Celebrating 3 Epic Years of Outsmarting Cable: Celebrate POGs Day with Special Guest Gregg Easterbrook!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
What do you want to do tonight?

Speaker 2 (00:05):
The same thing we do every night Pinky, Try to take
over the world.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
Alright, yo let's get into it.
Try to take over the world.

Speaker 4 (00:16):
You're preaching treating the cops.

Speaker 3 (00:24):
And bring this chaplain in the world.
Mr larson, take over the world.
What's up, what's up, what's up, world.
We are back on this birthdaysunday.
Happy third birthday to thepokes.
As you can see, we got some newbackground swag, chappy.
How are you I'm doing?

(00:45):
Well, I am here, I am here andif you guys haven't noticed, we
have the esteemed Mr GregEasterbrook here with us once
again to celebrate our thirdbirthday.
How are you, Mr Easterbrook?

Speaker 5 (00:57):
I'm doing fine KJ.

Speaker 3 (00:58):
It has been a while.
We are going to jump right intoit today, ladies and gentlemen,
because we were having anamazing conversation off stage.
So we were talking about the2020 election between Trump and
Biden and we had a wrinkle thatwe wanted to present, and the

(01:19):
wrinkle was Biden was on theropes in the primaries and had
it not been for therepresentative in South Carolina
whose name escapes me and Idon't know why, because he's my
wife's favorite- James Clyburn.
Clyburn.
Had it not been for Clyburnsaving Biden's butt, I don't
know if Biden would havesurvived another race.
So the question now we weretalking about was where does

(01:39):
Bernie fit in that situation?
And had he won the primary,would he have won a potential
race against Trump?
Go ahead, guys, your thoughts.

Speaker 5 (01:48):
It would have been fascinating because you would
have had left-wing populismthat's hard to say versus
right-wing populism and that'snot a matchup we've seen in
American politics at thenational level anyway.
But I'll tell you.
What happened in 2020 and Bidensuddenly going from his tail
between his legs to the clearfavorite for the nomination is,

(02:09):
the Democratic Party was in apanic, not that Bernie would
lose, but that Bernie would win.
Because Bernie threatened theDemocratic power broker base.
He would have yanked the rugout from under them.
They would have rather lostwith Biden or anybody else than
to have Bernie win and go to theDemocratic Party's power
brokers and say, okay, you canall go home, you're all out of

(02:32):
here.
Now your sweetheart deals andyour taxpayer-funded summer
homes are over, and they werepanicked about it.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Yeah, it's a.
It's a Trump version of on theleft.
I think that's why so many somany GOP were so against Trump
as well.
I mean, I left when Trump wasnominated in 2015 because I was
worried about the same thing alot of people were, and then I
voted for him in 2020 because hewas to me.
He was three for three onSupreme Court justices, which is
my.
You know one thing I vote on,and so I think Bernie, I think
Greg, you make a great pointthat you know, being the

(03:13):
populist, I don't see Berniegoing towards the middle, and we
know Trump isn't going to movefrom whatever we want to call it
Trumpism.
So, yeah, I do think Trump winsin that situation, simply
because Bernie doesn't big tentit enough.
I think he, because he is sucha leftist that in 2020, where

(03:34):
we're starting to see, kind ofnow, that the polling is a
little bit more people are morewilling to accept some of the
leftist, what is leftist ideasunder progressivism.
I don't think in 2020 we were atthat point where they would.
In America, progressive it'sall relabeling, it's words,

(03:55):
right.
It used to be liberal and nowit's progressive and leftist,
but now liberal and leftist arenot the same thing like they
used to be 50 years ago, and soit would have been really
interesting.
I think the media, of course,would have fell in line right
behind Bernie, like good littlemedia do.
And not to throw Greg into this, but just as media, I do want

(04:19):
to say that Greg is a phenomenalsub stack.
So if you haven't gone on tothe sub stack and subscribed and
become a follower of Greg,euston Brook and TMQ and all
predictions wrong, so, by theway, any predictions that Greg's
makes, guaranteed that you knowthey're going to be wrong, or
at least can be wrong.
I love it.

Speaker 5 (04:41):
I keep my promises.
My predictions are always wrong.

Speaker 3 (04:44):
All right.
So, speaking of that, I'm gladyou guys you guys are amazing at
segwaying.
So here we go.
First topic of the night Lancehad brought up one of your
columns where you was talkingabout Marx was right, and we had
a little bit of a discussionabout it.
But I kind of wanted, lance,you can go ahead and take the
lead on that and then just justkind of give us some feedback on
that.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
Well, I think we should start with Greg's point
from the article.
Greg, why don't you tell uswhat Marx was right about?
And then I'm going to push backa little bit on some of the
things.

Speaker 5 (05:12):
The basic point of remember.
During the debates, trumpcalled Kamala Harris a Marxist.
Yeah, she clearly is a Marxist.
So is Trump.
Marxism is the core philosophyof Western governments.
In this sense, if you look atthe Communist Manifesto from
1848, nine of the ten planks ofthe Communist Manifesto have

(05:35):
been adopted by the UnitedStates and the European Union.
We're doing what Marx wanteddone with only one exception,
and we're doing things that Marxwould have considered close to
inconceivable.
Marx wanted a central bankcontrolled by federal government
.
We've got that.
All the European nations havethat now.
Marx would have been stunned todiscover that the capitalists

(05:58):
and labor organizers werewilling to sign a peace treaty,
which we call organized labor.
It's fundamentally a peacetreaty.
He we call organized labor.
It's fundamentally a peacetreaty.
He thought there could never bepeace between those two
factions and now there is, andit's mutually beneficial in most
cases to both of them.
Marx thought that there wouldnever be child labor laws.
We've had child labor laws for100 years.

(06:20):
Marx was a Malthusian.
He thought society would runout of food and that eventually
we'd have to be drafting peopleinto an army to try to improve
soil.
He didn't know high-yieldagriculture was coming.
So all these problems in a waythat he didn't know could happen
.
The only plank of the communistmanufacturing.

(06:41):
Oh, and here's the key, what Igot to remember.
Be sure I don't forget thisMarx hated immigration.
He wanted immigrants put inprison and all of their property
confiscated.
He would have fit right in withFox News.
Marx could have had a Fox Newsshow called Carl's Corner where
he fulminates against gettingrid of those immigrants and

(07:02):
deporting them to El Salvadorand locking them up.
He was totally with Fox News onthat.
The one thing, the one plank ofthe Communist Manifesto that we
didn't adopt was the abolitionof inheritance.
He wanted, on death, allproperty owned by an individual
to forfeit to the state.
And we kind of tax states herein the United States we tax them

(07:26):
very lightly.
Some of the European Unioncountries tax them very lightly.
But basically you can stillaccumulate vast wealth through
family generations and the factthat you can still accumulate
vast wealth in family groups isone of the main sociological
distinctions in the UnitedStates today.
Because you look at theblack-white gap, the education

(07:48):
gap is declining, the pay gap isdeclining, marriage statistics
have normalized, become aboutthe same between the two groups.
The one thing that's totallydifferent is family net worth.
Whites have much more familynet worth than blacks do, and
we're not taxing it, and so it'sgoing to grow, not shrink.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
Yeah, KJ and.
I have actually talked aboutthat quite a bit.
On the money and the blackdollar being kept in the black
community.
He definitely educated me onthat a few times.
So, greg, what's your thoughton?
Is there a difference thenbetween in the Communist
Manifesto and Marxism, versusLeninism and Maoism, where the

(08:35):
collective becomes thegovernment and the
collectivization of, let's say,farms is probably the easiest
one, the non-land ownershipbecause my understanding is Marx
thought that was the way to gois that it would be the
collective.
And then we saw how theLeninists basically, for all
intents and purposes, made thatone of the largest death knells

(08:57):
in the history of the 20thcentury.

Speaker 5 (09:02):
The three greatest killers in human history.
One is Hitler, of course, theother two are Stalin and Mao,
and they perverted Marxism intoa philosophy of dictatorship and
an anti-human philosophy, arationalization for mass murder.

(09:22):
Marx was not a violent person.
He was pretty crazy, he had alot of eccentricities and he
turned out to be wrong aboutmany things, most prominently
food supply, but he didn't wantviolence.
He would have been horrified ifhe saw what Stalin did to
people in Ukraine in the 1930s,for example, or what Mao did
during the Great Leap Forward.
That would have horrified him.

Speaker 1 (09:43):
Yeah, I think that's one thing that kind of gets lost
to history is the differencebetween and this is not I am not
defending Karl Marx by anystretch, but the idea that Marx
was basically we're going to setup the government, we're going
to set it up for each accordingto their need, and then humans
are going to take over, and thenthe government is going to step

(10:06):
back and eventually dissolve.
That was the idea Marx had.
And you saw Lenin.
I don't think we have ever hada government that has willfully
given up power once they'vebecome a dictatorship.
That they said yeah, this justisn't for me anymore, it's
pretty damn rare.

Speaker 5 (10:24):
One of the reasons George Washington should be a
hero to all of us is he was veryrare in voluntarily
surrendering great power.
He could have been president aslong as he wanted and he said
nope, somebody else should takethis job now.
And it set a good precedent.
That's mainly lasted.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
Well, didn't Washington?
I thought they proposed that hewould be the new King George.

Speaker 5 (10:48):
Isn't that correct?
At one point there was aproposal to crown him, but he
was never interested in wearinga crown.

Speaker 1 (10:53):
Yeah, I knew he wasn't interested, but I knew
there were people that wanted todraft him into that position.
Yeah, so yeah with Marxism.
I think that that's part of theproblem is, when you go into
the philosophy of how things areversus how they actually are
practiced, and to keep it alittle more modern that was one

(11:14):
of the biggest critiques thatyou saw in the Obama
administration from the right ishey, we have all these college
professors, we have these peoplethat are based in philosophy
and theory and they've neverdone this before, and so any any
time things went wrong, it wasan easy see.
We have these people that arebased in philosophy and theory,
and they've never done thisbefore, and so any time things
went wrong, it was an easy see.
They don't know what they'retalking about.
Meanwhile, you know, currentlywe have people that have
experience that maybe not enoughexperience that seem to be

(11:36):
shooting themselves in the footevery so often.

Speaker 3 (11:40):
Experience is such a very loose word but out of
respect of our guests, I willnot belabor that point.
You know how I feel about that.
But anyway, next topic how'syour citizens and your judges?

Speaker 5 (11:54):
So, Greg, my esteemed , co-hosts don't like when I use
the F word when.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
I talk about this regime, right, but when you
start to take away journalisticrights, when you start to lock
up you know citizens and hidethem away in offshore prisons
now you start to lock up judgesit's starting to look real effy
to me, and my co-host does notagree with me.

(12:23):
So what are your thoughts inregards to the way the
administration is behaving?
I call it fascism light becausewe're not fully there, and my
co-host says, well, because it'snot traditional fascism.
We're not there, and I'm like,well, yeah, they did it wrong
the first time.
So everybody learns frommistakes.
That's why they're evolving andmaking it better.

(12:43):
But what are your thoughts?

Speaker 5 (12:44):
I'm curious to hear I'm all in for deporting
convicted criminals.
Yeah, absolutely.
If you're convicted ofsomething, you should be
deported.
It's certainly possible thatyou can deport people who have
entered this country illegally.
Barack Obama deported almost amillion illegal immigrants.
It's a big change in theDemocratic Party that now they

(13:06):
love illegal immigrants theydidn't used to.
If you break our laws to enterthe country, you've got no
complaint if you're deported.
But you've got some kind ofnormalized status here People
with green cards or who aremarried to American citizens or
who have received some kind ofrefugee status.
They have to receive dueprocess before anything happens

(13:28):
to them.
And if you can take away dueprocess from disfavored people,
how long until you take it awayfrom the majority too?

Speaker 1 (13:36):
Yeah, I think my argument is that you can't use
the exception for the norm,right?
So we're talking about theMaryland man.
I know that that's how he'sbeen labeled.
I don't know.
That's what we, yeah, that'swhat we, that's what he's become
, the cause du jour.
But then you have the Marylandsenator who he gets, and he has

(13:58):
all the people behind me he says, and his wife, his wife's here,
and his wife was over here.
He didn't know who the who thewife was was.
So then it's like, okay, howsincere are you really?
You know, yes, you might turnthe wrong way, and I'm not
saying there shouldn't be dueprocess, I've never said that.
But my whole thing is, ifyou're here at the, at the uh,

(14:19):
as a guest of the United Statesgovernment, at any point the
United States government can sayyou're not welcome here anymore
.
If there's a cause or any realcause, people get mad at what's
going on in Colombia and some ofthe Ivy League schools, those
that are supporting thePalestinians.
I remember not too long agowhen if you were supporting a

(14:39):
terrorist organization, youcould get kicked out of the
country because you weresupporting a terrorist
organization.
And the last time I checked,hamas is still labeled as a
terrorist organization, and Idon't want to re-adjudicate
what's going on in Israel andPalestine, but if you're
blocking students, especiallyJewish students, on a campus,

(15:00):
like just last week we saw avideo out of Yale where the
Palestinian supporters and justfor the record, this is my own
personal thought If you're inany type of a protest and you're
wearing a mask to hide who youare, you're not a good person.
If you were proud of whatyou're doing, and that's why I
think the what are the nationalfront, the guys in the khakis

(15:22):
and all that, I think that's aload of crap.
I don't think that they're.
I think it's a good likelihoodthey were federal.
They were federal provocateurs,because they've pretty much
gone away.
But if you are here as a guestof the United States government
and you do something that issupporting a regime that is goes

(15:43):
against not only our values,but against one of our, and
people can say, well, israel,just because they're against
Israel, well, they should havethat right.
Yeah, you can absolutely havethat right.
You can have that right back inyour country, where you have
every right to have it.
And so I yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 5 (16:00):
Well, I'd say that people who enter the United
States, there's three ways toenter fully lawfully, on a
temporary basis, as a studentvisa, tourist visa, work visa or
illegally.
People who enter illegally Idon't care about it, I want to
send them home.
If I entered another nationillegally, they'd send me home,

(16:25):
so we should be doing the samething here.
People who have enteredlawfully on a temporary basis
and green cards are temporary.
They can't be revoked.
They don't make you a citizen.
They get due process.
The Constitution is clear onthat.
If you do something bad, say,you become an anti-Semite at

(16:46):
Columbia University, wherethey're practically handing out
prizes for anti-Semitism.
Now, you get a hearing beforewe send you home.
That's really clear in theConstitution.
14th Amendment, one of itsgreatest.
Yeah, due process sometimes isjust stall tactics, but the 14th
Amendment creating the dueprocess right is one of the
reasons.
But the 14th Amendment creatingthe due process right is one of

(17:06):
the reasons the United Statesbecame a better society and that
right was extended to everyonewho was within the borders of
the United States, even tocriminals.

Speaker 3 (17:17):
So I want both of you guys to kind of chime in on how
that plays out with the.
What's the Attorney Bundy goingafter the judge who allegedly I
guess she snuck an illegalimmigrant out the back door?

Speaker 2 (17:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
And they arrested the judge.
What are your thoughts on that?
I think that's a little.
I understand it, but I thinkarresting judges is a slippery
slope.

Speaker 5 (17:44):
It is a slippery slope and it's crossing a line
that's only been crossed a fewtimes in American history.
A judge can commit a crime.
A judge can do somethingunethical.
Judges are not.
Most judges, I think, arepretty virtuous, but if they
commit a crime they should beprosecuted too.
If they commit a crime, theyshould be prosecuted too.

(18:11):
In the case of the Wisconsinjudge, it is odd to think that
we think of Wisconsin as thishappy little state of dairy
farmers.
It's become the mostpolitically tumultuous state in
the country in recent years andI follow this pretty closely.
My older brother is a federalappellate judge who has
jurisdiction over Wisconsin, sohe's also always handling these
crazy cases.
The judge who was arrested is astate judge, so her case

(18:33):
probably will not end up infederal court.
But you got to say if a judgecommits a crime, nobody's above
the law, a judge should beprosecuted.
Now she's got to defend herselfin court and show that she did
not commit a crime.
But it is crossing a line.
By general agreement of bothpolitical parties you don't go

(18:54):
after judges, in part becauseyou don't want the judges to be
angry at your party when you'recaught in corruption.
You want the judges to look theother way on you.
If you go after them, they maynot look the other way, but I'll
tell you what this all buildsup to.
You've heard in the last twomonths.
You've heard the phraseconstitutional crisis used a lot
.
I'm not sure there is aconstitutional crisis right now,

(19:15):
but there could be one coming.
If you look at the history ofthe White House and the federal
courts, we think it'sunprecedented that Trump is
ignoring federal court orders.
Actually, this happens all thetime.
We just don't pay attention toit because it's usually on minor
procedural issues.
Biden defied a lot of orders.

(19:36):
Obama defied a lot of orders,which is procedural stuff.
Nobody cared.
Now suddenly everybody'sdecided to care.
If push comes to shove and theSupreme Court tells Trump you
must do X, y, z and Trump saysno, I won't, then we'll have a
genuine constitutional crisis.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
Yeah, and one of the points I've made with that is
the irony of this is thelegislature makes the laws, the
judiciary interprets theconstitutionality of the laws
and the executive enforces thelaws.
So if the legislature passeslaw and the judiciary says it's
constitutional, hey, you have toenforce this, and the executive
goes no, what are they going todo?

(20:19):
Who's going to go in andenforce the law and the
enforcers?

Speaker 5 (20:23):
That's the big question of a genuine
constitutional crisis.
If the White House went to warwith the Supreme Court, who
would win?
It's not clear who would win.
The strongest hand is alwaysheld by Congress, because
Congress can alter laws.
The president can writeexecutive orders, but the next
president just tears them up.
They're nowhere near as strongas laws are.

(20:45):
Judges can issue injunctionsand issue stays and things like
that, but somebody else can justit's not the judge, you just
tear them up.
Congress is holding the trumpcard not to make a bad pun, and
right now, so far, congress hasbeen completely inactive.
A lot of the things that theWhite House and the federal
judiciary are arguing aboutCongress could resolve by simply

(21:08):
clarifying the law, and theydon't want to do it because they
want to be able to blamesomebody else for what's going
on.

Speaker 1 (21:14):
Exactly Wait what?

Speaker 5 (21:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (21:18):
Do their job.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
No, no, no, no.
You are right on point.
I am all for speaking of termlimits.
That brings up a good point.
I mean, it's going to take usoff a little bit, but how do you
feel about term limits?
We are, I am, definitely proterm limits at every level
Scotus level, congressionallevel, obviously we have it for
the potus, but I believe no oneshould be there forever.
Be there forever, and then youstart to see people whose net

(21:43):
worths are continuously, youknow, exploding during their
time serving the people.
It just further strengthens mypoint that, hey, man, you should
not be there forever.
Do some time, and then I needyou to come out so we can get
some fresh voices andgenerational takes.
You know what I'm saying?
Because every generation agesout right, and I think right now

(22:04):
, what we have in Congress is wehave everybody that's been
there forever has generationallyaged out, and the young people
that we have in there aregrifters who are looking.
They saw, they saw theopportunity to cash in and they
saw the Congress is the easycash cow.
So a lot of them aren't inthere to serve the people.
They're in there to serve theirpockets.
But I'll leave that to you guys.

(22:25):
What are your thoughts?

Speaker 5 (22:27):
Just because Elon Musk says something doesn't mean
it's wrong.
So when Elon Musk points outthe number of people who are
long-serving members of theHouse and Senate, whose net
worth has spectacularlyincreased even though they're on
a public servant's salary anddon't have any other visible
source of income, you knowthere's corruption there and you

(22:47):
ask yourself we're running upthese fantastic federal debts.
Spending keeps increasing,increasing.
Where are the new bridges?
Where are the new roads?
Where are the new schools?
Where are the new hospitals?
A lot of that money is beingstolen by members of Congress
and that's why members ofCongress try to keep their heads
down all the time because, asElon Musk says, they don't

(23:08):
complain about criminals becausethey themselves are criminals.
Now, I certainly don't meanevery member of Congress.
There are some people of veryhigh ethical standing in both
chambers of the United StatesCongress, but you look at Nancy
Pelosi's net worth, you know,tell me, oh, my husband invested
wisely.
Come on, we weren't bornyesterday.

(23:28):
And I'll give you a statisticthat blows me away 16% of the
American public is at least 65years of age.
80% of Senate committeechairmen are at least 65 years
of age.
The aging is wildlyoverrepresented in the United
States Congress, and whose faultis that?

(23:51):
Our fault.
We should vote those people outof office.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
Yeah, yeah, I saw somebody I don't remember which
congressman said this or where.
I read it, but it was almostidentical to something I came up
with.
Read it, but it was almostidentical to something I came up
with.
Shoot, greg, it might have beenin one of your columns.
I said about 15, 20 years ago Iused to be against term limits
simply because every election isa term limit.

(24:15):
But then I realized that theAmerican people and the
electorate is stupid.
So you need to have these termlimits and it should be very
simple.
So you need to have these termlimits and it should be very
simple.
In the House it should be sixyears, in the White House eight
years, in the Senate 12 yearsand SCOTUS should be 18 years
and they should be slotted inone every two years.

(24:36):
So it doesn't matter who it isthe number third.
The third person in the SupremeCourt is after six years and
let's say that person passesaway with still six years.
Well, the nomination goesforward and that person gets
slotted in right there to numberthree.
So after three years they'reout, and that way it just it's
constantly going through.
I think that would solve somany of the problems with the oh

(24:57):
well, this person's a Democratnominee, this one's a Republican
nominee.
And the turnover, because rightnow the money that's involved in
in the elections as well, isjust for a pun.
It's criminal, but literally Ithink it's criminal as well.
But not just the dark money,but even even the yeah, because

(25:22):
if I wanted to run for, if Iwanted to run for Congress, I
simply couldn't.
I don't have the money.
I would have to have somebodyimmediately come in and say, ok,
you're in Georgia, the Georgia10th.
I think I'm in the 10thdistrict.
We calculate you're going toneed somewhere around $2 to $2.5
million.
Well, great, who's going togive me two point five million
dollars?

(25:42):
And then the other side of itblows me.
I don't know how many peopleknow this.
Let's say somebody came in andsaid OK, we're going to back you
for two point five milliondollars, and I say, great, I'm
going to go run.
And then I spend up.
Let's say I spent fiftythousand dollars.
You know what happens to therest of the money?
I get to keep it.

Speaker 5 (26:02):
And when you and Lance, when you get elected and
I'm sure you'll get electedyou're going to win handily.
When you get elected, if you'relike most current members of
Congress, your first day inoffice, what do you start doing?
Fundraising for yourself.
You're not going down to listento the debates, you're not
studying the issues, you'refundraising fundraising,

(26:22):
fundraising, yeah, fundraising,fundraising, fundraising, yeah.

Speaker 1 (26:24):
Kj and I have brought up.
There's a movie, eddie Murphy,called the Distinguished
Gentleman, where he ran becausehe had the same name as the
representative who had died, andso Eddie Murphy is one of KJ's
favorite movies.
So that's the type of stuffthat happens.
And Eddie Murphy wins theelection in that movie just
based off a name recognition.

(26:45):
Again, that tells you thestupidity of people.
If I go in and I say I'm goingto vote for now again, as a
conservative I'm not aRepublican, I am a conservative
I am not voting for MitchMcConnell year after year after
year.
Now, people might not like,let's say, mike Lee.
I like Mike Lee.
He's a conservative, I see whathe does.

(27:07):
People don't like it because heis a conservative.
Fine, cool, but I do, andthat's how I'm going to vote.
But once he starts goingagainst what I think are my best
interests as a constituent, I'mnot voting for him anymore.
Well, and I'm not in Utahanymore, so I'm not going to
vote for him that way either,but it's ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
Ok, all right, we got to keep the ball moving.
Gentlemen, we can definitelyhave an entire episode on that,
because that is, that is yeah.
So here we go.
Journalism in crisis.
So recently we saw a, anAtlantic and senior editor from
the Atlantic and Atlantic, goodLord Resign, and then also Jake

(27:47):
Tapper in his book on Biden, onwhy he, on how he revealed all
these secrets but wasastoundingly quiet during the
administration.
Some of it sounded extremelydamning to the president, like
falling asleep in meetings andthat sort of thing.
Like falling asleep in meetingsand that sort of thing.
I guess the question would beif you knew that information

(28:11):
beforehand, don't you think, asa journalist, or how do you feel
as a journalist, having theresponsibility to put that
information out in the bestinterest of people?
Because if my president isfalling asleep in meetings and
is clearly deteriorating but themessage isn't getting out there
, I think I deserve to know, asa voter, that's going to affect
the way I vote what do you guysthink there.
I think I deserve to know, as avoter, that's going to affect
the way I vote.
What do you guys think?

Speaker 5 (28:27):
Well, I think mainstream journalism and
mainstream journalism is mainlyleft wing not entirely.
Of course there's a Wall StreetJournal and Fox News.
Mainstream journalism is mainlyon the left Performed
astonishingly poorly in the last, really for a decade.
They performed poorly with theRussia collusion hoax against

(28:48):
Trump in 2017.
In retrospect, it was totally ahoax and I think a lot of the
big news organizations alwaysknew it was a hoax and they
pretended that it wasn't.
They performed incrediblypoorly with the relation on the
story of the key story of therelationship between China and
the outbreak of COVID.
Two factors to that therelationship of China and the

(29:10):
fact that the United Statesgovernment was funding the
experiments in China.
They pretended all that stuffdidn't exist.
They pretended Hunter's laptopdidn't exist and tried to
retaliate against the New YorkPost, successfully retaliated
against the New York Post,successfully retaliated against
the New York Post for reportingthat story because it didn't fit
their agenda.
And then it all built up towhat, for the Democratic Party,

(29:34):
was a calamity that they hid thetruth about Biden's actual
mental condition and physicalcondition too.
Now, at his age, it's nosurprise that he was declining
Most people do at that age.
But the fact that there was anelaborate cover-up run by
journalists.
The kind of people whose job itis to communicate the truth to
the public were trying toprevent the public from knowing

(29:56):
the truth.
The journalism businessdeserves the decline of public
respect that it's experiencingright now.
I think that's why people areturning to alternative media.
Well, I've got to say it's beengreat for Substack.
Substack has only existed forfive years and, as of about a

(30:21):
month ago, many of yourlisteners may not even know what
Substack is.
It's a media alternative whereyou subscribe to an individual
rather than to an organization.
That's the big difference.
You pick the writers or, insome cases, the artists that you
like and you support them, notan organization.
But, as of a month ago,substack has more paid
subscribers than the New YorkTimes and the Washington Post

(30:42):
combined.
And it's not a big corporation.
There's a couple of guys in asmall office building in San
Francisco pressing the technicalbuttons.
Subsec has 92 employees and ithas already more reach than many
of the main journalismorganizations in the United
States.
And it's not the onlyalternative organization, but

(31:05):
it's one that's, I think, prettywell balanced and pretty
factual.
And the big deal.
Media types are amazed thatwe've pulled the tablecloth off
the table without upsetting theglasses and the plates, because
we're doing it every day,basically.

Speaker 1 (31:24):
Greg, I have a question for you.
You wrote for the Atlantic fora long time.

Speaker 5 (31:27):
I did yes for 30 years, 38 years actually, sorry,
38.

Speaker 1 (31:32):
So the current editor-in-chief, jeffrey
Goldberg, accidentally gets putonto a chat?
Now we're not going to go intothe legality of the chat itself.
We're staying away from that.
The legality of the chat itselfwe're staying away from that.
But he knew he was mistakenlyput on a signal group because he
had the same initials assomebody in the administrative,

(31:54):
so he knew he didn't belong inthat.
What are your thoughts on himsitting back and gathering?
Now I don't mind him If heright up front had said I was
included in the signal likeimmediately and I told him I'm
not supposed to be in there.
So that just tells you howmessed up they are.
They put me on this.
But he sat back for three daysand gathered information.
Now, did he have a legalobligation to disclose he was

(32:18):
there?
No, did he have an ethical andjournalistic?
Uh, should he have stayed on?

Speaker 5 (32:26):
well, I'd answer this way and I and I'm someone who's
disagreed with jeff about manythings.
I don't like the direction thathe's taken the atlantic in I I
don't like, so, some of theopinions he's expressed.
I think he handled himselfproperly in this case.
His explanation and I take himat his word was that he first
started getting this chat stuffhe didn't believe it was real.

(32:48):
He thought he was being spoofedby somebody.
If you or I started gettingchats from the National Security
Advisor, would we believe thatit was real?
It's some high school kidmessing with me.
Only when the bombs went off inYemen did he say holy shit,
this is real.
And 24 hours later he disclosedeverything.
I think he handled himself justabout right.

Speaker 1 (33:13):
Yeah, so he wasn't the son of an NFL coach who was
to a prospective quarterback.

Speaker 5 (33:22):
There's definitely nothing NFL about Jeff Goldberg.

Speaker 3 (33:27):
So what are your thoughts on the handling of the
administration in the press pool, with being able to like
kicking out the AP?
I understand you can havedisagreements with news outlets
Right but I'm also a fan of freejournalism.
Just because I disagree withyou and I know you're going to

(33:48):
put out a hit piece, I don'tthink it's right to restrict
access.
That's just my own personalopinion.
What are you guys' thoughts?

Speaker 5 (33:57):
Well, I don't like the fact that the Trumpsters are
so hostile to the press, but Ithink that's their choice to
make.
Everybody knows that they'rehostile to the press.
I think it's healthy for thepress to be intensely
scrutinized.
There's no right to sit in theWhite House press room.
Each administration gets topick who they admit and

(34:18):
traditionally theadministrations of both parties
have admitted the primary powerbrokers.
But if the Trump people want toadmit independent web-based
journalists, that's their choiceto make.
I think they've got to balanceit by making sure there's always
somebody from the press pool,whether Associated Press or
Washington Post.
The press pool has always gotto have a representative near

(34:41):
the president.
That's just for democracy tofunction properly.
But if most of the people whoare near the president are
independents who do podcasts,for example, that's Trump's
choice to make.
And if President Ocasio-Cortezis sworn in in 2029, she will

(35:02):
get to choose who gets to beclose to her.

Speaker 1 (35:05):
I don't have any problem with that and that's
kind of where my argument hasbeen is that you don't have a
right to be in the White Housepress room, otherwise, where's
my press pass?
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (35:18):
there is no right.
I think every president has anobligation to ensure that there
is a press pool reporter nearbyat all times.
The president owes that to thepublic.
As long as that obligation isbeing observed, the rest of it's
up to him.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
Real quick.
I guess my question with the APis because the AP has pushed
such a political agenda withthings like calling males
females and saying, hey, we'regoing to go by what they call
themselves, and the Trumpadministration saying, well, no,
I mean, if you're not going tobe honest about the sexual, I

(35:59):
don't even know how we're doingit nowadays.
It's not gender, it's not, youknow, whatever the anatomical
genitalia somebody has.
If you're going to lie aboutthat, then why should I trust
you about anything else?
And I've seen plenty of stories, and especially from the right.
I see that you know this transperson did this and she, she,

(36:19):
she.
And then I'll see in thecomments going you mean he, he,
that's a dude.
And so to me I look at that andgo I'm kind of like Jordan
Peterson.
Jordan Peterson has said if astudent comes to me and says,
hey, dr Peterson, I'd reallyappreciate it if you called me
Jennifer, that's how I, that'show I identify, and so if you
would call me that, I'd reallyappreciate it, and he says, yeah

(36:40):
, absolutely no problem.
His problem is when the lawturns around in Canada and says
you will say she, and that's howhe came to.
He came to the forefront of theintellectual dark web is by
saying no as law.
Why am I going to?
You can't force me to do that.
And I think that's where theproblem becomes is the AP is
saying, well, we don't give acrud what you're going to say in

(37:02):
the White House.
Otherwise, it says, okay, well,if you're not going to follow
the very basic rules that we'reputting out here, the AP just
came out with one a couple ofweeks ago.
They will capitalize.
When talking about racial,they'll say black is with a
capital B, but white with alowercase b.
Well, why?
Or I'm sorry, white with alowercase w.
Well, why, if you're going tobe a news organization, puts

(37:25):
things out and says this is howwe're going to do it.
And it might have been the APyou know the AP guidebook that
did it instead of AP.
And if I'm complaining to you,I'm sorry, but you know, if
you're going to say we're goingto do it one way for one group,
a different way for a differentgroup, why are we doing this?
Like we not going to just havea standard, stick with the

(37:45):
standard and go from there?
And if the AP is not willing todo that, I have no problem with
them losing their special placein the Pentagon.
There's no right to that spacein the Pentagon.

Speaker 5 (37:57):
There's a huge amount of groupthink at the top of
journalism, and groupthink tendsto veer to the left, and you
don't want to be the person whosays well, you know, jennifer,
okay, I'm going to call thatperson who wants to be known as
Jennifer.
Fine, that's what Jenniferwants, that's what we're going
to call her.
But not just AP but many NewYork Times is this way.

(38:22):
They want you to believe thatif a man declares himself a
woman, then the man becomes awoman, and that doesn't make any
sense.
I'm talking about adults, notminors.
An adult male wants to dress asa woman.
As long as you're not hurtinganybody, that's your choice.
You don't become a woman.

(38:44):
That doesn't make any sense atall.
So I take your point that ifAssociated Press or any other
news organization is willing toconfidently say something that
they know to be a lie, what elseare they lying about?

Speaker 3 (38:57):
I agree.
The only thing I have an issuewith is the vetting process.
The Trump press pool has beencaught several times with
Russian state sanctionedreporters inside of their press
point.
Just recently, the influencerwho was literally paid to put
out pro-Russia propaganda wasgranted access to the presidency

(39:20):
.
And then the incident beforethat you literally had a Russian
state media reporter sittingright beside the press secretary
.
I don't have an issue with whoyou let in there, but there has
to be a vetting process.
We can't allow why?
Here's why I say why?

Speaker 1 (39:36):
Here's why I say why If Al Jazeera sends a reporter,
should we not allow the AlJazeera?
Because Al Jazeera is clearlyantagonistic towards the United
States, but we shouldn't letthem in.

Speaker 5 (39:48):
There was a period where the State Department was
encouraging people in Washingtonto cooperate with Al Jazeera
because they felt that AlJazeera was making a legitimate
attempt to present the Americanpoint of view.
I was at the BrookingsInstitution for some time and
our press guidance fromBrookings said whenever Al
Jazeera calls, treat them withrespect and answer their
questions, because we thinkthey're trying to be a

(40:10):
responsible news organization.
And we all said, fine.
Now, I think since October of27,.
That's changed.
But until it changed I didn'thave any problem working with Al
Jazeera.
And I'll tell you my knowledgeof how the vetting works.
I never held a White House presspass, so I don't know how that
vetting works.
But for 30 years I held theUnited States Congress press

(40:33):
pass.
There's a thing called thePeriodical Press Gallery in the
Senate where you have to go toapply for that pass.
It was pretty damn rigorous.
I had to disclose a lot aboutmy personal life in order for
them to issue me a press pass.
If I had been up to anything,they would have figured it out.
So the same level of scrutinyshould apply to anybody who's
getting a White House press pass.

Speaker 3 (40:55):
That's all I got.
I completely agree.
All right, Greg, we got you fora couple of minutes left, so
we're going to do a rapid fire.

Speaker 5 (41:02):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (41:03):
What are your grades for the first 100 days?
I think we're a little past 100days now of the administration.
What are your thoughts, yourgrades and where do you see this
administration going?

Speaker 5 (41:11):
I like the fact that Trump is going after the
deadwood in Washington and theentrenched assumptions about oh,
just because we've always spenton this program, therefore we
should spend even more on thisprogram.
I like the fact that he's doingthat.
I think he's shooting from thehip way too much and we're
seeing him especially withtariffs.
Tariffs are a terrible idea.

(41:32):
There's like 11 economists inthe entire world who want more
tariffs.
Tariffs have always harmed bothcountries and they're harming
both countries here.
He's got to pull back from it.
He shot from the hip way toomuch with tariffs.
Otherwise, I like the fact thathe's streamlining government.

(41:53):
I like the fact that he'slaying.
I don't like the fact that noone individual you want to see
laid off.
But you know the theory ofmanagement consulting that any
organization can take a 5% staffcut.
Any organization will beimproved by a 10% staff cut.
It's when you exceed 20% thatyou start to damage the
organization.
So if he gets like the StateDepartment now is talking about
a 15% cut, that's tampering withthe area where you damage the

(42:17):
organization instead of helpingit.
So he's shot from the hip toomuch.
He's got to pull back.
But I like the fact that he'sbeen aggressive.
Washington is designed toresist change on almost every
level, and change is sometimeshealthy.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Real quick with tariffs.
If the point of the tariffswith China specifically are to
try to force China to be anhonest broker, is it worth at
least the attempt, even if ithurts in the short term are to
try to force China to be anhonest broker, is it worth at
least the attempt, even if ithurts in the short term?

Speaker 5 (42:54):
Yeah, if there's a plan, if he's not just doing
whatever pops into his head, ifthe plan is to get China to
bargain seriously for true freetrade between the United States
and China, then there'll be ahuge success and everybody will
be really happy about it.
Is that really the plan?
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (43:09):
I think they're calling it 5D chess now.
Yeah, the supporters are sayinghe's playing 5D chess.
Mr Easterbrook, as always, man,it is an absolute pleasure and
honor to have you on the show.
We wanted to cap you at 45minutes, so we are right at that
43.30 time frame.
So thank you so very much for.

Speaker 5 (43:31):
You mentioned the name of my sub stack.
It's called Fiction's Wrong.

Speaker 3 (43:35):
Absolutely.
Please do Anything you want.
I was just going to sayanything you want to promote.
You got the last minute.
It's all yours, brother.

Speaker 5 (43:41):
Well, I urge people to look for my last name on
substack it's.
It's a quirky subset.
Half of the of what I publishis public policy and, actually,
theology commentary.
I'm big on the latter.
The other half is football.
If you, many of your of your uhaudience would know the name
tuesday morning quarterback.

(44:02):
Tuesday morning quarterbackback, and it's on Substack.
Right now the football isn'tbeing played, but once the
season starts it'll be everyTuesday on Substack.
Again, it's a quirky productbut a lot more people than I
ever thought are paying for it,so it's going pretty well.
You're going to have apost-draft TMQ correct On

(44:24):
Tuesday.
Yeah, I'm finishing it rightnow.

Speaker 1 (44:28):
I'm looking forward to it.
I can't wait to see what youthink about or what you say
about Sanders, because youdidn't draft him in your mock
draft.

Speaker 5 (44:36):
Well, I didn't draft any real players in my mock
draft they were all made up.
I know I like Sanders as acollege player.
He's going to be a success inthe NFL.
I think he's the first exampleof a reverse Nepo baby.
He was penalized for having afamous father Instead of being

(44:57):
Shader Sanders.
If his name was Sam Johnson, hewould have gone in the first
round.
I agree.

Speaker 1 (45:05):
As a BYU fan who watched BYU defense absolutely
destroy Colorado, I had mydoubts.
So we'll see who's right infive years.

Speaker 5 (45:15):
Okay, we will.

Speaker 3 (45:17):
Mr Easterbrook, thank you so very much for hanging
out with us, man.

Speaker 5 (45:19):
Thank you guys.

Speaker 3 (45:21):
All right, till next time, brother.
Thank you Okay.
Bye-bye, all right here we go?

Speaker 1 (45:28):
We're going to keep going, though, just in case
anybody's wearing it Like we'reonly going to play.

Speaker 3 (45:31):
We are rocking it.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
We were just letting Greg go after 45.

Speaker 2 (45:35):
Hey KJ, oh, yep.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
Let me see, there we go.

Speaker 3 (45:53):
Oh, I guess what is it called?
Administrative pick, thesecretary of defense of the
United States who cannot seem tokeep his antics out of the news
cycle.
What are your thoughts?
I know, initially, when wefirst heard about his pick, I

(46:14):
was like, hey, man, the guy'snot ready.
And then so far he is actinglike a captain who's never been
in command.
I mean, his nose is he'sfocused on.
He's focused on enlisted stuff,you know, worried about the
fitness of the troops, worriedabout uniform stuff like that.
That's not a commander'sresponsibility.
And he's getting his, he'sgetting his hand slapped too

(46:38):
much for this.
This signal that every week, itseems, is another incident with
signal.
Every week, it seems, isanother incident with Signal.
This last week was he had agray line ran to his computer in
the Pentagon because the cellsignal was shot.
What do you?

(47:01):
I don't know if he's going tosurvive the entire term, because
Trump doesn't like chaos, trumpdoes not like messiness.
Right, like low back, yeah, andhexf just cannot see.
Everyone else kind of rollswith the flow and, and you know
they have their hiccups here andthere, but hexf, just he's that
one friend that you always haveto be like hey, I'm going out
with so and so and your wifekind of gives you that look like

(47:23):
are you okay?
You know what I mean?

Speaker 1 (47:30):
He just, he just gives me frat boy mentality for
a 50 year old, and that's not.
I don't mean that as acompliment.
Um few thoughts on him Now.
I am not as focused on him asyou are, so I I honestly, if you
say he did something, I'm notgoing to say, oh, why he didn't?
I don't know thing.
I'm not going to say, oh, whathe didn't, I don't know.
I will say this the idea thatthey put a nipper line into his
office so he could use whateverkind of strikes me as not real,

(47:57):
not a real story.
I was stationed at the NSA as achaplain with an intel unit for
three years as a chaplain withan Intel unit for three years
Now.
Before that, if you don't knowmy background, I was an Intel
analyst for 10 years before that.
I've had a TSSCI since about2000.
Well, I first applied in 2005when it switched over, so I

(48:17):
think it was originally grantedin like 2006 or something.
So I'm going to misrepresent,but during that time as an Intel
analyst, I saw one piece oflive TSSCI.
That's it, One piece.
I was at Air National Guard inAlabama during drill.
They had a drone footage going.
I was like, oh look, oh, itsays top secret SCI up there.
Oh, that's real top secretstuff.

(48:37):
Oh, I mean, it was nothing, itwas.
It was a drone footage from youknow three thousand feet up to
circling some little outpost inAfghanistan.
Footage from you know 3000 feetup to circling some little
outpost in Afghanistan.
So didn't really mean anything.
And then, as a chaplain, when Ifinally got onto the NSA side, I
walked in and I go to my deskand like, all right, here's your
nipper computer, here's yourTSSCI computer, your top secret

(48:57):
computer, here's how you switch.
I went what do you mean?
What Like?
There's like I literally canclick a button, log in and put
Iran and it will say you know,here, here's the search.
And I probably I probablyshould have learned how to, how
to manipulate the search enginebetter than I did, but I could

(49:18):
see stuff right off the bat.
Here's TSCI stuff, no foreign,and all these different things.
It's like oh wow, you know,I've I've lived in Taiwan for
two years.
What's Taiwan and China andsome of these things?
But I did have the nipper lineright there.
So I don't think that that'sthe case, that he didn't have a,
a nipper line in his office.

(49:39):
I have a hard time believingthat that.
That would be like somebodysaying hey, he had a satellite
dish put onto the Pentagon so hecould watch Fox news.
All those guys have TVs.

Speaker 3 (49:51):
Right, the issue isn't that he had a green.
The issue is he had the grayline put on his computer to type
on signal and then text hismother.
Uh, top secret plans.
Like he, for whatever reason,he cannot grasp the concept of
who needs to know, right?

(50:14):
So so far he's tried to get hiswife a secret clearance and
then now it comes out that he'stexting his mother.
Like his brother has some kindof leeway because he is a
director of, like he's in theDepartment of Homeland Security.

Speaker 5 (50:34):
So, yeah.

Speaker 3 (50:35):
So to text him on to text top secret information on
signal is a no go, first andforemost.
But when you're talking to yourbrother who is also in the
Intel know, intel adjacent, allright, cool, but the the problem
I have is when you're textingyour mother and your sister and
your cousin, people who haveabsolutely no business with this

(50:59):
information, and you cannotseem to stop it that.
So the first time I'm like,okay, cool signal gate on the
plane.
Whatever I got it, he put inthe wrong guy.
Then it's like yo, now you'retexting your wife and your
brother.

Speaker 1 (51:13):
That wasn't Hexeth, though.
That was somebody else who setup the wrong one.

Speaker 3 (51:17):
Yeah, somebody set it up, but it was Hexeth who was
doing the texting of the topsecret plan.

Speaker 1 (51:25):
I think, that.

Speaker 3 (51:26):
Hold on.
Let me finish that first one.
All right, cool, I got it.
Accidents happen.
He thought the line was securebecause somebody else said look
cool.
Then you find out that he's nowhad a separate signal chat

(51:48):
after the fact with his brotherand his wife, who has absolutely
no security clearance.
She doesn't even have a role ingovernment.
And you're like all right,secdef, you really got to chill
out, bro.
What's the problem?
And then a week after that youfind out he's texting his mother
Top secret Like what the hellman?

Speaker 1 (52:04):
I think you have a better argument with the texting
his mom, who does not have aclearance and doesn't have need
to know, than some of the othersand the reason I say that is
there's a.
Yeah, you should have knownbetter.
I get that part right.
The argument is well, if we'retalking about this stuff, it's
not classified, it's not topsecret until it is.

(52:25):
Who classified all that stuff?
Right?
So if the question becomes whoauthorized Signal?
Apparently that was the Bidenadministration that said you can
use Signal to have these crossconversations within the
government, and there'sdefinitely a should have known,

(52:45):
like, hey, that's what spillageis by taking and everybody
that's in government, everybodythat deals with classified
materials, has to take theseclasses.
Now, to be fair, a lot ofpeople go click, click, click
through classes.
I would hope that somebody inhis staff, who's the S2 guy, is

(53:05):
going into and saying hey, look,we need to really have a real
death side conversation aboutthis stuff.
Um, I, I do wonder, and andagain, this is not just
justifying I don't know I dowonder how much of these were.
Um, all the same incident thatis now being recycled two or

(53:26):
three times like is, or ifthey're different, and if
they're different and if they'redifferent, again, there needs
to be yeah, they've alreadycleared that it was different.
It was literally different.
These were different.
These were different, not inthis past.

Speaker 3 (53:40):
So initially, no, initially we had the Signalgate
thing.
That was one incident, right,but that was the Houthis, that
was the bombing of the Houthis,right.
So then you had the, then youhad the Elon trying to get in on
the China mission, which wasall right, on the China briefing
.
What did Hexeth have to do withthat one?

Speaker 1 (53:58):
Because he said it was Hexeth, yeah, this is Hexeth
.

Speaker 3 (54:02):
Hexeth set up the meeting with Elon.
He didn't clear it withPresident Trump.
Trump didn't know that Elon wassupposed to attend the brief.
So Hexeth invited Elon toattend the top secret brief on
China without informing thepresident, because I got to
believe that the president wouldbe like nah, nah, he don't need
to be in there.
All right, but that's I don'tknow if that's true.

(54:23):
Well, no, it's true, becauseit's true, because they've
already reported and vetted it.

Speaker 1 (54:28):
So that's two no, that's not what I.
What I mean is I don't know.
Do you think, do you think thatif if hex had gone to trump and
said, hey, I want to invite I Iassume you want elon in on this
meeting don't you think trumpat that point goes?

Speaker 3 (54:42):
well, yeah, of course well, no, I can only go by what
trump said and the potus saidhe didn't know, and if he had
known, he would have told himnot to invite him.

Speaker 1 (54:49):
No, not that.
Oh.
Did Trump follow it up and sayif I had known.

Speaker 3 (54:54):
Yeah, the POTUS was asked about it and he was like
no, I didn't know.
But all right, cool.
So you know, that may just be.

Speaker 1 (55:01):
Okay, sorry.

Speaker 3 (55:03):
But that's two.
I got you, but that's two right, so that's two separate
incidents.
Yeah, then you get to the thirdincident of him texting his
brother and his wife about Intelmeetings and some stuff that's
going on.
They didn't get into specificson that, but then they released
the fourth one with his mother.
They just released those textmessages.

Speaker 1 (55:28):
So you got four separate incidents where it's
like hey, man, what were thecontents?
Was it released?
What the contents of third andfourth were, because I thought
it was something where, likewith the wife or whatever it was
that same information as theHouthis stuff.
Is it different?
It could have been the sameinformation, just in a different
thread after it came out, andso that's kind of where I wonder

(55:49):
how much of this is gettingrecycled, because I read
something about whistleblowersand they were saying hey, he
also set this one up, but it wasthe same incident.
So I don't know.
But I will say this as far asTrump goes, a Trump seems like
the type of person because wehave talked about his wanting to

(56:09):
be the end-all, be-all right.
He needs to be the one incharge.
And so if they ask him and say,hey, did you authorize Hegseth
to say this?
And Trump going well, no, ofcourse not, is Trump then like
oh, I never would have allowedTrump being Trump.
I don't know.
It wouldn't surprise me ifTrump at that point would go.

(56:30):
No, of course not.
I don't know it wouldn'tsurprise me if Trump at that
point would have said no, ofcourse not, I wouldn't have let
him.
And, realistically, if they had, would Trump have gone?
Well, yeah, sure, of course.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
So I don't know.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
It's just.
But when you got, if thisbecomes enough of a story and
obviously so far it hasn'tenough of a story, and obviously
so far it hasn't but when itbecomes enough of a story that
Trump starts looking at Hegseth,going dude, you're making me

(56:59):
look bad that's when Trump willcut him loose.
Because as long as Trumpbelieves that and I think Trump
has shown this as long as Trumpthinks that Hegseth is still
good enough because I thinkthere's also that idea of Trump,
I think is a pretty loyalperson as long as he feels like

(57:20):
he's getting the loyalty back,His pick cost him a lot of
political capital.

Speaker 3 (57:26):
He had to grease a lot upon to get Hegseth.

Speaker 1 (57:29):
Yeah, he did and, and the irony of that is matt gates
I, I think he had to pickbetween him and matt gates and
matt gates decided to go nope,pop smoke, I'm gonna go, I'm
gonna go sit down and I thinkmatt gates honestly, I think he
thought he was gonna get thatsenator seat in yeah, yeah, yeah
and then sandus went nah, I'mgood.
Yeah, I don't need somebodywho's been accused of pedophilia

(57:50):
as a senator.

Speaker 5 (57:52):
Just the accusations.

Speaker 1 (57:53):
enough for me to say I don't think that's a good idea
.
So good on good on DeSantis, bythe way, for thinking that even
if again, even if it's not true, there's a point where you go
and I've been accused falsely ofstuff too but there's a point
where it's kind of like,depending on how bad it is, you
kind of go with what came outwhen you have Matt Gaetz going.
Well, no, I'm not a pedophile.

(58:14):
Well, yeah, I paid prostitutes,but I'm not a pedophile.
It's like oh dude okay, so timeout, you what now?
So when Hegseth and you know, Ithink the other part of Hegseth
is he, because he did use somuch capital, he's under that
spotlight, that keg light on him.
And so even you said, look,during that meeting he, he had

(58:36):
his drink and you know, duringthe he used something, he took a
little sip and it looked likeand I'm going everybody does
like you always see what.
I assume that Now, if you'reable to come back and say, hey,
that was vodka, I would havebeen like, oh, you got to cut
this dude loose.
I don't know what his sobrietyhas been like.

Speaker 3 (58:55):
There's been there's been some reports that he has
been having more celebratorydrinks because of the stress.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
And listen, man whatever you're comfortable
doing it to that.

Speaker 3 (59:06):
Yeah, whatever you do , which is fine, you're a grown
man and I get it you had to saywhat you had to say to get
confirmed.
Nobody believed that you wouldstop drinking once you got
confirmed.
But when, when it startsbecoming more than a rumor that
you're conducting interviews,you know I'm saying like squeaky
wheels after a while you'd belike all right, bro.

(59:27):
The first time it's like ha hayeah.
Yeah, he used to be a drunk.
But when you're starting, whenFox News starts to be like hey,
pete, are you okay?
Something should be pinging inyour ear.
You're probably a little toofar into the juice.

Speaker 1 (59:48):
I'll say this Unsubstantiated, unsubstantiated
, completely unsubstantiatedthere are a lot of people on the
right who believe that KamalaHarris Liked her vino quite a
bit.
I agree On Saturday Night Live.
So I agree, when you're talkingabout anybody who is in a
position of authority, that youhave to worry about Inebriation,
because inebriation issomething.

(01:00:10):
That alcohol is basically evilin a lot of ways.
I'm not a fan.
I've said before.
I think alcohol is one of themost evil substances in the
world.
It doesn't do any good.
And if you have to worry aboutyour secretary of defense or any
senior leader, I mean thiscould go like realistically as a

(01:00:30):
chaplain if, if I had a companycommander who soldiers, came to
me and said, hey, chaplain man,you know, or a first sergeant
comes to me and goes, mycommander man, I you know, I
came in.
I remember certain first classthis was back when I was an E5,
first class.
I found out he had a bottle inhis drawer and he would invite

(01:00:51):
other E7s to drink afterhours-ish.
It may have been one or twoshots in before the bell rang
and for me I'm going, and I wasthe Intel guy going.
Really, I mean that's at whatpoint do I take this to the
command?
I didn't, because it wasn'tnecessarily in my place and from

(01:01:13):
what I understood it wasn'taffecting his his job but um.
At the same time, a few monthslater he got charged with
solicitation of a prostitutewhile he was tdy.
So my guess is he wasn'tovertly sober when that phone
call happened.
So when you're talking about anE7 doing, if it's not okay for

(01:01:37):
an E7 to be doing this, it'sprobably not okay for you.
Know, the GS scale forcivilians goes to GS-15.
I think the Secretary ofDefense is like a GS-37.
Yeah, or whatever.
The defense is like a gs37.
Yeah, like or whatever.
The number is um.
But again, until, until itbecomes either hexeth becomes

(01:01:58):
unloyal to trump or there isenough splashback that trump
believes hexeth is making himlook bad.
I think he will stick with himbecause even though what you
said was Hegseth shouldn't beworrying about the ACFT and
shouldn't be worrying aboutheight, weight and all that, I

(01:02:20):
would argue the exact opposite.
That is what you want.
Now.
The difference is normally youget that from the command
sergeant, major of the army iswho's the one who's saying, hey,
we need to make these changes?
But the army, I think, as awhole.
Now and I will be very clearhere, I am not in contact with a
lot of soldiers on post at themoment because I'm in I'm in the

(01:02:41):
retirement frame.
I am not dealing with soldiers,but my guess is most soldiers
who see this are probably prettysupportive of him still because
he's still talking a good gameabout, only about taking care of
soldiers.
Soldiers don't generally careabout the politics of things.

(01:03:05):
They want to look up and saythey want to see somebody going.
We need to take care of thissoldier Now.
They also don't reallyrecognize a lot of times when
that leader who is saying thatis at the same time saying turn
around and stabbing him in theback before they kick him out
the door.
So I don't know, but I think ingeneral, I think soldiers

(01:03:27):
probably like that he is tryingto be the frat guy buddy.

Speaker 3 (01:03:32):
I don't think he's long term.
You're not in the threads, mybrother.
Let me tell you.

Speaker 5 (01:03:39):
No, I don't do anything online.

Speaker 3 (01:03:41):
Yeah, as someone who has his ear to the ground, they
are very upset that they keepchanging the APFT.
That's not something a set devshould want you, and again, that
comes with experience.
He hasn't served anythinghigher than company grade.

Speaker 1 (01:04:05):
He was field grade.
No, he was acting field grade.
I thought he was a major.
He never got major.
He was field grade.
No, he was acting field gradeand he was an acting field
grader.

Speaker 3 (01:04:10):
No, he never got major.
He was a captain and a major,yeah.
So I mean, remember we gave thesergeant major VP pick shit for
that, right, that's why I saidmy bad, that's what I'm saying.
So you know, as long as we keepit, yeah, as long, keep it.

(01:04:34):
Even he never served inanything higher than the company
grade position.
So his thinking is companygrade stuff, right, you don't
have the garrison commander.
Yeah, you don't have thegarrison commander coming down
to the unit level saying, hey,we got a problem with fatness
and fitness and this and that,hey, we got a problem with
fatness and fitness, and this,that and the other.

Speaker 1 (01:04:53):
They're not there.
They're not there, Chappy, Didwe never?

Speaker 3 (01:04:59):
have a battalion commander coming through the
motor pool.
That's not what I said, thoughthat's not what I said.
A battalion commander issupposed to care about the
fitness of his troops because itdirectly impacts him.
When you have the the garrisoncommander, when you have the
post commander coming to yourunit, okay yeah.
When you have a post commandercoming to your unit saying, hey,
we have a problem with fitness,you got a whole bunch of levels

(01:05:20):
of commanders saying hey sir,we appreciate it.
But, um, yeah, check, and roger,I need you to go worry about
the post, right, because we gotthis here.
So when you have the secretaryof defense, who is supposed to
be on a strategic level, comingdown to the operational level,
that's an issue and it shows hisinexperience and his inability

(01:05:43):
to serve at that capacity.
I'm all for shaking things up,but he lacks the experience to
serve and it's showing and it'sonly going to get worse.
He's making you can say whatyou want, but he is making
captain level, he's makinglieutenant level mistakes.
Right, as a platoon sergeant, Ihave to tell my lieutenant hey
sir, don't text our conduct plan.

(01:06:03):
Don't text our conduct plans onsignal.
That's a bad idea.
Hey, sir, don't use your phonewhen we're in the field.
Hey sir, you need noise andlight, discipline, right.
So now I have a secretary ofdefense who's acting like a
lieutenant who doesn't have NCOsupport, right, because if he
had NCO support, if he justlistened to his NCOs, they would
probably tell him hey, sir,that's not a comment you need to

(01:06:24):
make, you need to stay in yourlane, focus on, and he's not
listening to it.
It's one thing to beinexperienced for a position.
It's another thing to beinexperienced and not listen to
your leadership.
Every commander has a sergeantmajor for a reason.
Right, they have a sergeantmajor for a reason and right now
the sick death is flying by theseat of his pants and he's not

(01:06:45):
taking.
He's not taking wise counseland it's making everybody look
bad.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
That's my point, that's yeah, and that's what I
was just about to say is whatgreg was saying.
Um, that trump is flying by theseat of his pants.
I think hegs hegseth probablyis doing that a little bit as
well.
Um and like, for me, I mean, Itell you right now and this is
this is a a drama of continuingto bang.

(01:07:09):
If you're going to change theACFT and you're going to make
these stupid little changes, why, until you get rid of the
two-mile run, I don't need achange.
Get rid of the.
You know what it's like when wetalk about.
If Trump gets rid of the termlimits, then he will be the best
.
If Hegseth gets rid of thetwo-mile run and makes it a
one-time 400-meter run with akettlebell that simulates an

(01:07:34):
ammo can or a 200-yard run, Iwill say best tech to FF.

Speaker 3 (01:07:38):
That's the same thing that other soldiers on the
ground.
They're like yo, dude, you gotrid of the wrong stuff, you're
taking away stuff, you're addingstuff, but you still got a mile
run left in why.
You know.
I'm saying like, what are youdoing?

Speaker 1 (01:07:50):
yeah, well, and like you just said, though, I mean I
don't know how much that's hegseth going down and saying, hey,
you guys need to figuresomething out, change it.
But that's been happening.
I mean, how many times since wefirst came into the military?
You know, we both came in rightaround 2000 how many times has
the acft, prt, aft, acft?
I mean, how many times has theACFT, prt, aft, acft?
I mean, how many times has thisdumb thing changed?

(01:08:12):
Like I get evolving with thescience in terms of, hey,
sit-ups are actually pretty badfor your neck and back.
I can personally attest to that.
I'm hoping the VA recognizeshow bad they are for my neck and
back, because 25 years in, Ithink sit-ups and push-ups did
more to my back than just aboutanything, along with loaded down

(01:08:32):
ruck marches and things likethat.
And I was never even inAfghanistan with the guys who
were going on the full-on rucksthe actual reason you train for
a ruck march.
But again, I think that Hegsethis I don't want to say he's
bulletproof.
Again, I think that Hegseth isI don't want to say he's
bulletproof I think he's Teflon.

Speaker 3 (01:08:53):
Until the Teflon wears off and once it starts
sticking and Trump sees thatit's sticking, he'll get
replaced with a new pan.
Yeah, it's almost like you havethe Joint Chiefs there.
You're not listening to themLike you're not doing.
It's just.
I don't like the inexperienceat that level and I'll give you

(01:09:14):
I'm not really a fan of I can'treally say that I'm a fan of any
pick so far.
I mean Cash is kind of likehalf and half Like Cash.
I'm like all right cool sofar-ish.
Still not cool with arrestingjudges, but I got it.
I understand why.
You know you, it was political,but it was also.

(01:09:34):
I mean it was political but itwas also pointed right like she
broke the law.

Speaker 1 (01:09:39):
So I look at like this if she was driving down the
street doing um 85 in a 45, sheshould have been arrested, yeah
I got.
You or I get arrested for that.

Speaker 3 (01:09:52):
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (01:09:54):
So on the surface, I'll say this Sorry about the
administration, Real quick.
The cabinet, I think Rubio'sdone really well.
I think, more than not.
They've actually been prettysolid, simply because you're not
seeing much about them.
Like you, you're not supposedto know what is going on in the,

(01:10:16):
in the HUD department, orwhat's going on in the.
You know what I mean.
Yeah, I'm not really.
Yeah, I'm with you, I am withso.
So the squeaky wheel is going toget the noise.
So the squeaky wheel is goingto get the noise, and right now
I don't know about the othercabinet members, but if I was a
cabinet member, I'd be like keepHegseth, Keep him, because he's

(01:10:37):
going to be the guy that'staking every I mean every
mistake he makes and everythingthey are.
All it's all going to him, andso I can just do my job and just
kind of not have to worry aboutit.
I can still show up in DCrestaurants, and and nobody's
going to know who I am, Cause,like I, I can't pick out.
I know who Linda McMahon is.

(01:10:58):
I watched WWE 20 years ago.
I know who she is now, though,If I saw Linda I seen pictures
of her.
I went the first time I saw her.
This last one I went.
Is that what Linda McMahonlooks like?
Oh, OK, I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:11:11):
So if I was a captain member I'd be like please keep
him yeah whatever you do, keepHegs at it, because he is, he is
like, he is the shield foreveryone.
No, liberty, liberty, that's mypoint.
I was saying she broke the law.
So I understand why whyDirector Patel arrested her.
She did break the law.
I don't have an issue with that.
But what I'm saying is twothings can be true at the same

(01:11:34):
time.
He arrested her because shebroke the law.
He also arrested her because heknew that her arrest would
score huge political points,because he arrested her based
off of a hot button issue shewas shuffling an illegal
immigrant out the back door.
So who arrested her?
H was, it was the HHS.

Speaker 1 (01:11:57):
Nome's department.
Do you think Okay, so, so DHSHomeland Security arrested her,
or Okay, and I don't know?
So my question is like do youreally think it went up to that
where where they called up andsaid, hey, fbi Director Patel,
we want to arrest this judgebecause she had an illegal

(01:12:18):
immigrant in her courtroom?
She actively shuffled himthrough the courtroom and, on
her way out, basically signedthat he's innocent of all
charges, without like.
From what I read, even theprosecutors were like, wait,
what?
Now she was arrested by the fbi.
Oh, she was arrested by the.
Okay so, but on the way outshe's getting shuffled through,

(01:12:41):
you know she's.
It's kind of like the otherjudge that just got arrested for
for harboring gang members.
Now the judges might go well,you know, I saw something in
these young people.
I just think with the rightkind of, but at the same time
it's like, dude, you're a judge.

Speaker 3 (01:12:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:12:58):
Did you really have a gang member living in your
house?
It's a bad look.

Speaker 3 (01:13:03):
at the very least, that's what I'm saying Like I
said, I'm not against her beingarrested, but again, I also
understand that the opportunityof the FBI arresting the judge
will score huge major politicalpoints and it'll look good in
the cycle, right, it looks goodIting her in the courthouse.
Right, that was.

(01:13:36):
That was that was for thetheater.

Speaker 1 (01:13:39):
That was the answer.
Yes, right, and going in, goingin and arresting her house, you
know.
Say, hey, you know what?
We've got this warrant for yourarrest, you know come on, let's
do it.
That probably.
But, like you just said, it'spart of the show.
And when you say one of thebiggest hot button issues and I

(01:13:59):
don't think this is anunderstatement Illegal
immigration got Trump elected, Ithink it was probably the
number.
So if Trump turns around andPatel turns around and says this
is going to make Trump lookreally good, see, we're even
going to get the judge and she'sguilty.
If you read that now, allegedly, but if you read what she did,

(01:14:21):
if what the indictment says istrue, I mean holy crap, but why?
You know, if you're, if you'rePatel, why wouldn't you feel
like, yeah, we're going to, hey,let's make, if we're going to
do this, let's make it look good, and so you can say it's not
good.
I don't think that's bananarepublic or fascist type stuff.
I think, by the same token,when you put yourself, it's

(01:14:56):
almost the exact opposite of.
You and I were discussingjudgment in Nuremberg which, by
the way, I'm guessing you didn'thave a chance to watch yet.
I didn't know.
I just you know I think there isa difference between a judge
who is actively going out oftheir way to break the law and a
judge who kind of makes a baddecision.
There was one in Utah a fewweeks ago, a month, month or two
ago, where it turned out thatone of the, the judge and like
the county prosecutors weresharing child porn with each

(01:15:16):
other.
You know, I'm not going to havea lot of sympathy for the FBI
coming in and arresting eitherof those, you know, and if
anything, I want them perpwalked, like there's a point
where, yeah, these guys needtheir faces.
They should be embarrassed,they should be shunned, they
should go, if the charge is true, they should go to federal

(01:15:37):
federal prison saying look,judges, if you're not going to

(01:15:57):
follow the law, then you'regoing to pay the price and we're
going to make it blatantly.
Everybody's going to see it.
This is not going to be hey,we're just going to be quiet.
So if you're going to do thisstuff, especially when Just last
year what was?
the phrase of democrats no oneis above the law.
The ex-president is above the.

Speaker 2 (01:16:17):
He's not above the law and now, all of a sudden,
it's like how dare you adjust?

Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
the arrested judge.
Just because she broke the law,I mean she should have she,
they should be giving her.
It's like wait no no, you don'tget this both ways.
And this goes back.
I'm going to go old school.
This goes back to the HarryReid lessons on politicizing.
If you change the rules and youset a new set of rules, like

(01:16:44):
Harry Reid did with the nuclearoption of lowering, how many
votes needed to be done, orHarry Reid absolutely lying
through his teeth about MittRomney and his taxes when you do
that, you don't get to callfoul later on when the other
side does it, and so would Ihope that the Republicans would

(01:17:05):
be better than that, of courseDo I think they are.
They're in politics.
No, they're going to useeverything.
So none of this surprises me.
I do think that, as far as theoptics go, I'm against you in
terms of.
I think that there is much more.
Yay, go get this evil judge,not evil.

(01:17:28):
yay, go get this judge who issupporting illegal immigrants
more than hey the president,arresting a judge that might be
fascist, whoever it was.

(01:17:56):
You know, we don't like thisjudge because she, she was
freeing these, these, notdetainees the suspects who we
think, you know, we, the, thecourt had had come on the docket
and instead of, instead ofputting them in jail for the
five to 10 years excuse me, fiveto 10 years we were expecting,
she was consistently releasingthem on their own recognizance.
So coming in and arresting thejudge for doing that, I think is

(01:18:17):
very different than this ladysnuck somebody out because she
wanted to protect them when sheknew ICE was coming to detain
this suspect alleged of a felony.
So, yeah, I mean, and I getgoing all the way back.
Thad was saying, you know, hey,everybody, due process, and I

(01:18:38):
get that.
And I think that it's toughbecause the Trump administration
I don't know who said when hewas first deported, the Maryland
man oh, he was accidentallydeported, it shouldn't have
happened, okay.
But the minute you say that, Idon't think whoever said that

(01:19:00):
had the authorization to say it,because he never should have
said it.

Speaker 3 (01:19:04):
Yeah, he shouldn't have said it, but it was true
though it might be true, sure.

Speaker 1 (01:19:09):
But you don't say it, yeah, and, but it was true, it
might be true, sure, yeah.
And the other problem is nownow becomes a problem.
You guys, you and I have talkedabout this.
Ok, this guy, first of all, theMaryland death.

(01:19:29):
He is only going to be broughtback to America if El Salvador
says we're going to let him goback.
A, b, the El Salvador presidenthas said, nope, he's not coming
back.
But at the same time he let thesenator have drinks with him
and it didn't look like he wasall the worse for wear and I
don't mean to downplay the.

Speaker 3 (01:19:44):
They've since transferred him from the max
security prison to a version ofClub Med, which is good for him,
I guess.

Speaker 1 (01:19:53):
I mean all things considered but so and that's my
point is that that I think thatyou may have a situation where
the el salvador president startsto go okay, well, I'm going to
send him back.
Uh, because it's covering mybases and Trump's going to be
here.

(01:20:13):
Maybe in this case, it would bebetter to send him back.
And if he gets sent back don'tthink that it's going to be sent
back and he's going to bereleased immediately to his
family.
The first thing that happens,he hits the ground.
I can write the script rightnow they send him back, he's
brought back on a military plane.

(01:20:34):
He's taken from the militaryplane at Reagan or BWI or
wherever the local air forcethey decide to land.
He's put into a vehicle, he'sdriven up, driven over to the
courthouse.
The immigration judge is rightthere ready to go with the file.
Where's your lawyers?
They're going to warn thelawyers.
The lawyers are going to bethere.

(01:20:54):
They're going to say okay,we're going to fast track this
docket.
So what have you had to say?
They're going to do it in a dayor two and the judge is going
to make a decision.
And my guess is they're goingto rescind the hold order that
was issued in 2019.
And the judge is going to saywell, look, let's see your
knuckles, let's see if there'stattoos there.

(01:21:15):
Let's see.
Hey, is this a legitimatereport that you abused your wife
?
Yeah, I find there probablecause to revoke your green card.
Revoke, he's on a plane rightback out.
Sure, now, you could have that.
I think that's probably whathappens if he's brought back and
then the Trump White House goessee, we were just trying to
save the American people.

(01:21:36):
Yes, he should.
Obviously, we should have donethis first.
And it won't be Trump, ofcourse, it'll be somebody.

Speaker 3 (01:21:42):
Not a set up at all Sorry.

Speaker 1 (01:21:45):
Hey, me and Colba, we should have done this.
But hey, me and Colba, weshould have done this.
But look, he's obviously fromEl Salvador.
We sent it back to El Salvador.
Now, what El Salvador does.
Okay, this is very differentthan in the old days.
I think I've told you my Gitmostory about this.

(01:22:07):
Right, I had a senior officerwho was the investigator for
when they I was down inGuantanamo, oh 203.
And around 04, there were someaccusations that 04 or 05, there
were some accusations that somesoldiers had been flushing the
Koran down the toilet.

(01:22:27):
So he was the investigator.
He was a former police officerand so he went down there, he
was tagged to be theinvestigating officer, went down
.
Sure enough, he came backcompletely unfounded, because if
you know the toilet's downthere, you couldn't have flushed
a Koran.
It's a circle, you would havehad to rip it up and it never
happened, right?
He was telling me about a storythat, while he was down there,

(01:22:48):
one of the detainees had beenauthorized for release and so,
ok, because he was there andbecause of his, what he was
doing, they were like, hey, canyou, you do the flight back?
You know, can you be basicallythe OIC on the flight.
Sure, you know, just becausethey fly out, he says we took

(01:23:10):
him, we took him down.
You know, just for custody theyfly out.
He says we took him, we tookhim down.
The Not him, but the MPs.
They took him down to the baseof the stairs, handed him off,
he signed or whatever, andthey're walking back up the
steps of the plane when the shotwent off.
So he was handed off to thegovernment of an ally who took
this detainee who had been sentback and instead of a trial they

(01:23:34):
did what they do.
You know they don't believe ina lot of due process.
Yeah, that was, the due processwas a bullet to the back of the
head and he went.
You know, I went up the stairsand we shut the door and we took
off five minutes later.
I mean, they didn't even spindown the head and he went.

(01:23:56):
You know, I went up the stairsand we shut the door and we took
off five minutes later.
I mean, they didn't even spindown the engines.
So it's a little bit differentwhen you know this guy's taken
and I think part of the argumentyou see from the right and this
is a meme, so you know.
Take it for what it's worth.
The number of deportations byGeorge Bush was two point five
million.
By Obama was three million, byBiden was you know one point

(01:24:17):
five million.
And by Trump has been you knowone hundred thousand.
How many injunctions?
Zero, zero, zero.
Trump has five.
And so what's changed?
Like even in his first tour,first time, his first presidency
?
You didn't see that.
So that's where you start tosee people worry about the
political, politicalpoliticalization as well by some

(01:24:40):
of the judges.
I have a hard timeunderstanding and I understand
people say it's checks andbalances, it's checks and
balances, but when you have afederal judge, let's say from
the state who's over thenortheast Montana and I'm not
saying exactly, I'm just usingthis in a different way the

(01:25:00):
Montana federal judge in Montanaand a federal judge in Montana
writes an order that says theTrump administration cannot
deport anybody at all simplybecause they believe that they
are, you know, a gang member,ms-13.

(01:25:21):
Judge, in that case really havethe power of the jurisdiction
to do that, because you've seenso many times where they, and
maybe it is.

Speaker 3 (01:25:36):
But I think the short answer is the short answer is
yes because it'sunconstitutional, like we we've
we've clearly established it theprocess of due process.
Now, if you have, if they havebeen, if they've been, you know,
into immigration and they foundout that they are a member of
MSN, ms-13, then that wasn't theissue at hand.

(01:25:57):
The issue was not thedeportation of gang members.
The issue was randomlysnatching a bunch of people who
look like gang members or whoyou perceive to be gang members,
throwing them on a plane,getting them to Venezuela and
then trying to figure it outonce you get to Venezuela.

Speaker 1 (01:26:15):
But even the Supreme Court was split on this right.
No, the.

Speaker 3 (01:26:19):
Supreme Court was 9-0 on it.
Like hey, no, stop.
On one of the things the mostimportant thing was hey, don't
send people over without dueprocess.
That was the most importantthing.
Everything.
Don't send people over to ourdue process.
That was the most importantthing.
Everything else iscircumstantial.
Stephen.

Speaker 1 (01:26:35):
Miller.
That's not what Alito said,though that's not what I read.

Speaker 3 (01:26:40):
Yeah, he had a dissent, of course, but the vote
was still 9-0.
No, this was a different one.

Speaker 1 (01:26:45):
Okay, he's talking about something else, yeah.
So Alito and Thomas basicallysaid so there was this At 1 am
in the morning, supreme Courtsigned a temporary restraining
order that basically said TRO.
That said, hey, you can't keepdoing whatever you're doing with
immigration, right, I don'tthink it was necessarily the
Venezuelan one, but it wassomething like that.

(01:27:06):
Yeah, other one, but it wassomething like that, yeah.
And and what alito wasbasically saying was well, hold
on, we've always this has alwaysgone through the process before
it gets to the supreme courtand we've always waited for it
to go through the process.
So so think about somebody likewho's on death row.
It just doesn't get to thesupreme court.
Death row has to go through somany layers of the judge, the

(01:27:29):
appellate judge, the, you know,the, the federal, all that stuff
, right.
It goes all the way up throughlike 15 different and 30 years
before it gets to the Supremecourt.
And so Alita was like we'rebreaking our own rules here
because this is being filed onon behalf of people that haven't
been wronged.

(01:27:50):
We used to say it was all if, ifsomebody didn't have standing,
then you don't get to sue.
You have to be like if.
If I try to go and I say, okay,I don't like that.
Um, I don't like that utahisning black teachers, which is

(01:28:11):
not the case, obviously, yeah.
So I'm going to sue, right, I'mgoing to sue in Georgia.
I'm going to say I think it'sin federal court.
I think it's absolutely wrongthat Utah is going to stop
letting black teachers.
It would get to the courthousehere and they'd say you have no
standing.
How does this affect you?
And I go.

(01:28:31):
Well, I just think it's wrong,it doesn't matter, it doesn't
affect you.

Speaker 3 (01:28:35):
Yeah, I saw a video earlier that explains just that
and I'm glad I saved it.
I figured it would come up, butlet me play it and then
hopefully we can see, and thenwe'll talk about it afterwards.
All right, I can get this thingto work right, I can get this
to work right.

Speaker 1 (01:28:54):
You know, if you can ever hire an engineer for five
cents, five cents an episode, itwould be good.

Speaker 3 (01:28:59):
I'm telling you All right, let's see if I can get
this thing to work.
Here we go.
Sound off.

Speaker 4 (01:29:04):
Yeah, all those pesky activist judges are really
getting on my nerves.
The Supreme Court agreed tohear this.
Yeah, they took it on as anemergency case.

Speaker 5 (01:29:13):
And I'm not exaggerating.

Speaker 1 (01:29:14):
If I win.

Speaker 4 (01:29:15):
I can do literally anything I want, but not like
override the Constitution.
No, no, no, I would definitelybe able to override the
Constitution with an executiveorder.
No, that's not possible.
You're clearly exaggerating,like you do, I'm not.
Do you remember when I signedthat executive order ending
birthright citizenship?
Yeah, it was challenged by,like, a whole bunch of states

(01:29:36):
and watchdog organizations.
Right, there were several casesthat ended up being heard in
federal courts and some of thosejudges issued national
injunctions.
But also, to be clear, oneinjunction alone, that still
would have been enough.
Yes, an injunction says thatnationwide, this executive order
is unconstitutional andunenforceable.
So the birthright citizenshipcase, this is the emergency case
that the Supreme Court ishearing.

(01:29:57):
No.
I was just explaining how thosepesky activist judges have been
keeping me in check.
The emergency case is actuallyus trying to strip them of the
power to issue nationalinjunctions at all.
Wait, so if you win and judgescan't issue injunctions, then
who would fight back against aclearly unconstitutional
executive order like endingbirthright citizenship?

(01:30:18):
Anyone that was impactedpersonally by the executive
order would have to sue usindividually.
Stop it.
You're saying that if I wasborn here and my parents weren't
citizens, I would have to sueyou to get my citizenship back.
Yeah, and here's the kicker Ifyou win in a federal court, that
doesn't mean dick for anyoneelse, holy shit.
What about the states that suedyou?

(01:30:41):
This is where it starts to getinteresting, because states can
sue on behalf of their residents.
So every state would have tosue to reinstate birthright
citizenship and win Right, andsome states might not.
But then they could appeal itto the Supreme Court, who could
give a nationwide ruling.
Sure, you see how fast I canmove on tariffs.
Scotus already gets petitionedfor 8,000 cases a year and they

(01:31:05):
only have time to hear 60.
All I have to do is sign apiece of paper.
You have to fight an incrediblyexpensive and time consuming
legal battle.
So you can just flood the zonewith executive orders and we
can't even rule themunconstitutional until judges
rule on them individually.
Oh yeah, I can disrupt supplychains.
I can determine what medicalprocedures you can get,

(01:31:26):
procedures you can get.
I can take your firearms awayand until you win a case, your
state wins a case or the SupremeCourt rules on something, in a
couple of years my executiveorder stands.
Oh my God, and you're stillthinking like a good person.
I've already signed executiveorders crippling law firms.
I could cripple all of them.

(01:31:46):
Holy shit, this is the biggestcase of your sad little life,
but you're still not bringing abreak.
Oh garcia, I don't actuallyhave the power to do that.
You're suing all of the federaljudges, all those pesky
activists um, a little bit ofbackground.

Speaker 3 (01:32:04):
I found this guy's page a couple of days ago and
I've been watching.
He does definitely left-leaning, but he does at least a pretty
good job at explaining this, thestrategy and the process right,
taking all the bias out.
The strategy, pretty much is isthe same right scoters can't do
anything unless they rule onand based off of the executive

(01:32:28):
order.
it it's an individual, it's acase-by-case basis.
If the injunction goes throughwhich is, I think, what you were
talking about the injunction onthe federal judges, you would
literally have to apply on acase-by-case basis, whether
immigration or, for this video,birthright, citizenship,

(01:32:50):
whatever the case is.
This is what it is, I think.
Yeah, it's a slippery slope man.
I'm not really a fan of it.
I dig the strategy.
I understand why and howBrilliant, actually Smart, but
not good for the coming man atall.

(01:33:12):
I don't, I don't this, this.

Speaker 1 (01:33:14):
This goes back to what greg said and what I've
said for a while, and we'veagreed on this.
The legislature isn't doingtheir effing job absolutely, but
I mean you.

Speaker 3 (01:33:25):
So you have.
You have this threat.
I I think Murkowski was the one.
Did you see that Murkowskiinterview where she was like,
hey, we understand behind closeddoors.
Senators have talked about howwe recognize the perception of
what it is, but we have thisalbatross in our head called

(01:33:46):
Elon Musk, threatening tofinancially support and primary
anyone who disagrees.
So for a lot of who, that'swhat I'm saying, but I mean you
got to understand.
They are addicted to the moneyand the power.
So the threat of them being thethreat of them being primary
and possibly losing out on theirgrifting gig has a lot of our

(01:34:07):
congressmen and women in a choke.
Them.
They refuse to act.

Speaker 1 (01:34:11):
And the irony of that is murkowski should be primary
because of making that statementlike if you're, if you, if you
truly believe that me speakingup means I'm going to lose my
gig as a senator, well, so Ibetter not speak up.
Yeah, you should be out.
She should have like I didn't.

(01:34:35):
I didn't hear that she shouldhave resigned after saying that
but that I mean if you it's not.
I think that happens much more.
Yeah, well, whoever it was.
But I think you see that inother countries too a lot more,
where it's almost like hey, thisis so embarrassing that one of

(01:34:55):
two reasons Either A I didsomething wrong and it came out,
so I'm going to resign.
Or B, this goes so much againstmy beliefs that the government
would do this.

Speaker 2 (01:35:04):
I got it.
Sorry about that.
I'm going to try to pause itand start it over.
I got it as carefully as I can,sorry about that.

Speaker 3 (01:35:11):
I'm going to try to pause it and start it over.
I got it.
I'm going to break it up so wecan see it.
But yeah, it is definitely a.
I've never.
I never thought I'd see the daywhere Congress would just be
like you know what?
Hey man, we love scraping ourmoney off the top.
We're not going to get involvedand I'll let you hear it from
her mouth and then we'll talkabout it.

Speaker 2 (01:35:39):
Let's see.
Come on, that didn't work.
There we go.
Part of what I've been doingwith my team is just trying to
listen as carefully as I can towhat is happening and how it is
happening and the impacts it ishaving on the ground, and we're
honest up front in saying wedon't know all the answers, but
we're trying to unlock atdifferent opportunities and in

(01:36:02):
different ways, as much as wecan, and it is as hard as
anything that I have beenengaged in in the 20 plus years
I've been in the Senate.
You know, say to people who areafraid, or people who are
afraid, we are all afraid, okay,okay.

(01:36:29):
So I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, but we are.
We're in a time and a placewhere I don't know, I don't know
, okay, okay, I'm a foot ladyand I've never played here

(01:37:03):
before, and I'll tell you, I'moften times very anxious myself
about losing my voice, becauseretaliation is real and that's
not right.
It's really a mess.
But that's what you asked me todo and so I'm going to use my
voice best.
Sometimes it will be viewed ina way that will ask for a

(01:37:28):
confrontation and other timesit's going to be using my
mother's charm that I learned asa young girl and in direct
communication with those thatI've made relationships with and
able to fix some change thatway.
So I've changed that way,no-transcript yep.

Speaker 1 (01:38:08):
Did she say somewhere else that the retaliation was
from with?
I missed that within her ownparty.

Speaker 3 (01:38:13):
I yeah, so the, she, the.
That was only two minutes.
I didn't want to play the whole.
It was like seven and a halfminutes.
So they have to be explainedabout.
And they said well, you know,you have a guy in the White
House who's threatening theprimary, every Republican, and
then, behind closed doors, wehave, we're able to have candid
conversations, but it alwayscomes back to well, who's going

(01:38:37):
to say something?
Because you know what's, youknow, you know what's lying on
the other side.
And she was like it's just,it's a really difficult position
to be in and I'm like that'syour fucking job do your job
exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:38:50):
Do your job like, like, realistically do your job
and you know what.
If they want a primary, okay.
So I look like this one of twothings is going to happen if she
gets primary right.
Okay, either the people aregoing to say I appreciate that
you stood up for us and you didwhat your job was, you showed

(01:39:11):
integrity and you showed thatyou are a true leader, or people
are going to go Well, yeah, youdeserve to be out, but let it
be up to the people.
Who cares if you're primary?
Like to me, that is an absolutespineless position and, don't
get me wrong, it's, it's just asbad by the democrats.

(01:39:33):
It's not like the democratshave a lot of steel backbones in
their party either, um, but,like again, if, if the whole
thing is, if you're in power tostay in power, you should get
kicked out of power.

Speaker 3 (01:39:48):
I don't know.
The threat of being taken offthe government is very it's
enough to make people say youknow what?
Hey, you're right.

Speaker 1 (01:40:00):
What do you think?
I'm curious.
I don't know what the number is.
I wonder what the poorest, theleast net worth senator is and
what that number is my guess forsenators.
Now, maybe the House is alittle different, the House, my
guess, is lower, but my guess isI don't believe that there

(01:40:22):
would be a senator that is undereight figures of a net worth
that's at least $10 million.
I'd be surprised.
And if it is, it's a brand newone, for somehow Like yeah, but
I'd be curious, but it's rare,you know it's going to be rare.

Speaker 3 (01:40:45):
I'm looking at it now to see.
Hopefully I can get through.

Speaker 1 (01:40:47):
Networkofsenorscom.

Speaker 3 (01:40:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:40:53):
No, this is always in 2012.

Speaker 3 (01:40:54):
Yeah, it doesn't show it.
But in talking about that, haveyou heard about Go ahead?

Speaker 1 (01:41:03):
Oh, I was just going to say, you know it's going to
be regardless, whoever it is,it's still going to be More than
you or I'll ever see in ourlifetimes.
Oh, absolutely, whoever makesthe least amount?
Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (01:41:16):
I'm trying to find the name of.
So there was a representativewho says that they I think she's
out of Michigan she has a wayto save the Democrats Michigan.
She has a way to save theDemocrats Slotkin.
She's the.
She made news this week aboutsaying that she has a way of

(01:41:45):
saving the Democratic Party, andthe way to do it is to adopt
the alpha energy of the DetroitLions coach, Dan Campbell, and
to get away from the wokeness.
First time I heard it and Ilistened to her, and then I

(01:42:07):
realized that they are using itand I listened to it and then I
realized that they are using itagain, that I don't think they
understand what that word means.
Right, I think they're usingthe word wokeness as a
pejorative for being Black,because Well, they're using it
Well.
I don't think that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:42:26):
I think woke has become a.

Speaker 3 (01:42:28):
Yeah, the Democratic Party didn't lose because of
wokeness.

Speaker 1 (01:42:35):
They didn't lose because of wokeness.
I think in part they did.

Speaker 3 (01:42:40):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 2 (01:42:41):
And I can show you where.

Speaker 3 (01:42:45):
So the biggest issues coming out of the dip, out of
the election, were what?
What were the biggest issues?
The post post immigration,immigration, immigration no
immigration economy wasn'twasn't a conversation until the

(01:43:13):
Trump admin came on board andbrought it up.

Speaker 1 (01:43:21):
I might have here senators.

Speaker 3 (01:43:26):
Slotkin, slotkin, slotkin.
I don't know who that is.
She's out of Michigan, she's asenator.
Elissa Slotkin, mm-hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:43:39):
So the numbers that are showing Wikipedia list of
current members of the UnitedStates Congress by will.
This is on Wikipedia.
Now they only have like 49lists and this is from House and
Senate.
But the least well-off as of2019, I think it's because of

(01:44:04):
the reporting open secretsthere's a Democratic House, the
person with making the leastamount of money.
The net worth is $10.7 million.

Speaker 3 (01:44:15):
Oh man, how can you survive off of that?

Speaker 1 (01:44:20):
Well, this is just Wikipedia, I put in net worth of
senators 2024.
If you want the richest by 2025, rick Scott, it says here, is
worth $550 million.
Oh my, goodness.
He's number one, number 10.

(01:44:42):
Oh, I like number nine.
Number nine Senator MitchMcConnell estimated net worth of
$52 million, so there's a bigdrop off after that.
And then the number 10, utahwas $31.72 million.

Speaker 5 (01:44:55):
Cool.

Speaker 2 (01:44:57):
But you remember.

Speaker 1 (01:44:57):
John Kerry.
John Kerry is a billionaire.
Yeah, I told you.

Speaker 3 (01:45:03):
Don't get me wrong but still it's the biggest legal
grift that you can get intoright now.
So the issues, the issues thatthe voters said mattered the
most to them post-electionInflation and the cost of living
Jobs in the economy yeah.
Immigration and the borderThreats to democracy.
Abortion Project 2025.

(01:45:24):
Corruption in government,social Security and Medicare
Pause for a second.

Speaker 1 (01:45:30):
Okay, the first one was what?

Speaker 3 (01:45:33):
The first one was inflation and the cost of living
.
Okay, I'll say that's bothparties.

Speaker 1 (01:45:38):
Second one Jobs and the economy Both parties Next
one.

Speaker 3 (01:45:43):
Immigration and the border Republicans Threats to
democracy.
Democrats Abortion.

Speaker 1 (01:45:52):
Democrats.

Speaker 3 (01:45:53):
Project 2025.

Speaker 1 (01:45:55):
Democrats.
Corruption in government.
Probably both.

Speaker 3 (01:46:01):
Both Security and Medicare Social Security and
Medicare.

Speaker 1 (01:46:09):
Probably because it's older, older people so, and
they they run both parties, soprobably both uh Supreme court
appointment.
Um, red team, probably red team.
Yeah, I was going to sayprobably more Republican climate
change in the environmentDemocrat.

Speaker 3 (01:46:27):
National security and foreign policy probably more
Republican.
Climate change in theenvironment Democrat.
National security and foreignpolicy Republican.

Speaker 1 (01:46:34):
Health care Probably both, but more leaning Democrat.

Speaker 3 (01:46:39):
Democrat, seven Republicans, one.

Speaker 1 (01:46:42):
Oh seven.
I didn't even know it had thatbreakdown.
That's interesting.

Speaker 3 (01:46:48):
Federal budget deficit.

Speaker 1 (01:46:52):
Probably Republican.

Speaker 3 (01:46:54):
Six to one Voter fraud and election security.
Republican Six to one.
You know what's not on here,dei, dei, because it wasn't a
thing until January 20th.

Speaker 1 (01:47:11):
Nothing.
There's no racial.

Speaker 3 (01:47:15):
There's nothing on there about woke or social.
It says late deciders who weremore concerned about Democrats
being too extreme thanRepublicans.
That's the closest we can getto woke is the Democratic
candidate being too extreme wasminus 86 with Democrat voters,

(01:47:36):
plus 58 with Republican voters,minus 50 with Blacks, minus 4
with Hispanics, minus 11 withWhites and then plus 9 on late
deciders as a whole.
So that is the.
That was the second lowestissue between late deciders.

(01:47:56):
The next lowest issues were theRepublican candidate being too
extreme at minus 24 andRepublicans in general being too
extreme with minus fivedifferential it's all minus five
yeah, and that's, that's in,that's from navigating the bad,
uh, navigating the battlefield,navigatorresearchorg.

(01:48:18):
I'll post a link in it, but whatI'm saying is so, yeah, dei
wasn't a thing until it was athing um, and then woke.
Like I said, woke.
This pejorative of woke is nowbeing used as everybody's too
woke, everybody's too woke.

Speaker 1 (01:48:34):
Woke has become the new N-word Everybody's being too
Well so and the reason I kindof I don't know if it's just my
thought process or pushback orwhatever when you have, when you
have like Saturday night live,for example, go all in on

(01:48:56):
anti-Trump and pro gay, protrans, pro leftist and Saturday
night live just a small, smallexample.
I think that's kind of the idea, without naming and saying it's
about wellness or it's about D.
I think that's kind of wherethe All of those other things

(01:49:25):
get mixed up.

Speaker 3 (01:49:25):
It's very tough to say Does, but remember I told
you liberals, liberals will takea word from the black community
and adopt it to their, adoptedto their policies, wrongly.
And then once you catch yeah,once it catches on nationally,
you know it's automaticallyassumed that, oh, everything
woke is bad.

(01:49:45):
I mean, they did the same thingwith Black Lives Matter.
You know, black Lives Matterwas a small grassroots movement.
Once the liberals got a hold ofit, it became national and then
we came into all lives matterand all that.
It's the same thing, same thingwith Wokeness, same thing with

(01:50:06):
DEI.
And what we found out, you know, is nine times out of 10.
Even though society tries tomake it a black issue, it's not
really a black issue, becausemost of the policies they
believe are dominated oraffected by black people
generally aren't.
Because the Democrats didn'tlose because of a walk issue 92%
of black women voted forDemocrats.
83% of black men voted forDemocrats.
It's not a black issue, butBlack people, once again, always

(01:50:31):
at the crux of of blame, right?
Oh, we?
just if we, if we get away from,if we get away from trying to
appeal to everybody if we getaway from from, you know, trying
to trying to give everybodywelfare and all this other stuff
, then then maybe we can getback to the middle and all this
other stuff, then maybe we canget back to the middle.
Well, sure, but that's nothurting the Black community,

(01:50:53):
because by far and away theBlack community isn't the
greatest benefactor ofgovernment benefits.

Speaker 1 (01:51:00):
But again, you can also look at statistics damn
statistics and statistics.

Speaker 3 (01:51:05):
Even if you look at that, it's still not Blacks
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:51:08):
but it's still not.
It's still not black, rightwell, but that it's when you
twist this.
When you twist this statistic,you can make perception reality.
Um, and so the thing about wokethough.
Um, now you know woke really,has woke's been around what?
For five to eight years, noWoke has been in the no.

(01:51:32):
No, no, I'm not talking in theBlack community, I know the
Black community.

Speaker 3 (01:51:40):
Liberals have taken it over here in the last decade
yeah, that's what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:51:44):
So in the last ten or less years, because language
evolves, right, and so woke tome I never once ever heard woke
in terms of woke meant anythinghaving anything to do with the
black community, like I didn'tknow that's what it meant.
So, liberal woke eight years,perfect, yeah, that exactly.

(01:52:05):
Woke eight years, perfect, yeah, that, exactly that.
And that's kind of my point isthat when you're talking about
woke now, because you go backfar enough and you can see the,
the changes in how things areare set like it used to be that,
um, you know, when you talkabout controlling, like abortion
, it was pro-rights, oh, it'spro-rights, we're not.
We're not pro-abortion, we'repro-rights, oh, it's pro-rights,

(01:52:26):
we're not pro-abortion, we'repro-rights, and that's why you
know pro-life.
And then the Democrats went ohno, we need Ours, sounds bad,
you guys are just pro-birth,you're not actually pro-life.
So it's all this battle aboutwords.
So, like woke, I never thoughtof woke as being a black or
white word.

(01:52:46):
To me it was a left or rightword.
And so when you start seeing inconventional verbiage,
especially like that said in thelast eight years, wokeness,
yeah, it didn't have anything todo with race.
Now DEI, yeah, DEI has alwaysbeen been shown as race, even

(01:53:09):
though you and I have both seenthat it was actually white women
that got more advantage fromdei than in real um and and like
welfare and all that stuff.
Yeah, it seemed.
You know, anybody looks at thenumbers.
They realize that there's morepoor white people getting
welfare than poor black people.
Yeah, it absolutely is abastardization, and so you know

(01:53:33):
when you're looking at thesethings, when you have the words
as well, instead of making the,I think this is part of the
problem with with the left, theright, not so much because the
right the right don't reallycare.
The right just says what wethink common sense is Right.
There's kind of that.

(01:53:53):
You know what I mean.
I'm not trying to make thatsound dumb.
But but the right's kind of likeconservatives, are kind of like
this and for all I don't evenwant to say conservatives, I
want to say the right, becauseyeah, we, yeah, we have to.

Speaker 3 (01:54:08):
We have to be clear that there is two separate
branches.
Right, there's conservativesand then there's the right wing,
which is our video just died.

Speaker 1 (01:54:33):
Ok, you bet, you bet.
Yeah, so are you?
Yeah, I think, when it comes tothis, the Republicans and the
right are better at using simplewords and simple phrases like
MAGA.

Speaker 3 (01:54:38):
Oh, we know, I mean, I mean we know, we know.
We know what the blackcommunity, the, the, yeah, they
are they they love to stick tosimple words and and try to use
them.
Yeah, oh sure.

Speaker 1 (01:54:49):
And the left, because the left, especially in
academia, is.
We're going to start talkingabout what it really means to be
an American.
What does it really mean to besomebody of African descent in
America?
And I, as an intellectual onthe left, I'm going to tell you
all what it means to be anAfrican-American in this country

(01:55:10):
, instead of going, hey, kj,what's it like to be an American
?
Like on the right, it's hey,what do you think, dude?
Like I think most, I think mostwhite conservatives are more
like dude, I don't know whatit's like to be a black person
in America.
How would I know that, dude?
I don't know what it's like tobe a black person in America.
How would I know that?
But you have this pretending onthe left, and we've talked

(01:55:30):
about this.
Malcolm X of you know there'snothing worse than a liberal, a
white liberal, trying to say,yeah, the allies, I'm your ally.

Speaker 3 (01:55:40):
I know what you're going through.
Know the fuck you know.

Speaker 1 (01:55:43):
No, and that's what kind of drew.
This is what kind of drew mebonkers over the last few years
is I'm post-racial, I don't seerace, what?
Like, seriously, like now, do Ithink it's okay if I say, hey,

(01:56:05):
sergeant Johnson, I need to talkto Sergeant Johnson and they go
which one?
And I say the black one, thewhat I'm like.
What do you mean?
One of our Sergeant Johnson isblack and one of them is white.
If it was a male and a femaleSergeant Johnson.
I was like the dude, they'd go.
Okay, no big deal.

(01:56:25):
Or the girl okay, go get her.
But if they're black or white.
It'd be like, oh, you can't saythat.
I'm like, why not, I need Smith, which one?
The redhead?
Okay, I'll go get him, you know.
But the funny thing is, if it'slike, hey, I need Smith, which
one?
The redhead?
Or the black hair, it's likeyou mean the black guy, Like

(01:56:47):
black hair, what?
But you get this pushback.
That is just so stupid, oh forsure.
Oh well bad, let alone thestigma of sounding white and
being a sellout.
We talked about Glory.
We can go back to one of myfavorite movies Glory.

(01:57:07):
Hey, Snowflake, you know.

Speaker 5 (01:57:09):
Denzel.

Speaker 1 (01:57:09):
Washington going off.
It doesn't matter.
If you walk white, you talkwhite, you ain't never going to
be white.
Oh, you don't like that, do you?
You don't like that.
You want to hug me, you know.
But in the black community youhad the the paper bag test.
Yeah, you do If you're.
If you're lighter skin thanthis, oh, you're good to go.

(01:57:32):
If you're dark, I don't wantyou in my house.
You know you're a parent.
You're not marrying my daughter.

Speaker 3 (01:57:36):
Well, that wasn't, that was, that was a.
That was an adapt, an adoptioninto the black community based
off of what was culturallyaccepted.
You know that was post, yeah, Ijust knew.
Yeah, community based off ofwhat was culturally accepted.
You know, post, yeah, postreconstruction, right.
So it was like, hey, all right,we gotta be, we can be around

(01:57:58):
you, but you gotta be a certaincomplexion, like the darkies.
The darkies guys who look likeme, didn't stand a chance, right
but um, they kind of got awayfrom that 1% nigger blood thing
and got into it more.

Speaker 1 (01:58:11):
Oh, that was the white people saying.
If you're lighter than a paperbag, you're good to go yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:58:18):
No, no, no.
Black people just adopted it asa way of acceptance, because,
again, it was that mindset ofthe closer we can assimilate to
whiteness, we will, but I mean,but that'll take us into a whole
different episode and we reallydon't have time.
And the assimilation ofwhiteness and why some races are
able to get ahead and why blackpeople just tend to lag behind,

(01:58:39):
despite you know everything.

Speaker 1 (01:58:41):
But all right, we got Okay.
Final thought, final thought Togo with what we're going on.
There was a Japanese individualwho sued to be claiming
whiteness.

Speaker 3 (01:58:53):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:58:53):
In the late 19th century.
He lost, but he was whiter thanI am, so racial.
You know, it's not really aboutrace, it's about where you come
from.
So even today that's probablytrue to some degree.
Like, honestly, you know, myone of my best friends married
an African, first generationAfrican girl, and she's great.

(01:59:15):
I wouldn't have a problem if Iwas ever going to date somebody
who was now I'm married, but ifI was going to date somebody who
was black, no, no, I was justgoing to say if I was going to
marry somebody, if I was goingto date somebody who was black
and they were from Africa, I'dhave no problem with that.
I love African people.
African American people havethe stigma and you even have

(01:59:35):
that from people from Africa.
Go, yeah, this is tough, youknow, like I don't want to be
associated with the people thatwere born here.

Speaker 3 (01:59:44):
Yeah, we can definitely get into the
disassociation of Africans withAfrican-Americans and man, I
mean we can just, it's just waytoo much.
Our final thought is yo, wehave guests lined up for the
next three months.
Please tune in, Please stayattentive to the, to the notes.
We'll see you guys.
Same bat time.
Same bat channel, Lance.

(02:00:04):
We are out of here.
Got it time.

Speaker 1 (02:00:06):
Same bat channel, lance we are out of here.
What do you want to do tonight?

Speaker 2 (02:00:13):
the same thing we do every night.
Pinky, try to take over theworld all right, yo let's get
into it.

Speaker 3 (02:00:21):
Try to take over the world you're preaching.

Speaker 1 (02:00:25):

Speaker 3 (02:00:29):
They're preaching freedom.
Take over the world and bringschaplain in the world.
Take over the world.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Celebrating 3 Epic Years of Outsmarting Cable: Celebrate POGs Day with Special Guest Gregg Easterbrook!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Celebrating 3 Epic Years of Outsmarting Cable: Celebrate POGs Day with Special Guest Gregg Easterbrook!

Stuff You Should Know