February 1, 2025 • 60 mins
This wide-ranging, round-robin format episode begins with celebrating the end of "Dry January" (which we, um, didn't much observe), mockery of Bernie Sanders' obsession with "onesies," a brief account of a Steve roadtrip to Villanova University, and a declaration of war against the Commentary podcast. (It's serious: it involves McRibs.)
After we clear away this opening frivolity, we get down to serious business. Lucretia is in high dudgeon about the Catholic bishops behaving just the way they did in the 1980s—like lapdogs for the left—which generated reflections on theology, federal grant restrictions, J.D. Vance's dialectical skill, and some reasons for optimism for the future of both the Catholic Church and the world as a whole.
John casts his spotlight on what we saw in the contentious confirmation hearings for Kash Patel, RFK, Jr, and Tulsi Gabbard. There was rare agreement and sharp disagreement (our usual mode) about aspects of these appointments.
Exit bumper music from our pal, the historian Steve Tootle, who doubles as the singer/songwriter for Cosigner; "No Hour Is Mine" sounds a bit like what professors think after class.
After we clear away this opening frivolity, we get down to serious business. Lucretia is in high dudgeon about the Catholic bishops behaving just the way they did in the 1980s—like lapdogs for the left—which generated reflections on theology, federal grant restrictions, J.D. Vance's dialectical skill, and some reasons for optimism for the future of both the Catholic Church and the world as a whole.
John casts his spotlight on what we saw in the contentious confirmation hearings for Kash Patel, RFK, Jr, and Tulsi Gabbard. There was rare agreement and sharp disagreement (our usual mode) about aspects of these appointments.
Exit bumper music from our pal, the historian Steve Tootle, who doubles as the singer/songwriter for Cosigner; "No Hour Is Mine" sounds a bit like what professors think after class.
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 money all ry.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Why think alone when you can drink it all in
with Ricochet's three whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
John Yu and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Where they slapped it up and it ain't easy on
the should stop got it giving.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
W All right, you guys, aren't we glad that Drive
January is over? Did you guys both survive January well enough?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Or did you try January?
Speaker 1 (00:40):
What?
Speaker 5 (00:40):
What did Joe? What do you mean January mean?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Drive January is? Was we were supposed to give up
alcohol for a month? Why? I don't know? I mean
I I borrow, I dredged up and re stated.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Will Rogers famous line about prohibition, which in my case
was at least drive January doesn't mean no liquor at all?
Speaker 4 (00:59):
I know you know what it is?
Speaker 5 (01:01):
Where does this idea come from the latest.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Thing from the CDC who wants us all to believe
that alcohol is the greatest cause of every disease ever
known to man? That it's a that you know that
it's almost a quarter of a millionth of a jump
in your chances of getting cancer if you drink, and
I mean it's it's just the latest thing, like you
shouldn't be barbecuing your meat because of the carbon and
(01:27):
it's just stupid. So I'm drinking more because of it.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yeah, well, if they make me give up alcohol, I'm
going to take up smoking because you know they okay,
they snap that out.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
Speaking of it's getting a lot of a lot of
play that RFK had a nicotine gum or or shoe
or something like that in the middle of the pretty
rough hearings, So you can't blame that he was a heroin.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
If he can't have alcohol, I'm going to take a funanol.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Well all right, So so by the way, how are you, Crazi?
Speaker 1 (02:00):
How are you? John? You're doing well this week? I think,
I hope.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
Yeah, I mean, after we recorded last weekend, the Eagles
won the NFC Championship. We're going to go to the
Super Bowl, and I wish I could beat in New
Orleans watching the Eagles and eating mcred simultaneously, but I
can't be and a soft pretzel. But this is like
the best thing, This is the most important thing I
should tell. It's a true story, but it's also a joke.
(02:25):
It's a true story. Is my mom was a psychiatrist
and she worked in a psychiatric hospital in Philadelphia for
forty years. And so the other day I said to her,
you know, Philadelphia is a crazy city, said mom, was
there ever a day where there were no new patients?
And she said yes, the day after the Eagles won
the Super Bowl. Ah, true story.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Right.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Well, you know your fans have gotten even more of
a bad rap because of how you know, subhuman. They
tend to act on occasion like the guy who you
know made all those nasty comments to that woman. I
think she was a Chiefs fan. No, no, it was
before that. Whatever it was, she was anyway, and he
got kicked out forever he can never go to another
(03:11):
Eagles game. And then he got fired because he worked
for some DEI company that remember that that believes in
belonging and anyway, But I will tell you this. There's
a big story a couple of days ago about the
fact that the Eagles had extended a very generous invitation
(03:35):
package to the Super Bowl to one of the guys
in New Orleans who had been his buddy. Was they
both played for Princeton football. For Princeton, his buddy was
killed and he was seriously seriously injured, and so the
Eagles are are rolling out the red and he's still
in pretty bad shape, fractures everywhere and so on. He
(03:55):
was hit by the car, the truck, So the Eagles
are making a big deal out of him to the
Super Bowl.
Speaker 5 (04:02):
You don't see I don't think you see any Seagles
players taking a kneed during the national anthem. I'll tell
you that much. Philadelphia doesn't never don't stand for that
kind I don't think so we don't stand for that
kind of stuff. That's a forty That's a San Francisco thing, right,
that's Colin Kaepernick in the San Francisco forty nine ers
and all their PC football, right, But all.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
The others did it too, and the NFL was pretty
despicable in that whole thing.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
But I agree, Yeah, I think that's now.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
But since you mentioned McRib john, that's one of the
pieces of housekeeping to get to here in our opening today.
And I was gonna do it in different order, but
you brought it up, so let's do it now. It
is my sad duty to tell our listeners that it
has become necessary in the course of human events for
the three Whiskey Happy Hour to declare holy war on
the Commentary Magazine podcast because.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
Earlier this week they went on the war path about
how disgusting the McRib is not once not just in
passing they did at the beginning of the show in
a prolonged fashion because actually John pot Hard it's not
like John, but he never does anything briefly.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
And someone there Whiskey Happy Hour.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
The kettle black.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
But then they came back to it to the end
of the episode too, so they doubled down on just
in the McRib And you know, look, I made my
view is clear. I don't like the McRib either, but
they don't get to do that. And this is a
three Musketeers moments, all for one and one for all.
So listeners, we have declared war on the Commentary Magazine podcast.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Probably thinks that it's better if they do because they'll
mean more for him.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
Well there's that, But can I ask, like, did they
attack the McRib or did they attack McDonald's overall, because
if you attack McDonald's, this is like from you know,
the famous speech from Animal House, then you're attacking the
United States America.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Right, No, No, it was just the McRib.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Still, I think you could make the same Uh, you
could make the same progression, John. If you attacked the McRib,
you're attacking McDonald's, which means you are attacking the United
States of America.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
I did think, I mean, look, I'm I'm a good
old fashioned proto wasp, and I did think it was
interesting and revealing who exactly a'm on the commentary crowd
or not, shall we say, strictly observant Jews when it
comes to their fast food preference sell.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Then how do they know what a mcgrip tastes like?
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Anyway?
Speaker 5 (06:24):
Can it?
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Well, that's what I was wondering. But I don't want
to chase too far after that or we'll get in
the usual trouble.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
So the usual trouble. Oh, this is going to you know,
And this is just once again the snooty New York
City Manhattan elites looking down on the rest of the country,
isn't it.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
I think?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
By when we move on from that and say that
my favorite executive order, John, I think you should be
for this is Uh. Trump should mandate that mcgribby part
of the school lunch program. Then we'd have it year round.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
For sure.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
All that plus next you know how he usually welcomes.
Remember he welcomed I think the NCAA men's football champions
or basketball. I remember he had a big picture of
him piled in the White House, piled with big max
and quarter pounders. Well he should add mcgribs next time.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Well, I I mean he was by the ways everything
and they had Chick fil a and again he had
all the you know but this true?
Speaker 5 (07:21):
Yeah, who I wouldn't. But look, this is the thing.
It's that, as you all know, the McRib is a
very special sandwich. It's not available all the time. It
only comes out for certain precise seasons. And I bet
that wasn't available when Trump had his celebration. Sam, Yeah, oh, Rush,
I could spam sushi they'd be more lucky. But I
(07:43):
bet you know, I bet the guys on commentary don't
know this because they don't even even really eat mcgribs.
They just look down on America.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Wait a minute, that's perfect.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Let me let me change that.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
We're declaring limited war, not unconditional total war.
Speaker 5 (07:58):
So is there anything whatever leads you to believe that
Lucretia or I believe in limited war?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
No, yeah, I had a whole thought about that that
I believe on the cutting room floor. One other piece
of housekeeping, briefly, listeners, the reason we're coming on a
little later than usual, you know, half a day late,
whatever is. I was on the road to something, John,
you actually got me involved in. I had to go
back to Villanova Law School to be the keynote speaker, and,
(08:30):
much to my sort of discomfort because I don't like
the lime light, sort of the focus of his day
long conference at the annual SCARPA Conference on Law, Politics,
and Culture, so pretty broad scale. I had no idea
John that, and I clearly have brought down their average.
But among the luminaries who've been their keynote speakers and
focus for the day include Justice Scalia obviously many years ago,
(08:53):
Martha Nusbam, who I don't like worth of darn, but
she's a big figure in the sort of academic philosophical world.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
And then how did I get on this list?
Speaker 5 (09:01):
And anyway, it's about conservative thought? What did you tell them?
I read the paper. I hope you'll post it, but
I was hoping at least if seventy five to one
hundred great minds came together at least someone would finally
be able to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Well, I think you're just too optimistic, John.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Yeah, well you should have.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well, first of all, I just do want to say
thanks to Patrick Brennan, who had.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Never met before.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
He's a great guy.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Yeah, he's a very serious guy.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Uh and has a you know, an interesting political philosophy
though he became a law professor.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Yes, and to his staff.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
And you know, Steven Smith from Yale was there, and
he's a very nice guy in a very gentle manner.
But he picked a fight with me on a couple
of things where he thought I'd gone too.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Far and that was fun.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Dan Mahoney and I had dinner the night before and
got shushed in the restaurant for talking too loudly.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
Oh where'd you go?
Speaker 1 (09:51):
What was Steve?
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Steve's Steve's cheesteaks, Steve's No.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
No, we were out in what rabb Hopefully.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
They weren't a no no no.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
We were at a nice restaurant in the hotel we
were staying, and we a few patrons found.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Us to be too loud, and that's probably true.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Dan's a large, loud guy and saw my and I
haven't seen him for ten years. Anyway, it was fun
and I will probably post the paper awesome anyway, And
then the only other thing is, you know, I keep
threatening We're gonna do three whiskey happy hour whiskey glasses
for listeners who are interested.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
I wonder should we do onesies? I mean, that's the thing.
The way the hell are you onesies? See you missed
this too, John. It was the highlight of the week.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Was Bernie Sanders glowering at RFK Junior, pointing to a
slide of you know, onesies, a little baby clothes.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You do you support these onesies? And in my mind,
I'm trying to think. I don't know if Bernie Sanders sayst.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Well, because because supposedly the anti vaxers are out there
for twenty eight dollars, you can buy your child, your
your infant, because infants wear onesies and I guess, uh
the what Chris Chris Christie also wears onesies. Anyway, The
baby onesies say things like anti vaxxin proud of it,
(11:10):
things like that, So they make some money to support
some of their efforts by selling onesies that say things.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Yeah, but I in my mind, I was trying to
conjure up Bernie Sanders changing a diaper. I don't know
if he has kids or grandkids, but it was and
what he might say. There's a comedy sketch to be
written there because it's.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
The Maha moms. John, Are you aware of the Maha moms?
Speaker 5 (11:34):
Oh? Make America healthy again?
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (11:37):
And there supposedly the movement out there of the Maha
moms is greater than the suburban soccer moms that brought
Clinton into power. We'll see, yeah see, but that was
a big reason supposedly that they voted for Trump. Remember
all the dire warnings about the suburban moms would all
go for Come Milama ding Dong, but instead they all
(12:00):
voted for Trump. And supposedly it's because of RFK Junior.
Speaker 5 (12:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Well, anyway, listeners, this week we are going to do
instead of a single topic and going after it in depth,
we're going to go to our round robin format where
each of us brings up a topic or article or
something on our mind or a rant or whatever. And
we were going to start with Lucretia right after these
messages from our sponsors. Don't go away, all right, Lucretia
(12:29):
you're up.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
What's on your mind this week?
Speaker 4 (12:31):
Well, there's a lot on my mind, but you only
are going to let me talk about one of those things.
So I had to prioritize here and what I want
to talk about for all of my faithful listeners out there,
who are in fact of the faithful i e. Catholics,
this was an interesting week for all of us, a
very interesting week. So you have jd Vance, who is,
(12:51):
like me, a fairly recent convert to Catholicism. And you know,
we recent converts don't necessarily have that cradle Catholic cradle
mentality where whatever the Pope says is gospel, sorry forgive
the pun, nor do we care too much what the
(13:12):
bishops have to say. You know, we came to this
whole thing from an intellectual point of view, and then
and faith and what the bishops say. But what came
out this week very clearly, and you can again thank
Elon Musk for making a very big deal out of this,
is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which
(13:33):
has not been a great organization for a very long time,
it turns out that they have received over the course
of let's just say, the Biden administration. It didn't start
in the Biden administration, but it got much worse, literally
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to provide what
(13:54):
shall we say, assistants to refugees and immigrants. And know,
part of the very big problem with that, I think
I might have even mentioned it on a podcast some
weeks ago, is that there's a camp that's not too
far from my house on the other side of the
foothills that's run by the bishops, and ango aligned with
(14:15):
the bishops gets federal money to house immigrants on their
way through the mountains. You know, it's the whole thing
is despicable, especially because I mean, the bishops came out
this week and they trashed Trump's executive orders on immigration
and his deportation. As you put it, John, we're not
supposed to say deportation anymore. We have to say removal, right,
(14:37):
that's the legal word that along with illegal aliens. That's
that's in the law too, Okay, illegal aliens. And so
you know, they're finding that this goes against Christian practice
and so on, and and of course you know, the
hypocrisy is so thick here because all of these last
four years they didn't care a damn about the fact
(14:59):
that Biden, supposedly a practicing Catholic, was pro abortion in
every possible way, pro transgender you know, on and on
all the despicable things that came out of the Biden
administration at least nodded at, nodded to by Biden. If
whether or not he was behind them, it's hard to
say if he was behind anything anyway. So Jady Vans
(15:21):
gets on there with Margaret Margaret, I won't, I won't.
I won't run it for you. Steve, I'll leave it
for you. But and and has this interesting discussion and it's,
believe it or not, a discussion that we had a
few weeks ago, and one of our listeners took me
to task for it. I didn't bother to answer her
because it wasn't worth it to me at the time.
(15:42):
And that is the notion it was when we were
talk about Jimmy Carter, and I said that the thing
I found most despicable about Jimmy Carter was when he
was preening about the fact that he felt so guilty
and cried every night because he cared more about amy
than he did about some random poverty stricken child in Africa,
(16:02):
and I just you know, that's everything that that defines
everything that's despicable about the Left, which is, let's care
about people. Let's let's show, let's virtue signal how much
we care about people that we can't do much about.
We certainly can't personally do anything about it. We can
force our tax dollars to go to that, and that's
what we should do it for good Christians or whatever. Anyway,
(16:24):
Jamie Vance took him down, and he did it by
he did it by referencing a biblical precept, something out
of Thomas Aquinas called the Ordo Amorus or the order
of Love. And it's really very clear in Christian theology.
Despite people who want to say that the Good Samaritan
(16:48):
parable says the opposite, it doesn't. I want. I'm not
going to do a sermon today, I promise, but the
order of love is very simple God, you, your family,
your neighbor, your commune, unity, your nation, and then the world.
And there's a whole lot of reasons for it, which
I won't go into. But boy, do I like that guy, JD. Vance?
(17:09):
Oh well for commentary.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Yeah, Well, I've got a couple of comments, and then
also sort of a minor scandal to share with John.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
It relates to aquinas a litill find funny.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I think, look, Advance did this with a bit of
trumpy and genius and baiting the liberals to expose themselves,
because never mind the theology for a moment, to say
that you should care about migrants as much as or
more than your own family, is that really a good
look for liberals? I mean, that just goes against nature,
never mind theology.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
It's incredible, that's why they push it, because it goes
against nature.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Yeah, okay, the fair point, right.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
I mean that goes along with the you know, the
socialist impulse to nationalize the children and goes back to Plato.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
The bit about the Catholic bishops, I mean, boy, I
had them in my gun sights back in the eighties
when they were behind the nuclear freeze and opposing Reagan's
foreign policy. But about the federal grants to Catholic charities
and such, that's been going on for a long time
for all kinds of things, you know, homeless services and
all the rest. But as you may know, and John,
maybe you may or may not know, and I forget
(18:10):
the details but they might as well not have the
word Catholic in the name of any of them, because
the grants are.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Conditional that there's no spiritual.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Element, no religious element in the grant programs. That's why
they usually aly to an NGO. Really, I think a
lot of these Catholic organizations are laundering the money from
the NGOs who do the actual work. And I mean
this was an issue with you know, President George W.
Bush's Faith based initiatives. They wanted to chip away at that, thinking,
(18:38):
you know, if you're gonna have a faith based organizations,
maybe we'll let them talk about their faith as an
element in those services they deliver. Right, No, of course
there's lots of problems there, but that was controversial with
the left. Oh we can't have it asked to be
one hundred percent secular. And then finally John Halter over
to you. So John Carlow and I'm forgetting his last
(18:59):
name for heritage, was at the conference. I keep wanting
to call him Carfano, but that's James the forum. But anyway,
John Carla was very good.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Young guy.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Carlo cam That's it.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
John Carlo Camparo told the funny story.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
He said, uh yeah, I bought a copy of the
Suma Theologica to use, and I tried to expense it.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
The Heritage Foundation wouldn't let me.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
I thought, well, boot boot on heritage, then really that
should that should be a legitimate job expense.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
And anyway, that was funny.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Take it off your taxes.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
But I know, anyway, John, what do you have to
add on if anything?
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Or well, you guys are both Catholic, right, I don't
get why Steve's like our friend.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
No, no, no, no, I'm Eastern Orthodox?
Speaker 5 (19:46):
Are you really?
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (19:47):
No? Oh gosh, I.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Know this.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Icons in your house, Well, this is my I have
a few here and there, not very many that part
of you.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
Know, Steve does smell like incense all the time.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Yeah, we do even more incense than the High Church
Episcopal Church of which you left. But well, all right,
ten seconds. If you really want a conser a conservative church,
it's not going to get true. The Orthodox Church is
the one for you. They're the same abandoned. Oh I
do want sorry, five more seconds. I really do want
Trump to insist that we need to change the name
(20:26):
of istan Bull back to Constantinople and then he can
be president for life.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
Well, I've been talking about that for decades. The game.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
I okay, anyway, so wait, can I just one last
thing before John goes on? But you didn't give us
a chance. You said you were going to for our
own executive orders that we wanted, right, So I think
mine's mine's already out there AI having Trump do it,
and it's we will be allowed to say gay and
retarded again and it will be great.
Speaker 5 (20:55):
Okay, sorry, Actually should just take that remember that list
of Stanford for in words, right, you should just have
an issue EO saying that these words are to be
used by all government officials.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Anyway, I still loved.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
That episode where we had a contest to you who
could use all the words and like Lucretia like was
it had two to one, but.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Either of us trying it in sixty seconds it was around.
It wasn't even you know.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Retarded was on there, I think, but not there anyway.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
You got to put them together, oh somebody.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (21:29):
So my question was, you know, one, why does the
Catholic Church allow these people in the hierarchy to speak
on political issues as if they represent the Catholic churches
and institutions? Says one question, But then the second question
is I I remember the Catholic bishops and a lot
of other religious leaders came out against Reagan's foreign policy
(21:52):
and called for nuclear zero, And I mean the idea
that they would be commenting on the deployment on intermediate
range ballistics well missiles in Europe, the pershings, which actually
had a lot to do with helping the end the
Cold War. But I think because of that, could you
say that the rank and file Catholics have lost a
(22:13):
lot of faith in their leadership and institution because of
things like that. So I'll make a point as someone
who went to an Episcopalian school and go to Episcopalian church,
is there was a lot of controversy about the Episcopalian
bishop by I guess, giving an openly political speech at
the National Cathedral with the President and the audience and
(22:37):
making a plea on behalf of illegal aliens and gays
and transferred, you know, the people that she thought were
going to be harmed by President Trump's orders. Regardless of
what you think about that one way or the other,
I think it's inappropriate for church leader to be commenting
like that, particularly in front of the elected leadership of
(22:57):
the country. So it makes me not to It makes me,
you know, not want to take the leadership of the
episcopal church all that.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Seriously, well, you're absolutely right, John. By the way, that woman,
that bishop, the Washington Bishop received an organization she runs
out of there received fifty three million dollars in immigration
assistance federal moneies fifty last year fifty three million dollars.
So she had a little bit of a financial interest
(23:26):
in that as well, which is the big problem with
all of it. But for just a moment, you know, here,
here's the problem. And I know people who are Catholic
who say they won't go to the Catholic Church anymore
because of Pope Francis, because of this or that. I
am again, I'm probably not the best person to speak
to this because I'm not a cradle Catholic. So i
(23:46):
didn't grow up believing that, you know, when the Pope
spoke it was the word of God. And the whole
idea is crazy to me. I know what the the
I know what the you know the rules are about it,
and so on. But here's the point to remember. Also,
if you are indeed a Christian of some kind, you
have to realize that at church that church, your church,
(24:09):
my church, the universal Church whatever, is a man made
institution and it's going to be run by fallible human beings.
Thing one, thing two back to you guys. As mentioning
of what happened during the eighties and so on, there
was a very serious and successful effort on the part
of the Soviet Union to undermine the Catholic Church worldwide,
(24:34):
especially in South America. That's where you get the liberation
theology that our current pope is such an adherent of.
And it was manifestly successful. And the other thing that
they did was they infiltrated the seminaries. And I don't
want to go on after this rever because I know
you want to move on, but I just wanted to
(24:55):
get those points out to you. So John, here's the point.
Our Catholic leadership was so stupid. They fell for this
infiltration attempt by the Soviet Union and turned themselves completely political.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Well, by the way, I used to back in the
eighties refer to liberation theology, which really disappeared till Francis
came back. But I always referred to it then as
Marxism with salsa, because it really was.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
I mean, they had always.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Books about synthesizing Marxism and Christianity quite directly. However, I
think it should be mentioned that while our Conference of
Catholic Bishops was so bad on those questions, the French
and German bishops I think it was French and bishop
might have been Italian, but certainly the German bishops put
out their own paper dissenting from what the American bishop said,
and what they said was a long thoughtful I haven't
(25:42):
read it now for forty years, but I still have
a copy somewhere. What they said was no, no nuclear weapons,
and their deployment in our countries is consistent with just
war theory and a necessary thing to do so, and
that I suspect Cardinal Ratzinger had his hand on that.
Later Pope Benedict right now, I think I mentioned once before.
I know I have talked to some people about this.
(26:03):
I maybe said it on one of our episodes that
I've been hearing for a while anecdotally that the current
generation of Catholic seminarians are much more conservative and by
the way, much more heterosexual. That's has been a real
problem in past decades, right, And that was that was.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
A little bit like DEI in the seminaries. They were
purposely choosing seminarians who exhibited.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Minor attractions. They're supposed to say these days, and I
know what a felia. But anyway, the last point I'll
say is that I just lately saw some data and
I think I'll put this up as a daily chart
on power Line that surveys of Catholic seminarians going back
like twenty five thirty years and showing, in fact, a
rising number of Catholic seminarians are conservative, which means that
(26:53):
the age of Francis will be behind us, perhaps not
just to the top, but further down the ladder.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Two.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
So remember my priest, my young Filipino priest, who would
come at and at the end of every every mass
would do the Hail Mary and say, let's just pray
to Mother Mary to rid the world of the chief
peoples of communism and socialism.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
And then John all I can say, I mean, that's
episcopalian for a long time, and used to say I'm
not gonna let him kick me out until I couldn't stand.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
It any longer.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
But our reform project should be, or yours should be,
let's bring back the old days. Of when the Episcopal
Church was known as the Republican Party at prayer, which
you said that you.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
And I got to say, I don't have a lot
of respect I mean for the Episcopalian. So I was
listening to a sermon because the Bishop of California, I
think he was keen to the little church I was in,
happened to be there, and his whole sermon was about
why Christianity demanded that we do something about climate change?
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Right.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
I was just say, are you like out of your
like you're just so like you just should not be
in charge anything.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Nowhere both Episcopalians and Catholics have a real revival is
Africa in church. The Anglican Church in Africa is vibrant
and committed to the Bible. The Catholic Church is the
same way in Africa throughout it throughout most of Africa.
I should say, sorry, see if you're thinking.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
Well, I am.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
But I was wondering, like, because when they when you
sing this sys and they're going, how can you prioritize
lower forms of life over human life as a religious leader,
Because if you really want to, you know, do something
about climate change, you have to be in favor of
policies that reduce the population size, that's what they're really doing.
And so there are these people in the church who
(28:42):
think this, who are allegedly pro life. Are they not
elevating actually the other forms of nature above human life
in their policies. Then that just as when I was
listening as this sertment, I was like, this is this
runs counter It seems to me. Well the idea that you're,
you know, the Christian is a pro life, pro human life.
(29:03):
I couldn't believe it. And then I was like, you're
so so non logical and you're thinking you should just
not be in charge of anything, But that's how you
get to be the bishop.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Well you bring that up sparked of synaps in my
head that wasn't killed off by my non dry January.
The first sentence, as I recall, in the Catholic bishop's
statements against nuclear weapons in the nineteen eighties, and this
was highlighted by Professor Jaffa in Class Lucretia, The first
sentence was the existence something like this, the existence of
nuclear weapons calls into question the sovereignty of God. Professor
(29:35):
jaff would say, is it really now Catholic doctrine to
doubt the omnipotence of God. Climate change you can drop
in place of nuclear weapons, and it's the same thing.
It's it's actually a theological heresy, if not just total
lack of confidence in their own faith, in their own beliefs.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That's all I have to say, Lucretia, do you have
a life?
Speaker 4 (29:54):
Whoa with what John said? I mean, I imagine our
listeners are already born with our theological discussions here. But
because it was such a big deal this past week,
I thought it was worth bringing up. And I saw
a lot of Catholics because there's a group of Catholics
I follow on social media, and that gets me in
(30:14):
trouble sometimes, so I'll leave that aside. They're all saying
we're better off being led at the Catholic Church by J. D. Vanson.
We are the pope or the Catholic bishops. Yeah, which is?
Speaker 5 (30:25):
You know?
Speaker 4 (30:26):
I'm sure your friend that I won't mention here would
love to hear that. John.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
Yeah, well, all right, we need to go to a break,
if for no other reason that I need a couple
of minutes to catch my breath. After Lucretius saying she agreed,
with me one hundred percent. This is a rare moment.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
So don't go away, people, We'll be right back. All right,
We're back.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
And John, I'm throwing the mic to you. What's on
uppermost in your mind this week?
Speaker 5 (30:52):
I'm still thinking about the never trumpers who draw the
line at you know, not eating mcribs. But I will
I thought what I would raise was, to me, it's
a part of the same phenomenon, which is the confirmation hearings,
plus what's been going on with law enforcement and the
(31:15):
Justice Department. So you know, a lot of these headlines.
So many things happened this week. But the thing that
was interesting to me, and I think they're tied together,
was so President Trump has through the Attorney General, the
person who's the acting Attorney General, through the US Attorney
in Washington, d C. Who are all both acting right
(31:37):
now because they're pending Pam Bondi being confirmed. And then
whoever President Trump puts in DC firing all the prosecutors
who worked on the January sixth cases, in the Special
Council cases against him, and.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
Has been done. John, I thought, I read this is.
Speaker 5 (31:57):
One question is whether it's actually legal to do. And
then there's a story in the Washington Post today and
yesterday that apparently this is going to happen at the
FBI too, that FBI leaders are right now asking for
the names of the FBI agents who worked on the
January sixth and the Special Council investigations. So that's one,
(32:21):
you know, huge thing, plus President Trump flying all the
firing all the inspector generals and all the agencies. That's
another thing. And then you had the hearings this week
for the we talked a little about RFK Junior. I
guess so the ones that I focusing song was the
way that Cash Patel's hearings went versus Telsea Gabbard, And
(32:45):
so one thing issued I reason I wrote a few
pieces this week. They just happened to all come out
this week. They weren't all time to be this week,
but I had written different times.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
But that was wondering. Yeah, Frank got a lot, Okay, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
Which is like how what this all means about law fair?
The end of law fair and so on, and so
one way to understand what Trump is doing is that
this is a less damaging way to end lawfare, because
the thing he could do, and I've speculated he might do.
(33:20):
This is to actually investigate and prosecute criminally the people
who actually undertook the whole lawfair campaign. Because if in fact,
and this applied, maybe applies more to the district attorney
in New York, the Attorney general in New York, the
district attorney Fanny Willison. You know these are you know,
this is a Lucretia's Hall of Fame, hall of Shame,
(33:41):
and the DA her friend Fanny Willis in Georgia. But
it also might extend to the Special Council Jack Smith
and so on is did they actually launch these prosecutions
of Donald Trump to affect his ability to run in
the election, Because if they did, then they are violating
(34:01):
his constitutional rights and they're violating the constitutional rights of
the voters. This is the theory that Jack Smith actually
used to prosecute Donald Trump. So if that's true, I
think at the minimum Trump could launch invest have the
just uprin launch investigations. I would say, particularly targeted at
state prosecutors, state attorney generals, because the last thing I
(34:22):
think we want is states interfering with the ability of
federal candidates to run for office. So you could say,
you know, so the left has been hammering Pambondie and
Tulca Gabbert and Cash betelsing, Oh, you would never countenance that. Well,
if liberals don't want that to happen, then the less
aggressive position is President Trump firing all the people who
(34:46):
worked on these prosecutions that he thinks were wrong, that
actually his lawyers took the position in court that they
were unconstitutional. So this is where it all comes back
into the bigger things we like to talk about, is
that a president is allowed to have a different view
of the law than the courts. And so President Trump,
(35:06):
if he wants to think, and he's entitled to think,
that the prosecutions were unconstitutional, then he ought to fire
everybody who participated in them, because why should he tolerate
people in his administration who were doing, in his view,
appatently unconstitutional things. In my mind, it's the same thing
as Lincoln saying he wouldn't enforce dred Scott, Obey dread Scott,
(35:27):
same thing as Jefferson pardoning everyone who's been convicted under
the Alien Sedition acts. So, in a funny way, I
think what's been happening this week, while it's driving the
left crazy, they should be grateful that that is as
far as Trump has gone so far. The other point
is he's i think, also usefully restoring the idea that
(35:48):
the president is in charge of law enforcement. So notice
what Biden tried to do was, oh, no, I'm not
involved in any of this. It's a special counsel is
allowed to do what he wants, and oh, these states,
I have nothing to do with these states going on
after federal candidates.
Speaker 4 (36:02):
The worst part was it was a lie.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
Yeah, I mean, that's part of the investigation, is that
you'll be able to get the emails and discussion notes
of all the people who participate in these meetings. But
at least Trump is making clear firing these agents, firing
the prosecutors, firing the inspector generals. The president is actually,
in the constitution, the head of all federal law enforcement,
and he has a duty actually to remove people who
(36:26):
won't carry out the views of the constitution that he holds.
So now it's going to be a great fight. It's
going to be a great civil service fight because you know,
these prosecutors, some of them and FBI agents are going
to say I'm being fired in violation of the Civil
Service Act.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
Ah but now my understanding is right, there's a legal
question mark there.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
My understanding is, and.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
I've read a few pieces about this this week.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
No one has yet filed suit yes to say my
firing was illegal.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
And the speculation that I kind of love this, that
the left is actually paranoid. This way, I applaud Trump
one more time. There's speculation that Trump is setting a
trap for them because this will elevate a reconsideration of
Humphrey's executor, the famous case that said there are limits
on the president's ability to control quote unquote independent agencies
and executive branch, which I think is widely thought to
(37:15):
be defective and vulnerable, not just by but this.
Speaker 4 (37:18):
Morrison versus Olsen is a better for the law enforcement.
It's a better precedent for the left on law enforcement. Right,
even though everybody acknowledges it was now that Scalia was right,
Sclio was right. Yeah, And I do have a really
quick question for you, though, John, before you go back
(37:39):
to answering that, and that is, do you think that
eighteen US two forty one could also be used against
the fifty one intelligence experts?
Speaker 5 (37:54):
If you have the this is actually the Biden administration's theory.
I actually thought it was too expensive their argument, and
the lower court in Washington, d c. Upheld it. The
Supreme Court didn't reach this in the immunity case, but
the lower court upheld it. Which is the idea. Section
two forty one makes a criminal to violate the constitutional
(38:14):
rights federal constitutional rights people. Yes, the ku klux klin x.
So if they actually did it to interfere with the election,
this is the theory. Now the problem with this theory,
I'd be first admitted. I think this is why when
we talked about it is, you know, there's got to
be a limit because every political trick and campaign and
(38:35):
drytch can't be the subject of a federal criminal prosecution.
So that's why it's easier to say. The way I
think of it is, look at what Fanny Willison Bragg did.
Suppose a Southern da did that during the time of
and I'm sure they did did this during the time
of segregation to keep black candidates from running for office.
(38:57):
Would anyone have any doubt Section two forty one not
apply to what they did. So I think it's even
worse if you think about it being used for partisan purposes.
You know, you know that people could engage in targeting
people on partisan grounds and taking away their constitutional rights.
Speaker 2 (39:14):
That's well, let me make a devil's advocate point and
then a second point that will rescue me with lucretia,
because you won't like my first point, and that is
Brendon and all those people will say, you know, we
didn't say, we didn't make a factual claim that the
laptop was Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Our language was it bore the hallmarks. In other words,
it's a lawyerly evasion and maybe a court may or
maybe or maybe a court would buy that or not.
I don't know. However, I believe point two.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
They should be prosecuted aggressively, regardless of that whether that
evasion is illegally exculpates them or.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
Not, on the grounds that the process is the punishment.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
I'd like to see Brendan have to spend a million
dollars them.
Speaker 5 (39:58):
Look, even before you find churches, you have to have
an investigation. And this is an investigation. You'll get to know,
right why who wrote this up? Why did they write
it up? You know, did they know that it was
actually true?
Speaker 4 (40:10):
And they did know there's all the evidence in the
world that they knew I mean, the FBI knew that
the laptop was real. The FBI knew the laptop was real,
and the CIA that signed off on it, that ridiculous
affirmative action idiot Gina haspell She signed off on it,
(40:32):
She actively signed off on it, and she knew it
wasn't Russian disinformation. I mean that if they do an investigation.
But back to what John was saying, though, you know,
do we want to go down that road? It does
seem to be quite the punishment for poor John Brennan
that his security clearance was taken away because he's out
(40:53):
there whining about it like a two year old, and
I'm loving every minute of that. I don't know, I
think it should be more those I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
Bye bye, remember about Brennan.
Speaker 2 (41:02):
I don't think Mike pal Lloyd Billingsley makes this point
over and over again. I don't think we've ever made
it on our podcast. That guy admits that he voted
for Gus Hall, the Communist Party candidate for president, back
in nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 4 (41:14):
He changed his mind. It'd be fine. I don't care
what happened in seventy six.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
A lot of us were then.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
But yeah, Okay.
Speaker 4 (41:23):
What he's done subsequently, that's such a problem.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
Yeah, well I agree to that, but that's ought to
be a red flag that this guy might not have
been altogether there for a very long time.
Speaker 5 (41:32):
Okay, just one last point about the hearings. So the
interesting thing to me was that Cash Patel, who has
openly talked about right doing exactly this, seems to have
skated through his confirmation hearings. In fact, you know, watching
the different clips, I was amazed at how demoralized the
Democrats were. I don't think they really laid a finger
(41:53):
on him. I mean, when it started out all the
cabinets nominees and you look at their paperwreck, he would
have should have been the most vulnerable one because he's
been doing podcasts for years. He has said some really
extreme things. I mean, he makes Lucretia look.
Speaker 1 (42:09):
Like a squish. Hey.
Speaker 5 (42:13):
But the interesting thing to me is the one that
looks like she's gonna not make it is Tulca Gabbert,
And from what I can tell, it's not really her
views on the Patriot Act and what's called Section seven
and two, which we can talk about some other time.
I don't know if Lucretian and I disagree about section
seven to two. But what it sounds like why senators
are not going to vote for her is because she
(42:35):
kind of you know, you know, defends Edward Snowden, and
I think that's a good reason not to.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
The defense is not wholehearted, maybe really quickly, let me
let's let's be at least subtle, which, of course Democratic
senators with an IQ below room temperature are incapable of subtleties.
But what she says is what he did was wrong,
but what he what he uncovered was terrible. What he
(43:08):
did was illegal, But what he uncovered was unconstitutional behavior
by our government. And I mean that's okay. Would have
have ever been found out if he had been unwilling
to I'm not a Snowden fan.
Speaker 5 (43:26):
I'm not.
Speaker 4 (43:26):
I'm not trying to say that, but I'm trying to
say that that is not a totally unacceptable opinion if
you just do what I've seen many people do in
my world. Snowden, I mean, we almost lost a contract
with the government because another college had Snowden tried to
bring Snowden onto campus at one point, and the you know,
(43:48):
the government takes that so seriously that we had to
like anyway, never mind all that, it's a subtle point. Yeah,
Snowden was wrong. He broke the law. He he betrayed
the trust that the United States government gave him. But
he could turn around and say, but the United States
government betrayed the trust of the American people, and my
whistleblowing made that clear.
Speaker 5 (44:11):
I don't think what he did. I don't think what
the government was doing was unconstitutional. But he I mean,
he leaked information which I think I believe led to
the deaths of American agents, and so he should be executed. Yeah,
that's just like that's you know, it's just like that.
But that's why I think it focuses the mind on
what she actually believes, because she in the past has
(44:34):
defended him and at the hearing would not repudiate it.
In fact, she evaded it several times, questions about it
several times, And I think that's the kind of that's
the kind of question like this guy ysked no question
on something that's very clear that I think shows why
she's not to me. It probably won't make it because
she couldn't answer that clearly.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Yeah, I think she didn't want to break with you know, well,
the Tucker Carlson fans, for example, I think that she
could have given an answer.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
I think I'm closer to your opinion. John.
Speaker 2 (45:08):
It's one thing to give away potentially unconstitutional acts or
dubious acts of the.
Speaker 1 (45:13):
Government, but I think a better way they could be.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
Well, I think the better thing to have done would
have been to take it to You're going to be
a Paul when I say this, but let me finish it.
Take it to Adam Schiff or somebody in Congress and
say I've had this information with the government's done, you've
been mad at Bush and the War on Terror.
Speaker 1 (45:30):
You need to know about it because it's been concealed
from you.
Speaker 2 (45:33):
Now, this highlights to me the hypocrisy of the Democrats
on this, because that is kind of how it was
done in the seventies when you had the Church Committee
in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House
investigating the CIA and the FBI, and especially the Pike Committee,
what did they do. They leaked the findings like crazy
to the media, and that would have happened in this case.
But now the information would have been coming from Democrats
(45:55):
for partisan reasons, and there's a sort of different kind
of accountability there. I think it's a mistake to celebrate,
you know, Snowden being a free agent. I like that, right,
but and I think it would if Gabard thought about
that and given a better put my argument a little
better than I just did, that could have been kind
of interesting.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
Saying nothing is.
Speaker 5 (46:16):
She's not being nominated to be secretary of HHS. I mean,
the reason why, okay, it matters is because she's in
charge of the intelligence agencies.
Speaker 4 (46:24):
Except that. Here's but let me let me give the
other side of the which I have sympathy for your
point of view, John, But but the other side of
it is the widespread belief that our intelligence agencies have
been turned against Americans, and uh, Telsea Gabbard is one
(46:46):
of the victims of that for no apparent reason other
than maybe her uh uh, you know, touting Edward Snowden.
I don't know, But she herself has been the victim
of what I would illegal, unconstitutional spying on a private citizen.
We know that's the case. I think that's why she
(47:06):
was given that job, or at least nominated for that job,
because Trump understands that the entire intelligence community has proven
themselves with the fifty one and the you know, the fight,
the FISA warrants, all of that has proven themselves to
be just abjectly corrupt.
Speaker 5 (47:26):
And I think there's two different things. I think there's
two different things, but I can see why in terms
of politics people don't view them as two different things.
But what Snowden revealed, I think, was that we were
conducting warrantless surveillance basically on everybody abroad, which is not unconstitutional. Actually,
and actually when this was all revealed, then that's why
(47:48):
Section seven oh two becomes an issue, because Congress eventually
approved it and passed a law to authorize it. That's different,
in my mind than what happened with Russia collusion and
all the ways intelligence agencies tried to stop Trump, which
has nothing to do with our efforts to stop these
foreign threats and terrorists. By intercepting all the communications in
(48:11):
the rest of the world. I'm glad the government does it,
but agreed, these guys. What they did is they use
their intelligence, you know, positions to launch a political witch
hunt against someone they didn't want to be president, which
has nothing to do with what's Snowden.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
No, no, no, I mean I wasn't trying. I was
actually making a different point, John, I was making the
second point, which is that I don't know that that
many of Tulci Gabbard's supporters really care that much about Snowden.
At least a lot of people that want to see her.
That Snowden's a separate issue. They are interested in her
(48:46):
simply because she already is saying we are not going
to do business as usual, at least recent usual in
the intelligence world anymore. That's why that's do you see
what you're right? When they're two separate issues. I'm saying
that support for Tulsa Gabbard for the most part, has
(49:06):
nothing to do with the snowed in question. It has
to do with the concern about our intelligence Agency's the
last thing I'll say, is it. By the way, I'm
not sure that the d n I. There's a lot
of jokes going around there about the most important thing
that the nominee for d n I could do, what
the hearings would be explained why we need a d
(49:28):
n I.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
I agree, Oh yeah, I was going to say that too. Yeah,
it's that's the whole thing. Was a bad idea, But yeah, right,
so right.
Speaker 4 (49:36):
I'm told that if she doesn't get it, Trump will
maker national security advisor. Well no, and he's going to
nominate the National Security advisor anyway.
Speaker 5 (49:46):
Oh, I switched Waltz and Gabbard.
Speaker 1 (49:49):
Yeah, I don't. I think.
Speaker 5 (49:50):
I don't know if that's worse or better.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
I hear things about Waltz. I don't know much about them,
but I impressed.
Speaker 4 (49:57):
Yeah, well, okay, I have no idea if that rumor
is true.
Speaker 1 (50:00):
Schlogon could be fun.
Speaker 5 (50:02):
Or we can make our governor of Canada. That would
be perfect. So I think people right, Oh, so I
get to say what EO I liked so and it
also talks about the future. EO is I like the
which it's not. It's only starting now to get the
attention it deserves, which is the DEI Executive Order. Uh
(50:23):
and Steve made this point this week that in the
New York Post about how it reverses Lyndon Johnson's Affirmative
Action EO, which is something no Republican present has dare
touch before.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
H and Reagan thought about it and shrunk back from
doing it.
Speaker 5 (50:41):
Yeah, Bush didn't do it. Trump didn't do it his
first term and would have normally caused enormous political uproar,
but because of the blizzard of eos goes unnoticed. Now,
I think that the Curnio has the germs of in
it of a really important change, because right now it's
a no more DEI within the government. And then it
(51:03):
says and the government agencies are now supposed to study
whether government contractors and recipients of federal grants are engaging
in DEI programs. And here's the catch that violate current law. Now,
I think that President Trump could instead go further and
issue AEO that says, no recipient of federal funds and
(51:27):
no one who does business with the federal government shall
use race in any of its operations are considered diversity,
you know, DEI at all. That would be groundshaking because
every university in the country except Hillsdale and Growth City,
I think, receives federal funding, right, and they're one of
the worst. Right, They're one of the worst violators of
(51:49):
color blindness. And it would apply to all the major government,
the s and P. Five hundred, every major company in
America would have to stop their DEI policies. That I
think if he just added that one more sentence, that
could really seal the deal. And really put a stake
through this and this DEI business.
Speaker 4 (52:08):
So can I just add a couple of things from
a personal point of view being at a university, I
have watched the meltdown this past week, and what I
what I was talking with John about earlier today, many
of these grants, some of them, regardless of what actually
ends up happening with the Title seven and Title nine interpretations,
(52:30):
things like USA ID and grants are going away. They
have already stopped expenditures, totally stopped expenditures on a number
of grants, like a grant for instance, that puts ten
million dollars toward pay bringing in in the medical school
graduate students and postdocs to do research in the grad
(52:55):
in the medicine. So they've had to stop that. They
can't offer any more you know, awards on that. I mean,
it's just on and on. But the other side of
it is the university itself. We already have a legislature
and a board of regents who are telling us to
back off on DEI. But so much money comes into
the university and those kinds of grants, and the university
(53:18):
takes fifty three percent off the top. My university is
already in the hole, seriously in financial trouble. You can
imagine the panic going on. So I'm having a bit
of shot and for it about that one, because my
college makes money hand over flood, but they still communyway.
Speaker 2 (53:33):
That's I'm used to hearing universities taking twenty percent off
of grants.
Speaker 4 (53:37):
Maybe the indirect cause are fifty three percent if the
work is done on campus.
Speaker 2 (53:42):
Yeah, I mean other universities. I hear the figures twenty
percent at least some private foundations, and maybe higher for
government money.
Speaker 1 (53:49):
But the point is, whatever the figure.
Speaker 2 (53:50):
Is, the point there is a serious cutback in those
kind of funds sluicing around to all these programs.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
They're going to have to have massive layoffs of their
administrative bloat. And I'll be the right exactly that's right.
Speaker 4 (54:03):
So then the other thing, really quickly is, you know
my other position. I started receiving as if I were, well,
I guess I am. I am a federal employee, all
of the DoD missives, and you know, here's what usually happens.
You know what my inbox would be filled with today
(54:24):
from not just the university, but from the do D
and all these other groups. Because today's February first. Do
you know what February first is, John, the first day
of Black History Month? Yeah? Really, no more Black History Month,
no more Martin Luther King Day celebrations or pronouncements on
(54:45):
social media. No more Women's Equality Day, which means, thank god,
I don't have to go give fake speeches for that anymore.
But also this was interesting. No more Holocaust Remembrance days.
Speaker 1 (54:58):
Yeah, I mean that was well. So first of all,
I mean hexap put out.
Speaker 2 (55:02):
I have a statement I actually post on power line.
No Pacific Islander, heritage, no month, just stop.
Speaker 1 (55:07):
It all the way.
Speaker 5 (55:09):
What is my month? I had one, because that's when
I'm really going to go over kick some ass on
the commentary podcast. I'm gonna go, I'm gonna.
Speaker 1 (55:20):
Have like a uniche.
Speaker 5 (55:21):
I'm gonna like, I'm gonna like be like Steve Johnny
and I can see what the idea is. What it's
going to be, Mick Ribs. I'm going to toss left
and right out of my little satchel all around the
commentary offices.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
But then, uh, equally fun is President Trump did put
out a proclamation observing Black hits this month and includes
this clause American heroes such as Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman,
Thomas Soul, no Justice, Clarence Thomas. Right, so, I mean,
I think last time I checked, Clarence Thomas is not
(55:53):
mentioned at all at the National Museum of African American History,
which okay, But did.
Speaker 4 (55:59):
You see my good story of the day yesterday? Abram Kendy,
the Button Professor, completely shut down, shut down operations. How
many millions of dollars and with abs were funneled into
his operation there with absolutely nothing to show for it.
He closed his doors, fired everybody, and went to Howard University.
(56:22):
I mean, I know that he'll come out on top.
There's no problems there. But still it was a good story.
It was.
Speaker 1 (56:30):
All right.
Speaker 2 (56:30):
But before we wrap, we need to go to another
break for our sponsors, and then we'll come back. Get
your babbyl on bees queued up Lucretia, and I've got
a new close for us, and we'll be right back,
all right, give us the best of the bee Lucretia.
Speaker 4 (56:45):
All right. Even though they said last week that they
were going to shut down because there wouldn't be anything
funny to talk about, because everything would be perfect. But
the Democrats proved that that wasn't the case because we
had the hearings, and you know that was actually posted
on ex John that I really appreciated all the people
(57:05):
who were watching and reporting on those hearings because I
could only stand about five seconds of it before I
threw my beer at the TV or some equally frustrated action.
So I appreciated their fortitude and got a lot of
response on that. But anyway, nominee, it's a picture of
Cash Battel, nominee for top criminal justice position, interviewed by
(57:26):
nation's top criminals.
Speaker 1 (57:29):
I thought that was good.
Speaker 4 (57:31):
Or the picture of Cash Battel and Telsy Gabbard Democrat
senators opposed diversity for one day only. You know if
I like that Babylon b writers get nothing done? Is
Telsy Gabbard is on TV?
Speaker 1 (57:47):
Yeah she didn't look spectacular.
Speaker 4 (57:49):
I have to say, yeah, very very pretty. There's no
way around it. Preliminary report confirms tragedy was the fault
of whichever political party you like. Poor Trumpy did have
a bit of tragedy this week, now, didn't he. I'll
set up a little bit. Let me do this in first,
entire federal workforce replayed by one replaced excuse me by
(58:12):
one sixteen year old Chick fil A employee.
Speaker 5 (58:17):
Boy.
Speaker 4 (58:17):
The metldown on that has been so spectacular, I can't
even And finally, uh local Karen being a real margaret.
Speaker 1 (58:30):
Oh good John, have you.
Speaker 5 (58:34):
Altered your responsibilities? Yeah, you guys have to give me
the new tagline whenever we figure out what it's going
to be.
Speaker 1 (58:40):
Well, I've got one. I mean you can still do
always do your whisky meat. That's perpetual. Yeah, all right,
I'll go straight to my clothes, but I.
Speaker 5 (58:47):
Always drink your whiskey meat and Steve.
Speaker 1 (58:49):
Yeah, so a quick context, and I won't do it
in the future. But remember, for two three years after
twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2 (58:55):
I had a tagline, don't forget to milk the soft
Power dividend, and that was mocking Samantha Power for her
disappointment to Hillary Clinton didn't win, because she told the
New York Times, having all these women diplomats to her
apartment in New York, I was looking forward to milking
the soft Power dividend. And I thought it was such
a ridiculous phrase. But now we have a new one,
(59:16):
courtesy of JB. Advance, and I think this one should
be the model for everyone for quite a while to
come here.
Speaker 1 (59:21):
And it's frankly martyret I don't really care all right,
Bye bye everybody, Bye guys.
Speaker 4 (59:27):
Next week.
Speaker 5 (59:27):
Bye.
Speaker 7 (59:31):
This is in poetry. It's meandering sophistry, and you must
hate words. All of the youth degree is soothe in
your wandering and chasing these turns.
Speaker 1 (59:46):
There was no.
Speaker 5 (59:47):
Peace warning, that's only a story you tell.
Speaker 3 (59:51):
Two scared kids now that nothing is growing, it's darker
and lowing.
Speaker 7 (59:58):
Just too asso, our bitch, And just saying.
Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
No hour is fine, just saying no hour is.
Speaker 3 (01:00:13):
Fine, But no one wants say.
Speaker 7 (01:00:20):
No hour is.
Speaker 3 (01:00:21):
Fine, so we both know.
Speaker 2 (01:00:27):
No hours is fine.
Speaker 5 (01:00:30):
Never do tie.
Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
And kids are statistics and affair for the ages. I
assume they'll be fine. And if numbers are destiny and
history is.
Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
Dead to ricochet.
Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Join the conversation.
Well whiskey, come and take my pain the money all ry.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Why think alone when you can drink it all in
with Ricochet's three whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
John Yu and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Where they slapped it up and it ain't easy on
the should stop got it giving.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
W All right, you guys, aren't we glad that Drive
January is over? Did you guys both survive January well enough?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Or did you try January?
Speaker 1 (00:40):
What?
Speaker 5 (00:40):
What did Joe? What do you mean January mean?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Drive January is? Was we were supposed to give up
alcohol for a month? Why? I don't know? I mean
I I borrow, I dredged up and re stated.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Will Rogers famous line about prohibition, which in my case
was at least drive January doesn't mean no liquor at all?
Speaker 4 (00:59):
I know you know what it is?
Speaker 5 (01:01):
Where does this idea come from the latest.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
Thing from the CDC who wants us all to believe
that alcohol is the greatest cause of every disease ever
known to man? That it's a that you know that
it's almost a quarter of a millionth of a jump
in your chances of getting cancer if you drink, and
I mean it's it's just the latest thing, like you
shouldn't be barbecuing your meat because of the carbon and
(01:27):
it's just stupid. So I'm drinking more because of it.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yeah, well, if they make me give up alcohol, I'm
going to take up smoking because you know they okay,
they snap that out.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
Speaking of it's getting a lot of a lot of
play that RFK had a nicotine gum or or shoe
or something like that in the middle of the pretty
rough hearings, So you can't blame that he was a heroin.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
If he can't have alcohol, I'm going to take a funanol.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Well all right, So so by the way, how are you, Crazi?
Speaker 1 (02:00):
How are you? John? You're doing well this week? I think,
I hope.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
Yeah, I mean, after we recorded last weekend, the Eagles
won the NFC Championship. We're going to go to the
Super Bowl, and I wish I could beat in New
Orleans watching the Eagles and eating mcred simultaneously, but I
can't be and a soft pretzel. But this is like
the best thing, This is the most important thing I
should tell. It's a true story, but it's also a joke.
(02:25):
It's a true story. Is my mom was a psychiatrist
and she worked in a psychiatric hospital in Philadelphia for
forty years. And so the other day I said to her,
you know, Philadelphia is a crazy city, said mom, was
there ever a day where there were no new patients?
And she said yes, the day after the Eagles won
the Super Bowl. Ah, true story.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Right.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Well, you know your fans have gotten even more of
a bad rap because of how you know, subhuman. They
tend to act on occasion like the guy who you
know made all those nasty comments to that woman. I
think she was a Chiefs fan. No, no, it was
before that. Whatever it was, she was anyway, and he
got kicked out forever he can never go to another
(03:11):
Eagles game. And then he got fired because he worked
for some DEI company that remember that that believes in
belonging and anyway, But I will tell you this. There's
a big story a couple of days ago about the
fact that the Eagles had extended a very generous invitation
(03:35):
package to the Super Bowl to one of the guys
in New Orleans who had been his buddy. Was they
both played for Princeton football. For Princeton, his buddy was
killed and he was seriously seriously injured, and so the
Eagles are are rolling out the red and he's still
in pretty bad shape, fractures everywhere and so on. He
(03:55):
was hit by the car, the truck, So the Eagles
are making a big deal out of him to the
Super Bowl.
Speaker 5 (04:02):
You don't see I don't think you see any Seagles
players taking a kneed during the national anthem. I'll tell
you that much. Philadelphia doesn't never don't stand for that
kind I don't think so we don't stand for that
kind of stuff. That's a forty That's a San Francisco thing, right,
that's Colin Kaepernick in the San Francisco forty nine ers
and all their PC football, right, But all.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
The others did it too, and the NFL was pretty
despicable in that whole thing.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
But I agree, Yeah, I think that's now.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
But since you mentioned McRib john, that's one of the
pieces of housekeeping to get to here in our opening today.
And I was gonna do it in different order, but
you brought it up, so let's do it now. It
is my sad duty to tell our listeners that it
has become necessary in the course of human events for
the three Whiskey Happy Hour to declare holy war on
the Commentary Magazine podcast because.
Speaker 6 (04:48):
Earlier this week they went on the war path about
how disgusting the McRib is not once not just in
passing they did at the beginning of the show in
a prolonged fashion because actually John pot Hard it's not
like John, but he never does anything briefly.
Speaker 4 (05:02):
And someone there Whiskey Happy Hour.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
The kettle black.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
But then they came back to it to the end
of the episode too, so they doubled down on just
in the McRib And you know, look, I made my
view is clear. I don't like the McRib either, but
they don't get to do that. And this is a
three Musketeers moments, all for one and one for all.
So listeners, we have declared war on the Commentary Magazine podcast.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Probably thinks that it's better if they do because they'll
mean more for him.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
Well there's that, But can I ask, like, did they
attack the McRib or did they attack McDonald's overall, because
if you attack McDonald's, this is like from you know,
the famous speech from Animal House, then you're attacking the
United States America.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Right, No, No, it was just the McRib.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Still, I think you could make the same Uh, you
could make the same progression, John. If you attacked the McRib,
you're attacking McDonald's, which means you are attacking the United
States of America.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
I did think, I mean, look, I'm I'm a good
old fashioned proto wasp, and I did think it was
interesting and revealing who exactly a'm on the commentary crowd
or not, shall we say, strictly observant Jews when it
comes to their fast food preference sell.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Then how do they know what a mcgrip tastes like?
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Anyway?
Speaker 5 (06:24):
Can it?
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Well, that's what I was wondering. But I don't want
to chase too far after that or we'll get in
the usual trouble.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
So the usual trouble. Oh, this is going to you know,
And this is just once again the snooty New York
City Manhattan elites looking down on the rest of the country,
isn't it.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
I think?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
By when we move on from that and say that
my favorite executive order, John, I think you should be
for this is Uh. Trump should mandate that mcgribby part
of the school lunch program. Then we'd have it year round.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
For sure.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
All that plus next you know how he usually welcomes.
Remember he welcomed I think the NCAA men's football champions
or basketball. I remember he had a big picture of
him piled in the White House, piled with big max
and quarter pounders. Well he should add mcgribs next time.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Well, I I mean he was by the ways everything
and they had Chick fil a and again he had
all the you know but this true?
Speaker 5 (07:21):
Yeah, who I wouldn't. But look, this is the thing.
It's that, as you all know, the McRib is a
very special sandwich. It's not available all the time. It
only comes out for certain precise seasons. And I bet
that wasn't available when Trump had his celebration. Sam, Yeah, oh, Rush,
I could spam sushi they'd be more lucky. But I
(07:43):
bet you know, I bet the guys on commentary don't
know this because they don't even even really eat mcgribs.
They just look down on America.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Wait a minute, that's perfect.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Let me let me change that.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
We're declaring limited war, not unconditional total war.
Speaker 5 (07:58):
So is there anything whatever leads you to believe that
Lucretia or I believe in limited war?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
No, yeah, I had a whole thought about that that
I believe on the cutting room floor. One other piece
of housekeeping, briefly, listeners, the reason we're coming on a
little later than usual, you know, half a day late,
whatever is. I was on the road to something, John,
you actually got me involved in. I had to go
back to Villanova Law School to be the keynote speaker, and,
(08:30):
much to my sort of discomfort because I don't like
the lime light, sort of the focus of his day
long conference at the annual SCARPA Conference on Law, Politics,
and Culture, so pretty broad scale. I had no idea
John that, and I clearly have brought down their average.
But among the luminaries who've been their keynote speakers and
focus for the day include Justice Scalia obviously many years ago,
(08:53):
Martha Nusbam, who I don't like worth of darn, but
she's a big figure in the sort of academic philosophical world.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
And then how did I get on this list?
Speaker 5 (09:01):
And anyway, it's about conservative thought? What did you tell them?
I read the paper. I hope you'll post it, but
I was hoping at least if seventy five to one
hundred great minds came together at least someone would finally
be able to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Well, I think you're just too optimistic, John.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Yeah, well you should have.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well, first of all, I just do want to say
thanks to Patrick Brennan, who had.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Never met before.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
He's a great guy.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Yeah, he's a very serious guy.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Uh and has a you know, an interesting political philosophy
though he became a law professor.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Yes, and to his staff.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
And you know, Steven Smith from Yale was there, and
he's a very nice guy in a very gentle manner.
But he picked a fight with me on a couple
of things where he thought I'd gone too.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Far and that was fun.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Dan Mahoney and I had dinner the night before and
got shushed in the restaurant for talking too loudly.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
Oh where'd you go?
Speaker 1 (09:51):
What was Steve?
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Steve's Steve's cheesteaks, Steve's No.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
No, we were out in what rabb Hopefully.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
They weren't a no no no.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
We were at a nice restaurant in the hotel we
were staying, and we a few patrons found.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Us to be too loud, and that's probably true.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Dan's a large, loud guy and saw my and I
haven't seen him for ten years. Anyway, it was fun
and I will probably post the paper awesome anyway, And
then the only other thing is, you know, I keep
threatening We're gonna do three whiskey happy hour whiskey glasses
for listeners who are interested.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
I wonder should we do onesies? I mean, that's the thing.
The way the hell are you onesies? See you missed
this too, John. It was the highlight of the week.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Was Bernie Sanders glowering at RFK Junior, pointing to a
slide of you know, onesies, a little baby clothes.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
You do you support these onesies? And in my mind,
I'm trying to think. I don't know if Bernie Sanders sayst.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Well, because because supposedly the anti vaxers are out there
for twenty eight dollars, you can buy your child, your
your infant, because infants wear onesies and I guess, uh
the what Chris Chris Christie also wears onesies. Anyway, The
baby onesies say things like anti vaxxin proud of it,
(11:10):
things like that, So they make some money to support
some of their efforts by selling onesies that say things.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Yeah, but I in my mind, I was trying to
conjure up Bernie Sanders changing a diaper. I don't know
if he has kids or grandkids, but it was and
what he might say. There's a comedy sketch to be
written there because it's.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
The Maha moms. John, Are you aware of the Maha moms?
Speaker 5 (11:34):
Oh? Make America healthy again?
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (11:37):
And there supposedly the movement out there of the Maha
moms is greater than the suburban soccer moms that brought
Clinton into power. We'll see, yeah see, but that was
a big reason supposedly that they voted for Trump. Remember
all the dire warnings about the suburban moms would all
go for Come Milama ding Dong, but instead they all
(12:00):
voted for Trump. And supposedly it's because of RFK Junior.
Speaker 5 (12:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Well, anyway, listeners, this week we are going to do
instead of a single topic and going after it in depth,
we're going to go to our round robin format where
each of us brings up a topic or article or
something on our mind or a rant or whatever. And
we were going to start with Lucretia right after these
messages from our sponsors. Don't go away, all right, Lucretia
(12:29):
you're up.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
What's on your mind this week?
Speaker 4 (12:31):
Well, there's a lot on my mind, but you only
are going to let me talk about one of those things.
So I had to prioritize here and what I want
to talk about for all of my faithful listeners out there,
who are in fact of the faithful i e. Catholics,
this was an interesting week for all of us, a
very interesting week. So you have jd Vance, who is,
(12:51):
like me, a fairly recent convert to Catholicism. And you know,
we recent converts don't necessarily have that cradle Catholic cradle
mentality where whatever the Pope says is gospel, sorry forgive
the pun, nor do we care too much what the
(13:12):
bishops have to say. You know, we came to this
whole thing from an intellectual point of view, and then
and faith and what the bishops say. But what came
out this week very clearly, and you can again thank
Elon Musk for making a very big deal out of this,
is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which
(13:33):
has not been a great organization for a very long time,
it turns out that they have received over the course
of let's just say, the Biden administration. It didn't start
in the Biden administration, but it got much worse, literally
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to provide what
(13:54):
shall we say, assistants to refugees and immigrants. And know,
part of the very big problem with that, I think
I might have even mentioned it on a podcast some
weeks ago, is that there's a camp that's not too
far from my house on the other side of the
foothills that's run by the bishops, and ango aligned with
(14:15):
the bishops gets federal money to house immigrants on their
way through the mountains. You know, it's the whole thing
is despicable, especially because I mean, the bishops came out
this week and they trashed Trump's executive orders on immigration
and his deportation. As you put it, John, we're not
supposed to say deportation anymore. We have to say removal, right,
(14:37):
that's the legal word that along with illegal aliens. That's
that's in the law too, Okay, illegal aliens. And so
you know, they're finding that this goes against Christian practice
and so on, and and of course you know, the
hypocrisy is so thick here because all of these last
four years they didn't care a damn about the fact
(14:59):
that Biden, supposedly a practicing Catholic, was pro abortion in
every possible way, pro transgender you know, on and on
all the despicable things that came out of the Biden
administration at least nodded at, nodded to by Biden. If
whether or not he was behind them, it's hard to
say if he was behind anything anyway. So Jady Vans
(15:21):
gets on there with Margaret Margaret, I won't, I won't.
I won't run it for you. Steve, I'll leave it
for you. But and and has this interesting discussion and it's,
believe it or not, a discussion that we had a
few weeks ago, and one of our listeners took me
to task for it. I didn't bother to answer her
because it wasn't worth it to me at the time.
(15:42):
And that is the notion it was when we were
talk about Jimmy Carter, and I said that the thing
I found most despicable about Jimmy Carter was when he
was preening about the fact that he felt so guilty
and cried every night because he cared more about amy
than he did about some random poverty stricken child in Africa,
(16:02):
and I just you know, that's everything that that defines
everything that's despicable about the Left, which is, let's care
about people. Let's let's show, let's virtue signal how much
we care about people that we can't do much about.
We certainly can't personally do anything about it. We can
force our tax dollars to go to that, and that's
what we should do it for good Christians or whatever. Anyway,
(16:24):
Jamie Vance took him down, and he did it by
he did it by referencing a biblical precept, something out
of Thomas Aquinas called the Ordo Amorus or the order
of Love. And it's really very clear in Christian theology.
Despite people who want to say that the Good Samaritan
(16:48):
parable says the opposite, it doesn't. I want. I'm not
going to do a sermon today, I promise, but the
order of love is very simple God, you, your family,
your neighbor, your commune, unity, your nation, and then the world.
And there's a whole lot of reasons for it, which
I won't go into. But boy, do I like that guy, JD. Vance?
(17:09):
Oh well for commentary.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Yeah, Well, I've got a couple of comments, and then
also sort of a minor scandal to share with John.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
It relates to aquinas a litill find funny.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I think, look, Advance did this with a bit of
trumpy and genius and baiting the liberals to expose themselves,
because never mind the theology for a moment, to say
that you should care about migrants as much as or
more than your own family, is that really a good
look for liberals? I mean, that just goes against nature,
never mind theology.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
It's incredible, that's why they push it, because it goes
against nature.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Yeah, okay, the fair point, right.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
I mean that goes along with the you know, the
socialist impulse to nationalize the children and goes back to Plato.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
The bit about the Catholic bishops, I mean, boy, I
had them in my gun sights back in the eighties
when they were behind the nuclear freeze and opposing Reagan's
foreign policy. But about the federal grants to Catholic charities
and such, that's been going on for a long time
for all kinds of things, you know, homeless services and
all the rest. But as you may know, and John,
maybe you may or may not know, and I forget
(18:10):
the details but they might as well not have the
word Catholic in the name of any of them, because
the grants are.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Conditional that there's no spiritual.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Element, no religious element in the grant programs. That's why
they usually aly to an NGO. Really, I think a
lot of these Catholic organizations are laundering the money from
the NGOs who do the actual work. And I mean
this was an issue with you know, President George W.
Bush's Faith based initiatives. They wanted to chip away at that, thinking,
(18:38):
you know, if you're gonna have a faith based organizations,
maybe we'll let them talk about their faith as an
element in those services they deliver. Right, No, of course
there's lots of problems there, but that was controversial with
the left. Oh we can't have it asked to be
one hundred percent secular. And then finally John Halter over
to you. So John Carlow and I'm forgetting his last
(18:59):
name for heritage, was at the conference. I keep wanting
to call him Carfano, but that's James the forum. But anyway,
John Carla was very good.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Young guy.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Carlo cam That's it.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
John Carlo Camparo told the funny story.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
He said, uh yeah, I bought a copy of the
Suma Theologica to use, and I tried to expense it.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
The Heritage Foundation wouldn't let me.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
I thought, well, boot boot on heritage, then really that
should that should be a legitimate job expense.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
And anyway, that was funny.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Take it off your taxes.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
But I know, anyway, John, what do you have to
add on if anything?
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Or well, you guys are both Catholic, right, I don't
get why Steve's like our friend.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
No, no, no, no, I'm Eastern Orthodox?
Speaker 5 (19:46):
Are you really?
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (19:47):
No? Oh gosh, I.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Know this.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Icons in your house, Well, this is my I have
a few here and there, not very many that part
of you.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
Know, Steve does smell like incense all the time.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Yeah, we do even more incense than the High Church
Episcopal Church of which you left. But well, all right,
ten seconds. If you really want a conser a conservative church,
it's not going to get true. The Orthodox Church is
the one for you. They're the same abandoned. Oh I
do want sorry, five more seconds. I really do want
Trump to insist that we need to change the name
(20:26):
of istan Bull back to Constantinople and then he can
be president for life.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
Well, I've been talking about that for decades. The game.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
I okay, anyway, so wait, can I just one last
thing before John goes on? But you didn't give us
a chance. You said you were going to for our
own executive orders that we wanted, right, So I think
mine's mine's already out there AI having Trump do it,
and it's we will be allowed to say gay and
retarded again and it will be great.
Speaker 5 (20:55):
Okay, sorry, Actually should just take that remember that list
of Stanford for in words, right, you should just have
an issue EO saying that these words are to be
used by all government officials.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Anyway, I still loved.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
That episode where we had a contest to you who
could use all the words and like Lucretia like was
it had two to one, but.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Either of us trying it in sixty seconds it was around.
It wasn't even you know.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Retarded was on there, I think, but not there anyway.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
You got to put them together, oh somebody.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (21:29):
So my question was, you know, one, why does the
Catholic Church allow these people in the hierarchy to speak
on political issues as if they represent the Catholic churches
and institutions? Says one question, But then the second question
is I I remember the Catholic bishops and a lot
of other religious leaders came out against Reagan's foreign policy
(21:52):
and called for nuclear zero, And I mean the idea
that they would be commenting on the deployment on intermediate
range ballistics well missiles in Europe, the pershings, which actually
had a lot to do with helping the end the
Cold War. But I think because of that, could you
say that the rank and file Catholics have lost a
(22:13):
lot of faith in their leadership and institution because of
things like that. So I'll make a point as someone
who went to an Episcopalian school and go to Episcopalian church,
is there was a lot of controversy about the Episcopalian
bishop by I guess, giving an openly political speech at
the National Cathedral with the President and the audience and
(22:37):
making a plea on behalf of illegal aliens and gays
and transferred, you know, the people that she thought were
going to be harmed by President Trump's orders. Regardless of
what you think about that one way or the other,
I think it's inappropriate for church leader to be commenting
like that, particularly in front of the elected leadership of
(22:57):
the country. So it makes me not to It makes me,
you know, not want to take the leadership of the
episcopal church all that.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Seriously, well, you're absolutely right, John. By the way, that woman,
that bishop, the Washington Bishop received an organization she runs
out of there received fifty three million dollars in immigration
assistance federal moneies fifty last year fifty three million dollars.
So she had a little bit of a financial interest
(23:26):
in that as well, which is the big problem with
all of it. But for just a moment, you know, here,
here's the problem. And I know people who are Catholic
who say they won't go to the Catholic Church anymore
because of Pope Francis, because of this or that. I
am again, I'm probably not the best person to speak
to this because I'm not a cradle Catholic. So i
(23:46):
didn't grow up believing that, you know, when the Pope
spoke it was the word of God. And the whole
idea is crazy to me. I know what the the
I know what the you know the rules are about it,
and so on. But here's the point to remember. Also,
if you are indeed a Christian of some kind, you
have to realize that at church that church, your church,
(24:09):
my church, the universal Church whatever, is a man made
institution and it's going to be run by fallible human beings.
Thing one, thing two back to you guys. As mentioning
of what happened during the eighties and so on, there
was a very serious and successful effort on the part
of the Soviet Union to undermine the Catholic Church worldwide,
(24:34):
especially in South America. That's where you get the liberation
theology that our current pope is such an adherent of.
And it was manifestly successful. And the other thing that
they did was they infiltrated the seminaries. And I don't
want to go on after this rever because I know
you want to move on, but I just wanted to
(24:55):
get those points out to you. So John, here's the point.
Our Catholic leadership was so stupid. They fell for this
infiltration attempt by the Soviet Union and turned themselves completely political.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Well, by the way, I used to back in the
eighties refer to liberation theology, which really disappeared till Francis
came back. But I always referred to it then as
Marxism with salsa, because it really was.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
I mean, they had always.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Books about synthesizing Marxism and Christianity quite directly. However, I
think it should be mentioned that while our Conference of
Catholic Bishops was so bad on those questions, the French
and German bishops I think it was French and bishop
might have been Italian, but certainly the German bishops put
out their own paper dissenting from what the American bishop said,
and what they said was a long thoughtful I haven't
(25:42):
read it now for forty years, but I still have
a copy somewhere. What they said was no, no nuclear weapons,
and their deployment in our countries is consistent with just
war theory and a necessary thing to do so, and
that I suspect Cardinal Ratzinger had his hand on that.
Later Pope Benedict right now, I think I mentioned once before.
I know I have talked to some people about this.
(26:03):
I maybe said it on one of our episodes that
I've been hearing for a while anecdotally that the current
generation of Catholic seminarians are much more conservative and by
the way, much more heterosexual. That's has been a real
problem in past decades, right, And that was that was.
Speaker 4 (26:23):
A little bit like DEI in the seminaries. They were
purposely choosing seminarians who exhibited.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Minor attractions. They're supposed to say these days, and I
know what a felia. But anyway, the last point I'll
say is that I just lately saw some data and
I think I'll put this up as a daily chart
on power Line that surveys of Catholic seminarians going back
like twenty five thirty years and showing, in fact, a
rising number of Catholic seminarians are conservative, which means that
(26:53):
the age of Francis will be behind us, perhaps not
just to the top, but further down the ladder.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Two.
Speaker 4 (26:59):
So remember my priest, my young Filipino priest, who would
come at and at the end of every every mass
would do the Hail Mary and say, let's just pray
to Mother Mary to rid the world of the chief
peoples of communism and socialism.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
And then John all I can say, I mean, that's
episcopalian for a long time, and used to say I'm
not gonna let him kick me out until I couldn't stand.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
It any longer.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
But our reform project should be, or yours should be,
let's bring back the old days. Of when the Episcopal
Church was known as the Republican Party at prayer, which
you said that you.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
And I got to say, I don't have a lot
of respect I mean for the Episcopalian. So I was
listening to a sermon because the Bishop of California, I
think he was keen to the little church I was in,
happened to be there, and his whole sermon was about
why Christianity demanded that we do something about climate change?
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Right.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
I was just say, are you like out of your
like you're just so like you just should not be
in charge anything.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Nowhere both Episcopalians and Catholics have a real revival is
Africa in church. The Anglican Church in Africa is vibrant
and committed to the Bible. The Catholic Church is the
same way in Africa throughout it throughout most of Africa.
I should say, sorry, see if you're thinking.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
Well, I am.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
But I was wondering, like, because when they when you
sing this sys and they're going, how can you prioritize
lower forms of life over human life as a religious leader,
Because if you really want to, you know, do something
about climate change, you have to be in favor of
policies that reduce the population size, that's what they're really doing.
And so there are these people in the church who
(28:42):
think this, who are allegedly pro life. Are they not
elevating actually the other forms of nature above human life
in their policies. Then that just as when I was
listening as this sertment, I was like, this is this
runs counter It seems to me. Well the idea that you're,
you know, the Christian is a pro life, pro human life.
(29:03):
I couldn't believe it. And then I was like, you're
so so non logical and you're thinking you should just
not be in charge of anything, But that's how you
get to be the bishop.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Well you bring that up sparked of synaps in my
head that wasn't killed off by my non dry January.
The first sentence, as I recall, in the Catholic bishop's
statements against nuclear weapons in the nineteen eighties, and this
was highlighted by Professor Jaffa in Class Lucretia, The first
sentence was the existence something like this, the existence of
nuclear weapons calls into question the sovereignty of God. Professor
(29:35):
jaff would say, is it really now Catholic doctrine to
doubt the omnipotence of God. Climate change you can drop
in place of nuclear weapons, and it's the same thing.
It's it's actually a theological heresy, if not just total
lack of confidence in their own faith, in their own beliefs.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That's all I have to say, Lucretia, do you have
a life?
Speaker 4 (29:54):
Whoa with what John said? I mean, I imagine our
listeners are already born with our theological discussions here. But
because it was such a big deal this past week,
I thought it was worth bringing up. And I saw
a lot of Catholics because there's a group of Catholics
I follow on social media, and that gets me in
(30:14):
trouble sometimes, so I'll leave that aside. They're all saying
we're better off being led at the Catholic Church by J. D. Vanson.
We are the pope or the Catholic bishops. Yeah, which is?
Speaker 5 (30:25):
You know?
Speaker 4 (30:26):
I'm sure your friend that I won't mention here would
love to hear that. John.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
Yeah, well, all right, we need to go to a break,
if for no other reason that I need a couple
of minutes to catch my breath. After Lucretius saying she agreed,
with me one hundred percent. This is a rare moment.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
So don't go away, people, We'll be right back. All right,
We're back.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
And John, I'm throwing the mic to you. What's on
uppermost in your mind this week?
Speaker 5 (30:52):
I'm still thinking about the never trumpers who draw the
line at you know, not eating mcribs. But I will
I thought what I would raise was, to me, it's
a part of the same phenomenon, which is the confirmation hearings,
plus what's been going on with law enforcement and the
(31:15):
Justice Department. So you know, a lot of these headlines.
So many things happened this week. But the thing that
was interesting to me, and I think they're tied together,
was so President Trump has through the Attorney General, the
person who's the acting Attorney General, through the US Attorney
in Washington, d C. Who are all both acting right
(31:37):
now because they're pending Pam Bondi being confirmed. And then
whoever President Trump puts in DC firing all the prosecutors
who worked on the January sixth cases, in the Special
Council cases against him, and.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
Has been done. John, I thought, I read this is.
Speaker 5 (31:57):
One question is whether it's actually legal to do. And
then there's a story in the Washington Post today and
yesterday that apparently this is going to happen at the
FBI too, that FBI leaders are right now asking for
the names of the FBI agents who worked on the
January sixth and the Special Council investigations. So that's one,
(32:21):
you know, huge thing, plus President Trump flying all the
firing all the inspector generals and all the agencies. That's
another thing. And then you had the hearings this week
for the we talked a little about RFK Junior. I
guess so the ones that I focusing song was the
way that Cash Patel's hearings went versus Telsea Gabbard, And
(32:45):
so one thing issued I reason I wrote a few
pieces this week. They just happened to all come out
this week. They weren't all time to be this week,
but I had written different times.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
But that was wondering. Yeah, Frank got a lot, Okay, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
Which is like how what this all means about law fair?
The end of law fair and so on, and so
one way to understand what Trump is doing is that
this is a less damaging way to end lawfare, because
the thing he could do, and I've speculated he might do.
(33:20):
This is to actually investigate and prosecute criminally the people
who actually undertook the whole lawfair campaign. Because if in fact,
and this applied, maybe applies more to the district attorney
in New York, the Attorney general in New York, the
district attorney Fanny Willison. You know these are you know,
this is a Lucretia's Hall of Fame, hall of Shame,
(33:41):
and the DA her friend Fanny Willis in Georgia. But
it also might extend to the Special Council Jack Smith
and so on is did they actually launch these prosecutions
of Donald Trump to affect his ability to run in
the election, Because if they did, then they are violating
(34:01):
his constitutional rights and they're violating the constitutional rights of
the voters. This is the theory that Jack Smith actually
used to prosecute Donald Trump. So if that's true, I
think at the minimum Trump could launch invest have the
just uprin launch investigations. I would say, particularly targeted at
state prosecutors, state attorney generals, because the last thing I
(34:22):
think we want is states interfering with the ability of
federal candidates to run for office. So you could say,
you know, so the left has been hammering Pambondie and
Tulca Gabbert and Cash betelsing, Oh, you would never countenance that. Well,
if liberals don't want that to happen, then the less
aggressive position is President Trump firing all the people who
(34:46):
worked on these prosecutions that he thinks were wrong, that
actually his lawyers took the position in court that they
were unconstitutional. So this is where it all comes back
into the bigger things we like to talk about, is
that a president is allowed to have a different view
of the law than the courts. And so President Trump,
(35:06):
if he wants to think, and he's entitled to think,
that the prosecutions were unconstitutional, then he ought to fire
everybody who participated in them, because why should he tolerate
people in his administration who were doing, in his view,
appatently unconstitutional things. In my mind, it's the same thing
as Lincoln saying he wouldn't enforce dred Scott, Obey dread Scott,
(35:27):
same thing as Jefferson pardoning everyone who's been convicted under
the Alien Sedition acts. So, in a funny way, I
think what's been happening this week, while it's driving the
left crazy, they should be grateful that that is as
far as Trump has gone so far. The other point
is he's i think, also usefully restoring the idea that
(35:48):
the president is in charge of law enforcement. So notice
what Biden tried to do was, oh, no, I'm not
involved in any of this. It's a special counsel is
allowed to do what he wants, and oh, these states,
I have nothing to do with these states going on
after federal candidates.
Speaker 4 (36:02):
The worst part was it was a lie.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
Yeah, I mean, that's part of the investigation, is that
you'll be able to get the emails and discussion notes
of all the people who participate in these meetings. But
at least Trump is making clear firing these agents, firing
the prosecutors, firing the inspector generals. The president is actually,
in the constitution, the head of all federal law enforcement,
and he has a duty actually to remove people who
(36:26):
won't carry out the views of the constitution that he holds.
So now it's going to be a great fight. It's
going to be a great civil service fight because you know,
these prosecutors, some of them and FBI agents are going
to say I'm being fired in violation of the Civil
Service Act.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
Ah but now my understanding is right, there's a legal
question mark there.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
My understanding is, and.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
I've read a few pieces about this this week.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
No one has yet filed suit yes to say my
firing was illegal.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
And the speculation that I kind of love this, that
the left is actually paranoid. This way, I applaud Trump
one more time. There's speculation that Trump is setting a
trap for them because this will elevate a reconsideration of
Humphrey's executor, the famous case that said there are limits
on the president's ability to control quote unquote independent agencies
and executive branch, which I think is widely thought to
(37:15):
be defective and vulnerable, not just by but this.
Speaker 4 (37:18):
Morrison versus Olsen is a better for the law enforcement.
It's a better precedent for the left on law enforcement. Right,
even though everybody acknowledges it was now that Scalia was right,
Sclio was right. Yeah, And I do have a really
quick question for you, though, John, before you go back
(37:39):
to answering that, and that is, do you think that
eighteen US two forty one could also be used against
the fifty one intelligence experts?
Speaker 5 (37:54):
If you have the this is actually the Biden administration's theory.
I actually thought it was too expensive their argument, and
the lower court in Washington, d c. Upheld it. The
Supreme Court didn't reach this in the immunity case, but
the lower court upheld it. Which is the idea. Section
two forty one makes a criminal to violate the constitutional
(38:14):
rights federal constitutional rights people. Yes, the ku klux klin x.
So if they actually did it to interfere with the election,
this is the theory. Now the problem with this theory,
I'd be first admitted. I think this is why when
we talked about it is, you know, there's got to
be a limit because every political trick and campaign and
(38:35):
drytch can't be the subject of a federal criminal prosecution.
So that's why it's easier to say. The way I
think of it is, look at what Fanny Willison Bragg did.
Suppose a Southern da did that during the time of
and I'm sure they did did this during the time
of segregation to keep black candidates from running for office.
(38:57):
Would anyone have any doubt Section two forty one not
apply to what they did. So I think it's even
worse if you think about it being used for partisan purposes.
You know, you know that people could engage in targeting
people on partisan grounds and taking away their constitutional rights.
Speaker 2 (39:14):
That's well, let me make a devil's advocate point and
then a second point that will rescue me with lucretia,
because you won't like my first point, and that is
Brendon and all those people will say, you know, we
didn't say, we didn't make a factual claim that the
laptop was Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Our language was it bore the hallmarks. In other words,
it's a lawyerly evasion and maybe a court may or
maybe or maybe a court would buy that or not.
I don't know. However, I believe point two.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
They should be prosecuted aggressively, regardless of that whether that
evasion is illegally exculpates them or.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
Not, on the grounds that the process is the punishment.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
I'd like to see Brendan have to spend a million
dollars them.
Speaker 5 (39:58):
Look, even before you find churches, you have to have
an investigation. And this is an investigation. You'll get to know,
right why who wrote this up? Why did they write
it up? You know, did they know that it was
actually true?
Speaker 4 (40:10):
And they did know there's all the evidence in the
world that they knew I mean, the FBI knew that
the laptop was real. The FBI knew the laptop was real,
and the CIA that signed off on it, that ridiculous
affirmative action idiot Gina haspell She signed off on it,
(40:32):
She actively signed off on it, and she knew it
wasn't Russian disinformation. I mean that if they do an investigation.
But back to what John was saying, though, you know,
do we want to go down that road? It does
seem to be quite the punishment for poor John Brennan
that his security clearance was taken away because he's out
(40:53):
there whining about it like a two year old, and
I'm loving every minute of that. I don't know, I
think it should be more those I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
Bye bye, remember about Brennan.
Speaker 2 (41:02):
I don't think Mike pal Lloyd Billingsley makes this point
over and over again. I don't think we've ever made
it on our podcast. That guy admits that he voted
for Gus Hall, the Communist Party candidate for president, back
in nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 4 (41:14):
He changed his mind. It'd be fine. I don't care
what happened in seventy six.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
A lot of us were then.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
But yeah, Okay.
Speaker 4 (41:23):
What he's done subsequently, that's such a problem.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
Yeah, well I agree to that, but that's ought to
be a red flag that this guy might not have
been altogether there for a very long time.
Speaker 5 (41:32):
Okay, just one last point about the hearings. So the
interesting thing to me was that Cash Patel, who has
openly talked about right doing exactly this, seems to have
skated through his confirmation hearings. In fact, you know, watching
the different clips, I was amazed at how demoralized the
Democrats were. I don't think they really laid a finger
(41:53):
on him. I mean, when it started out all the
cabinets nominees and you look at their paperwreck, he would
have should have been the most vulnerable one because he's
been doing podcasts for years. He has said some really
extreme things. I mean, he makes Lucretia look.
Speaker 1 (42:09):
Like a squish. Hey.
Speaker 5 (42:13):
But the interesting thing to me is the one that
looks like she's gonna not make it is Tulca Gabbert,
And from what I can tell, it's not really her
views on the Patriot Act and what's called Section seven
and two, which we can talk about some other time.
I don't know if Lucretian and I disagree about section
seven to two. But what it sounds like why senators
are not going to vote for her is because she
(42:35):
kind of you know, you know, defends Edward Snowden, and
I think that's a good reason not to.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
The defense is not wholehearted, maybe really quickly, let me
let's let's be at least subtle, which, of course Democratic
senators with an IQ below room temperature are incapable of subtleties.
But what she says is what he did was wrong,
but what he what he uncovered was terrible. What he
(43:08):
did was illegal, But what he uncovered was unconstitutional behavior
by our government. And I mean that's okay. Would have
have ever been found out if he had been unwilling
to I'm not a Snowden fan.
Speaker 5 (43:26):
I'm not.
Speaker 4 (43:26):
I'm not trying to say that, but I'm trying to
say that that is not a totally unacceptable opinion if
you just do what I've seen many people do in
my world. Snowden, I mean, we almost lost a contract
with the government because another college had Snowden tried to
bring Snowden onto campus at one point, and the you know,
(43:48):
the government takes that so seriously that we had to
like anyway, never mind all that, it's a subtle point. Yeah,
Snowden was wrong. He broke the law. He he betrayed
the trust that the United States government gave him. But
he could turn around and say, but the United States
government betrayed the trust of the American people, and my
whistleblowing made that clear.
Speaker 5 (44:11):
I don't think what he did. I don't think what
the government was doing was unconstitutional. But he I mean,
he leaked information which I think I believe led to
the deaths of American agents, and so he should be executed. Yeah,
that's just like that's you know, it's just like that.
But that's why I think it focuses the mind on
what she actually believes, because she in the past has
(44:34):
defended him and at the hearing would not repudiate it.
In fact, she evaded it several times, questions about it
several times, And I think that's the kind of that's
the kind of question like this guy ysked no question
on something that's very clear that I think shows why
she's not to me. It probably won't make it because
she couldn't answer that clearly.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Yeah, I think she didn't want to break with you know, well,
the Tucker Carlson fans, for example, I think that she
could have given an answer.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
I think I'm closer to your opinion. John.
Speaker 2 (45:08):
It's one thing to give away potentially unconstitutional acts or
dubious acts of the.
Speaker 1 (45:13):
Government, but I think a better way they could be.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
Well, I think the better thing to have done would
have been to take it to You're going to be
a Paul when I say this, but let me finish it.
Take it to Adam Schiff or somebody in Congress and
say I've had this information with the government's done, you've
been mad at Bush and the War on Terror.
Speaker 1 (45:30):
You need to know about it because it's been concealed
from you.
Speaker 2 (45:33):
Now, this highlights to me the hypocrisy of the Democrats
on this, because that is kind of how it was
done in the seventies when you had the Church Committee
in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House
investigating the CIA and the FBI, and especially the Pike Committee,
what did they do. They leaked the findings like crazy
to the media, and that would have happened in this case.
But now the information would have been coming from Democrats
(45:55):
for partisan reasons, and there's a sort of different kind
of accountability there. I think it's a mistake to celebrate,
you know, Snowden being a free agent. I like that, right,
but and I think it would if Gabard thought about
that and given a better put my argument a little
better than I just did, that could have been kind
of interesting.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
Saying nothing is.
Speaker 5 (46:16):
She's not being nominated to be secretary of HHS. I mean,
the reason why, okay, it matters is because she's in
charge of the intelligence agencies.
Speaker 4 (46:24):
Except that. Here's but let me let me give the
other side of the which I have sympathy for your
point of view, John, But but the other side of
it is the widespread belief that our intelligence agencies have
been turned against Americans, and uh, Telsea Gabbard is one
(46:46):
of the victims of that for no apparent reason other
than maybe her uh uh, you know, touting Edward Snowden.
I don't know, But she herself has been the victim
of what I would illegal, unconstitutional spying on a private citizen.
We know that's the case. I think that's why she
(47:06):
was given that job, or at least nominated for that job,
because Trump understands that the entire intelligence community has proven
themselves with the fifty one and the you know, the fight,
the FISA warrants, all of that has proven themselves to
be just abjectly corrupt.
Speaker 5 (47:26):
And I think there's two different things. I think there's
two different things, but I can see why in terms
of politics people don't view them as two different things.
But what Snowden revealed, I think, was that we were
conducting warrantless surveillance basically on everybody abroad, which is not unconstitutional. Actually,
and actually when this was all revealed, then that's why
(47:48):
Section seven oh two becomes an issue, because Congress eventually
approved it and passed a law to authorize it. That's different,
in my mind than what happened with Russia collusion and
all the ways intelligence agencies tried to stop Trump, which
has nothing to do with our efforts to stop these
foreign threats and terrorists. By intercepting all the communications in
(48:11):
the rest of the world. I'm glad the government does it,
but agreed, these guys. What they did is they use
their intelligence, you know, positions to launch a political witch
hunt against someone they didn't want to be president, which
has nothing to do with what's Snowden.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
No, no, no, I mean I wasn't trying. I was
actually making a different point, John, I was making the
second point, which is that I don't know that that
many of Tulci Gabbard's supporters really care that much about Snowden.
At least a lot of people that want to see her.
That Snowden's a separate issue. They are interested in her
(48:46):
simply because she already is saying we are not going
to do business as usual, at least recent usual in
the intelligence world anymore. That's why that's do you see
what you're right? When they're two separate issues. I'm saying
that support for Tulsa Gabbard for the most part, has
(49:06):
nothing to do with the snowed in question. It has
to do with the concern about our intelligence Agency's the
last thing I'll say, is it. By the way, I'm
not sure that the d n I. There's a lot
of jokes going around there about the most important thing
that the nominee for d n I could do, what
the hearings would be explained why we need a d
(49:28):
n I.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
I agree, Oh yeah, I was going to say that too. Yeah,
it's that's the whole thing. Was a bad idea, But yeah, right,
so right.
Speaker 4 (49:36):
I'm told that if she doesn't get it, Trump will
maker national security advisor. Well no, and he's going to
nominate the National Security advisor anyway.
Speaker 5 (49:46):
Oh, I switched Waltz and Gabbard.
Speaker 1 (49:49):
Yeah, I don't. I think.
Speaker 5 (49:50):
I don't know if that's worse or better.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
I hear things about Waltz. I don't know much about them,
but I impressed.
Speaker 4 (49:57):
Yeah, well, okay, I have no idea if that rumor
is true.
Speaker 1 (50:00):
Schlogon could be fun.
Speaker 5 (50:02):
Or we can make our governor of Canada. That would
be perfect. So I think people right, Oh, so I
get to say what EO I liked so and it
also talks about the future. EO is I like the
which it's not. It's only starting now to get the
attention it deserves, which is the DEI Executive Order. Uh
(50:23):
and Steve made this point this week that in the
New York Post about how it reverses Lyndon Johnson's Affirmative
Action EO, which is something no Republican present has dare
touch before.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
H and Reagan thought about it and shrunk back from
doing it.
Speaker 5 (50:41):
Yeah, Bush didn't do it. Trump didn't do it his
first term and would have normally caused enormous political uproar,
but because of the blizzard of eos goes unnoticed. Now,
I think that the Curnio has the germs of in
it of a really important change, because right now it's
a no more DEI within the government. And then it
(51:03):
says and the government agencies are now supposed to study
whether government contractors and recipients of federal grants are engaging
in DEI programs. And here's the catch that violate current law. Now,
I think that President Trump could instead go further and
issue AEO that says, no recipient of federal funds and
(51:27):
no one who does business with the federal government shall
use race in any of its operations are considered diversity,
you know, DEI at all. That would be groundshaking because
every university in the country except Hillsdale and Growth City,
I think, receives federal funding, right, and they're one of
the worst. Right, They're one of the worst violators of
(51:49):
color blindness. And it would apply to all the major government,
the s and P. Five hundred, every major company in
America would have to stop their DEI policies. That I
think if he just added that one more sentence, that
could really seal the deal. And really put a stake
through this and this DEI business.
Speaker 4 (52:08):
So can I just add a couple of things from
a personal point of view being at a university, I
have watched the meltdown this past week, and what I
what I was talking with John about earlier today, many
of these grants, some of them, regardless of what actually
ends up happening with the Title seven and Title nine interpretations,
(52:30):
things like USA ID and grants are going away. They
have already stopped expenditures, totally stopped expenditures on a number
of grants, like a grant for instance, that puts ten
million dollars toward pay bringing in in the medical school
graduate students and postdocs to do research in the grad
(52:55):
in the medicine. So they've had to stop that. They
can't offer any more you know, awards on that. I mean,
it's just on and on. But the other side of
it is the university itself. We already have a legislature
and a board of regents who are telling us to
back off on DEI. But so much money comes into
the university and those kinds of grants, and the university
(53:18):
takes fifty three percent off the top. My university is
already in the hole, seriously in financial trouble. You can
imagine the panic going on. So I'm having a bit
of shot and for it about that one, because my
college makes money hand over flood, but they still communyway.
Speaker 2 (53:33):
That's I'm used to hearing universities taking twenty percent off
of grants.
Speaker 4 (53:37):
Maybe the indirect cause are fifty three percent if the
work is done on campus.
Speaker 2 (53:42):
Yeah, I mean other universities. I hear the figures twenty
percent at least some private foundations, and maybe higher for
government money.
Speaker 1 (53:49):
But the point is, whatever the figure.
Speaker 2 (53:50):
Is, the point there is a serious cutback in those
kind of funds sluicing around to all these programs.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
They're going to have to have massive layoffs of their
administrative bloat. And I'll be the right exactly that's right.
Speaker 4 (54:03):
So then the other thing, really quickly is, you know
my other position. I started receiving as if I were, well,
I guess I am. I am a federal employee, all
of the DoD missives, and you know, here's what usually happens.
You know what my inbox would be filled with today
(54:24):
from not just the university, but from the do D
and all these other groups. Because today's February first. Do
you know what February first is, John, the first day
of Black History Month? Yeah? Really, no more Black History Month,
no more Martin Luther King Day celebrations or pronouncements on
(54:45):
social media. No more Women's Equality Day, which means, thank god,
I don't have to go give fake speeches for that anymore.
But also this was interesting. No more Holocaust Remembrance days.
Speaker 1 (54:58):
Yeah, I mean that was well. So first of all,
I mean hexap put out.
Speaker 2 (55:02):
I have a statement I actually post on power line.
No Pacific Islander, heritage, no month, just stop.
Speaker 1 (55:07):
It all the way.
Speaker 5 (55:09):
What is my month? I had one, because that's when
I'm really going to go over kick some ass on
the commentary podcast. I'm gonna go, I'm gonna.
Speaker 1 (55:20):
Have like a uniche.
Speaker 5 (55:21):
I'm gonna like, I'm gonna like be like Steve Johnny
and I can see what the idea is. What it's
going to be, Mick Ribs. I'm going to toss left
and right out of my little satchel all around the
commentary offices.
Speaker 2 (55:31):
But then, uh, equally fun is President Trump did put
out a proclamation observing Black hits this month and includes
this clause American heroes such as Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman,
Thomas Soul, no Justice, Clarence Thomas. Right, so, I mean,
I think last time I checked, Clarence Thomas is not
(55:53):
mentioned at all at the National Museum of African American History,
which okay, But did.
Speaker 4 (55:59):
You see my good story of the day yesterday? Abram Kendy,
the Button Professor, completely shut down, shut down operations. How
many millions of dollars and with abs were funneled into
his operation there with absolutely nothing to show for it.
He closed his doors, fired everybody, and went to Howard University.
(56:22):
I mean, I know that he'll come out on top.
There's no problems there. But still it was a good story.
It was.
Speaker 1 (56:30):
All right.
Speaker 2 (56:30):
But before we wrap, we need to go to another
break for our sponsors, and then we'll come back. Get
your babbyl on bees queued up Lucretia, and I've got
a new close for us, and we'll be right back,
all right, give us the best of the bee Lucretia.
Speaker 4 (56:45):
All right. Even though they said last week that they
were going to shut down because there wouldn't be anything
funny to talk about, because everything would be perfect. But
the Democrats proved that that wasn't the case because we
had the hearings, and you know that was actually posted
on ex John that I really appreciated all the people
(57:05):
who were watching and reporting on those hearings because I
could only stand about five seconds of it before I
threw my beer at the TV or some equally frustrated action.
So I appreciated their fortitude and got a lot of
response on that. But anyway, nominee, it's a picture of
Cash Battel, nominee for top criminal justice position, interviewed by
(57:26):
nation's top criminals.
Speaker 1 (57:29):
I thought that was good.
Speaker 4 (57:31):
Or the picture of Cash Battel and Telsy Gabbard Democrat
senators opposed diversity for one day only. You know if
I like that Babylon b writers get nothing done? Is
Telsy Gabbard is on TV?
Speaker 1 (57:47):
Yeah she didn't look spectacular.
Speaker 4 (57:49):
I have to say, yeah, very very pretty. There's no
way around it. Preliminary report confirms tragedy was the fault
of whichever political party you like. Poor Trumpy did have
a bit of tragedy this week, now, didn't he. I'll
set up a little bit. Let me do this in first,
entire federal workforce replayed by one replaced excuse me by
(58:12):
one sixteen year old Chick fil A employee.
Speaker 5 (58:17):
Boy.
Speaker 4 (58:17):
The metldown on that has been so spectacular, I can't
even And finally, uh local Karen being a real margaret.
Speaker 1 (58:30):
Oh good John, have you.
Speaker 5 (58:34):
Altered your responsibilities? Yeah, you guys have to give me
the new tagline whenever we figure out what it's going
to be.
Speaker 1 (58:40):
Well, I've got one. I mean you can still do
always do your whisky meat. That's perpetual. Yeah, all right,
I'll go straight to my clothes, but I.
Speaker 5 (58:47):
Always drink your whiskey meat and Steve.
Speaker 1 (58:49):
Yeah, so a quick context, and I won't do it
in the future. But remember, for two three years after
twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2 (58:55):
I had a tagline, don't forget to milk the soft
Power dividend, and that was mocking Samantha Power for her
disappointment to Hillary Clinton didn't win, because she told the
New York Times, having all these women diplomats to her
apartment in New York, I was looking forward to milking
the soft Power dividend. And I thought it was such
a ridiculous phrase. But now we have a new one,
(59:16):
courtesy of JB. Advance, and I think this one should
be the model for everyone for quite a while to
come here.
Speaker 1 (59:21):
And it's frankly martyret I don't really care all right,
Bye bye everybody, Bye guys.
Speaker 4 (59:27):
Next week.
Speaker 5 (59:27):
Bye.
Speaker 7 (59:31):
This is in poetry. It's meandering sophistry, and you must
hate words. All of the youth degree is soothe in
your wandering and chasing these turns.
Speaker 1 (59:46):
There was no.
Speaker 5 (59:47):
Peace warning, that's only a story you tell.
Speaker 3 (59:51):
Two scared kids now that nothing is growing, it's darker
and lowing.
Speaker 7 (59:58):
Just too asso, our bitch, And just saying.
Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
No hour is fine, just saying no hour is.
Speaker 3 (01:00:13):
Fine, But no one wants say.
Speaker 7 (01:00:20):
No hour is.
Speaker 3 (01:00:21):
Fine, so we both know.
Speaker 2 (01:00:27):
No hours is fine.
Speaker 5 (01:00:30):
Never do tie.
Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
And kids are statistics and affair for the ages. I
assume they'll be fine. And if numbers are destiny and
history is.
Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
Dead to ricochet.
Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Join the conversation.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!