?
Speaker 3 (56:02):
The Babylon be sometimes reads my mind? What can I say?
Or simpatico or you know, the Vulcan mind and whatever
it is. Black Hawk Down remake to be filmed in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2 (56:18):
Oh Man January six.
Speaker 3 (56:22):
Bombing suspect disinvited from FBI Christmas party. Better those guys,
American patriots in Minnesota paint their doorways red, white and
blue so that ice will pass over their houses. You'll
(56:44):
like this, Steve, Minnesota Vikings changed name to Minnesota Somali Pirates.
Speaker 1 (56:49):
Yeah right, I saw that one too.
Speaker 3 (56:52):
Yeah yeah, ok uh one, last one? Sorry I lost it.
Government accidentally shuts itself down with ban on non essential businesses.
Speaker 1 (57:08):
I think, but yeah, right, okay, oh what last one?
Speaker 3 (57:14):
Elean Omar argues she should be able to stay in
horrible country she hates. Yeah, there is the encapsulation of
my whole point today.
Speaker 1 (57:24):
Yeah right, so all right, your turn.
Speaker 2 (57:27):
John, Oh, always drink your whiskey, need buy more books?
And Steve, what is the latest command from your AI overlords? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (57:38):
So I have a whole bunch of them, But the
one I'm gonna use here is I asked AI to
give us a sort of script of Sydney Sweeney listening
to the three Whiskey Happy Hour, and I'm just gonna
be part of.
Speaker 2 (57:52):
Just obsessing because Sydney Sweeny, it's.
Speaker 1 (57:54):
A it's a Did you see the news this week,
by the way that American eagle outfitter Stock is swored
because of her endorsements and I said, if you're inside trader,
you want to find out what products she's going to
endorse next. Okay, I'm just gonna give you a portion
of this. I think it's very good. She's in Sydney
Sweeney's in her kitchen listening to the podcast. Lucretia's voice
(58:15):
came in sharp, dry, and amused, already min analysis of
some historical parallel no one else would have thought to make.
Sidney paused, midsip of her coffee. Okay, who is this woman?
She whispered to no one. Lucretia delivered a jab wrapped
in academic vocabulary. Sydney snorted, nearly choking on her matcha.
She leaned against the island, crossing her arms, listening harder.
(58:38):
Sidney let out a laugh that bounced around the empty kitchen. Damn,
she's bold, and she go out to skip a little bit.
She's like your smartest friend who starts arguments at dinner
parties on purpose, Sydney said to her dog, who had
wandered in and flopped at her feet. The podcast continued.
When the episode ended, she stared at a speaker for
a beat. Okay, Cresha, she murmured, for with a smile.
(59:02):
You're kind of badass. She hit the play next episode button.
Speaker 3 (59:09):
I like that nicest compliment I've had all days.
Speaker 1 (59:11):
Steve Well, I you know, hey, look, I know what
I want to do if I want to stay on
your good side. So all right, bye bye everybody, This
is fun.
Speaker 2 (59:19):
Bye everybody.
Speaker 1 (59:21):
Jeema, I can't put you on top of the world
and jump bed no bad. I left chucked to lutch him.
Speaker 2 (59:32):
I can't give it you watch and need you turn
around and run away.
Speaker 1 (59:36):
Tomly, she's old man.
Speaker 2 (59:38):
I left chunk.
Speaker 1 (59:43):
Oh fast high jam in that look everywhere your song.
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.