After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Ivy League Scam, Definition Inflation on Israel, Free Speech Under Attack: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

Emily Jashinsky answers YOUR questions on today's “Happy Hour” episode, discussing whether free speech is under attack and the actions of FCC Chair Brendon Carr, the Ivy League scam, the divide on the right over Israel, the "definition inflation" about antisemitism, how the Iran war will end and whether it's the start of something bigger, legacy media vs. independent media, and more. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to another edition of Happy Hour, everyone. This is, of course, a special edition of After Party, where I get to answer all of your great questions that you send in to Emily at DevilMacaremedia.com or the AfterParty, Emily, Instagram. We post a bunch of clips there, by the way. So if you're not following us on Instagram, it's a great way to stay in touch with the show.

Stay updated with the show. Appreciate it, everyone. Thank you for subscribing. Tell a friend if you can. We always love that. So let me go ahead now and dive into the questions. as a reminder, I always read these questions live. That way, you know, I think it's more entertaining. I can't, you know, sift through them. I mark them in my inbox as they come in and then jump in

every Thursday as I record these in the afternoon. All right. Here's a question from Jack. Jack says, Really enjoy your show. My question is about liberalism and its implications on our safety. I'm 33 years young and I've personally been a victim of two Islamic-motivated terrorist attacks. My father was a first responder to 9-11 and had a long stint with stage 4 throat cancer. Oh, I'm so sorry, Jack. And secondly, I was personally at the Boston Marathon bombing while attending college. Oh, my gosh. Wow. I originally wanted to ask a question about the most recent failed attack in New York, but it appears we have already suffered another one as of today. What is the purpose of liberal conservatism if we are unable to conserve the safety and well-being of the citizen? Why is a moral

philosophy put above the well-being of the U.S. citizens and how many have to suffer before we can the idea of the philosophy not being applicable to all people around the world who come here. Have a medello for me, Jack. Great. I mean, this is a really deep, foundational, constitutional question. It's even deeper than a constitutional question. Actually, it's a predicate-type question when you're coming up with a constitution. And it's one that a lot of people like Patrick Deneen, who wrote why liberalism failed,

that Obama at one point put on his reading list, Patrick Denin is fascinating. And that is really the best primer, I think, on the questions that have been raised, it's not a super long book, the questions that have been raised about liberalism, lowercase L, liberalism itself in the last 15 or so years. I think that book actually predates Trump. It might be around the same time period, but super precious book. Adrian Vermeul has also been at the forefront of questioning that. Sorabamari, who had it my unheard columns, also as someone who's questioned that for many years, although I think maybe he would say that he's shifted a bit since his original debate on that with David French. And that debate itself is a really good primer on this question, too.

You know, some of this is what constitutes liberalism, because the liberalism that we have today is different than the liberalism in the era of the founders when John Adams was writing that our Constitution is fit only for a wholly moral and religious people. And that's something he reiterated. It's not just the one time in that letter. I think that wasn't a letter to Jefferson, if I'm remembering correctly. But either way, it's something John Adams reiterated. And was obviously the lens through which many of the founders were looking at this. I mean, you'd probably raise questions about Thomas Payne or something to that effect. But overall, that's obviously the lens that they were bringing to the debate itself. And so is, is our liberalism, even liberalism? Is it the

consequence of liberalism itself? Is it sort of the inevitable arc of liberalism that you end up in a society where it's illiberal, it's defined as illiberal to ban men from women's bathrooms, right, or to ban boys from girls' sports? Is that illiberal or is that liberal? So I think some of this is caught up in the definition of what constitutes liberalism. And I would argue that's illiberal and out of touch with human nature. But then it brings us to, and human nature is, of course, a necessary natural rights, natural law, a necessary predicate to constitutional republicanism that we have right now. So, you know, we could talk for hours about this.

sure, Jack. And I did a lot of episodes of Federalist Radio Hour on this topic, you know, from like 20, probably 2020 to 24. And it was a huge discussion during the Biden era. You know, Michael Knowles wrote a whole book that I feel like not enough people have read on the proper definition constitutionally of free speech, free expression. You know, we're conservatives airing in becoming like free speech absolutists. The founders, Knowles argued. would not have been free speech absolutists in the modern sense of free speech absolutism. And on the other hand, I get to your safety question, uncomfortable with the conservatives who rally around Naïbe Buckele.

That's clearly, I mean, Buckeleism is clearly illiberal. I don't think anybody's making an argument that it's liberalism that we would want to, or that liberals would advocate for. Buckelism. But that would be an interesting argument to hear out in a historical sense. That would be a really interesting argument to hear out. Obviously, we have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and that would be a stumbling buck for Buckeliism. But was the emergency in El Salvador, the violence emergency, obviously it was emergency, obviously it was a crisis, obviously it was a humanitarian crisis, is what Buckele did different from Abraham Lincoln. right? That's a fun debate to have. That's a fun, fun debate to have. And if so, are they both

illiberal? That's a good question. It's, you know, I don't have, I haven't thought that through, to be honest, but maybe that's something we should talk about more, because the people rallying around Buchali would say he had no choice. And sometimes illiberalism is the only way to keep liberalism afloat. But then don't you just define it as liberalism, right? Like, this is sort of semantic. Are there emergency members measures built into liberalism for public safety? To Jack's question, when you have high

levels of immigration from all over the world historically almost unprecedented. And I mean that in the scope of human history, what happened in the United States just in the last five years, the Biden surge, to have so many people flooding into one country and even just particular municipalities, New York City,

here in Washington, D.C., certain smaller towns, Springfield Ohio. I mean, this is a historically very odd thing for human beings to have experience. Does that create the predicate for a measure, an illiberal measure to liberalism? And shall that still be defined as liberalism? It's going around in circles a bit. But Jack, I think your question is a good one, and it's one that the framers and constitutional attorneys have grappled with for many, many years. And there's a reason people on the left and the right are both now questioning what the proper definition of liberalism is. And it's kind of what John Daniel Davidson said on Wednesday's

edition of the show, which was of After Party, which was basically like, technology is creating a sense of unease among many people. Sort of the same reasons we're questioning what's happening. What's happening eschatologically? If something's happening eschatologically, I think that would probably apply to why people are questioning liberalism itself, our system itself. So really, really good question, Jack. I appreciate it. Rachel says, did you see that Jennifer Welch apologize to her listeners for having Jenk and Anna on her podcast? I didn't see that. That's hilarious. If that's true, that's absolutely hilarious. And it goes to show that people like Jennifer Welch, who are doing the Dem Tea Party thing, cannot escape 2020.

They are perpetually stuck in 2020. They want to act like, woke is dead. We're killing it. We're, you know, now going to be punching the right in the nose. And it's not about when they go low, we go high anymore. But at the same time, they can't escape because of where their listeners are. And their listeners are a big part of the grassroots, the Democratic Party. woke is alive, particularly with, I would guess, the millennial women who, and probably some of the Gen Z women, who listened to Jennifer Welch.

So that makes sense to me. If that's true, that's really funny. I should go and look that up. Ryan says, do you and Megan ever debate your views on Israel? What are your thoughts on the falling out between Ben Shapiro and Megan over Israel? No, I haven't debated Megan on that. We talked about it on the tour. I feel like we've roughly kind of come to a similar place.

I don't know. I would have to talk more about it. But yeah, Megan asked me about that on tour in the San Antonio stop. That conversation's on YouTube. I've done segments on breaking points a couple of times in the last three years, just about my own journey. It's the most annoying word. But really, that's probably an accurate word.

as somebody who has generally been pretty supportive of Israel. And, you know, still has a lot of warm feelings towards many people in Israel. And, of course, support people setting up a Jewish state, especially after, you know, why the precipitating fact. for the creation of Israel, being the Holocaust, which exists in living memory of people who's still with us on this earth. It's, it's, it's been eye-opening, and it's been, I've come to a place that a lot of you disagree with me on, but, you know, maybe, yeah, I feel like I've talked a lot about it on breaking points over the years, and Megan and I did have that whole conversation.

So it's on YouTube if you want to get into that. But it's been one of those experiences for me where you dig deeper. And the more you dig, the more questions are raised. And so it's not as though I agree entirely with the left, but I really also don't agree with the kind of standard issue position on the right anymore either. You know, I'm sad about Ben for sure. Yeah, sad about it. It's, you know, I don't know Ben that well.

I've talked to him over the years, but not recently. And just, you know, it's, I think, given where I am on this, obviously I've said this on the show before, too, I think it's really damaging to inflate the definitions of what constitutes inappropriate speech, what constitutes anti-Semitism itself, what constitutes anti-Israel positions, you know, is it anti-Israel to criticize Israel in a way that many Israelis do? That dismissing people for raising questions, getting angry at people for raising questions, I think there's been a lot of, I think there's been a lot of responses that are doing more harm

then good, if that makes sense, meaning they're further, Charlie Kirk, I mentioned this before, and many people have mentioned this. He did a focus group with students at a turning point event. And Charlie's bout as pro-Israel as it gets. And he started having a similar experience to me, probably to Megan as well. And it was just questioning certain things. The more the Gaza war went on just questioning basically like America's interests and how that is presented by, you know, Israeli allies, by the media and the like. And one of the things students were telling him in this focus group to explain their increasingly negative sentiments towards Israel is that they felt like they were being told

what they can and cannot say. And if you are in, if you're Gen Z, you're really hypersensitive to speech censorship and suppression because it happened to you all the time growing up, COVID, etc. And so that has to be balanced with the totally rational sensitivity people have to anti-Semitism. So those two things, I said this on the show this week, have to be balanced. And I just think there's been too little understanding of how violating people's sensitivity on censorship and suppression, even if it's being perceived irrationally by those people, even if people are too sensitive about it, it's just tactically not smart.

But also, I think morally there's been a sort of zeal to enforce boundaries rather than encouraging questions. You know, if you want to encourage questions or if you want people to, if you're confident in your position, the best way to deal with that is to encourage questions. And yes, go after the genuine anti-Semites, absolutely. But also, you know, be willing to answer people's questions when they're coming in good faith. because otherwise people get really, really dug into a trench, and it turns off a lot of Zoomers particularly. So anyway, that's how I feel. I feel like there's just been too much, too many attacks rather than invitations

to have good faith conversations with people who are starting to question some of these formerly kind of foundational beliefs and places of trust. So that's my general overtake. We'll probably get more questions about this too. Jessie says that her girlfriend, her sweet girlfriend, Amanda, enjoys it when I watch your show. She thinks you're very nice and appreciates her level how to take on things. On the other hand, she and I disagree strongly on Megan. I find it best to watch those shows in a different room.

Amanda thinks Megan is a mean girl. I've tried to make the case that Megan just has strong opinions and an appreciation for colorful language. Probably doesn't help when I find it amusing to send Amanda snapshots of Megan saying things like, go fuck yourself with your purple hair and nose ring that play on repeat. Oh my gosh. That's hilarious. Keep sending the Snapchats. They're hilarious.

I think that's what makes Megan awesome and different. That's like she was talking about this week how people call her MAGA, but she sees herself as MAGA adjacent. And she's an independent. She has been independent for many, many years. And I think that's something that people who don't listen, and Megan makes this distinction a lot, but if you're like a faithful listener to the Megan Kelly show, which if you're going to criticize her, you really have to be.

You'll have to understand what she's saying. And you have to listen to full context and not to clips. And that's the same thing with every podcaster, whether it's Ben Shapiro or, you know, a liberal podcaster, whomever it is, it's crazy when people put two hours of their day into, or they put a lot of their day into researching and producing two hours of showtime or three hours of showtime, people will take snippets and render judgments about someone's character or their ideology based on it. It's insane. But I think it's like, this is what makes Megan different. Like she doesn't care about what like the institutional content.

ink world is going to, how they're going to react to saying things like, go fuck yourself. And I think that just makes it more appealing to a lot of people who don't want to see the, like, they just want to trust someone believes what they say they're, they believe what they say they believe, right? That just makes it easier to trust people. And the best way to do that is just be yourself. And, you know, you have to not. care so much about the reaction of people in the establishment world or anything like that, because that's how you, I really think that's just how you build trust with audiences in a low institutional trust environment. Just be yourself. So I love, I love it. I love it. Let's see.

Chris says, asking basically getting ready to transfer into a new school to finish undergrad and Polly Sye applied to IVs in a state school. Curious to hear your thoughts on how much weight the Ivy League degree carries in political organizations in D.C. Would it be a significant ROI or would it be better to go to a great state school? Does the network gain from being an Ivy League alumnus matter more or not? Do organizations look for certain schools on applications? It matters less than it ever did, Chris. Thanks for the question. It matters. Obviously it matters. I had a conversation recently with some kids about whether it actually hurts to be from an IV. And I said no to that. But I don't

think it helps as much as it used to either. You know, I don't know many people who are looking at a good resume of someone from UT and Harvard who would choose the Harvard person, all things being equal, because they went to Harvard. I don't think that really exists anymore. The right is not overly populated with Ivy League people because the last 10 years, most people who were coming out of ivies were on the left. So middle management now, like hiring people aren't a lot of the, I would say is disproportionate now that most, many of those people are on the left in D.C. So if you're, if you're hoping to come to D.C., I imagine, you know, at an Ivy League school, you do just build networks. You know, I guess I know people who came through like Yale for,

example, who still have pretty good connections with people who were like in their social circles. And it can that down the road, I mean, if you're from Yale, you're probably the likelihood that you're very sharp and connected and motivated. You probably end up in successful places. So you'll probably have a very successful network if you come out of those places. And I'm sure that network bears some weight. But I don't see. like Ivy grads being like disproportionately successful anymore. That's not my impression. I've hired a lot of people.

Granted, I've done it on the right. So it depends on what you're interested in doing. But as someone who's like shifted through many, many resumes and hired many people over the years, I just, I would say it's not that big of a difference at all. And so if the cost difference is really significant or it means like moving away from

home, the like, my answer would be just probably to, do UT. You might even get a better education, to be honest. That's not, I can't say that for sure, but I think people who went to Hillsdale, for example, had a better education for me than me for less money, but I got to go to school in D.C. and made a lot of connections that were helpful through that, or had a lot of experiences, I should say, that were helpful through that. So those things do matter, but it's not, I don't think it is what it used to be, to be honest. I can't say

totally because I didn't go through that. But, But good question, good question. Bob writes in to say, interesting. If the war ends with the regime in place in possession of the enriched uranium, it will be judged a failure of both BB and Trump. Clearly the view was that the decapitation strikes

plus one or two days of massive bombing would result in regime change that would also have taken care of a nuclear issue. They were wrong. The death toll of Americans and Israelis is a significant and tragic with the potential to be far worse going forward. The damage to the Gulf states,

their business models and their future is immense. Well, it may take years for a round to rebuild their rocketry. They will be hell-bent to accelerate the development of a nuclear bomb, even if a dirty one. The anger and result in hatred of Israel and part of the Gulf states, because of this war should not be underestimated. This war has significantly improved the fortunes of the Russians and hurt both Europe and Ukraine. Yeah, and Bob's basically asking, like, this is morning morning quarterbacking, but do you see it differently? And so I'm truncating the email a bit here because this is,

It's long, but really interesting points. I don't know that they were positive. The decapitation strikes would result in regime change. I think they were hoping it would. I think they thought there was a good chance. I think they were wrong about what would happen with the Strait of Vermeuse. I think they underestimated Iran on that. Or maybe the decapitation strikes to the point that Bob is making hardened the remaining leaders

in the IRGC who haven't been taken out. But this is where, yeah, there's a scary spiral scenario that could happen. I do agree probably on the Ukraine point and the Europe point. It does feel like this has potential long term to be the start of a really great splintering or like the kinetic start of a splintering. You know, obviously there are predicates for it in the mix beforehand. But as you're laying out, Bob, the possibilities for a spiral here are just so significant.

And that's why you see a lot of Republicans, I think signaling to president, they believe the right thing to do is kind of cut and run now, say, mission accomplished, get out. That's still going to come with a whole lot of negative possibilities, right? There are all kinds of negative things that can happen from that. The calculus fundamentally, and this is defensible from the administration,

I don't agree with it, but the calculus fundamentally still has to be the risks of doing nothing, were outweighed by the risks of doing something. That is still what they have to defend. I think that's the heart of their argument. And if they can keep arguing that, politically, morally, it's much more sound. Right now I just think, you know, everybody, I'm not trying to be overly negative at all. And obviously, I have my position on this.

I'm not trying to be overly negative. I agree with Bob about the risks. And still, though, I think if the administration, could kind of zero in on that, they would have an easier time strategically probably and also politically. So interesting way to put it. Hank says, GJT just said again that NATO wouldn't be there for us if we were in need. Isn't there anyone on the staff to tell them the only time Article 5 was activated by a unanimous vote was after 9-11. Whatever you think of NATO and the members free loading on us, there's zero to be

gained from insulting treating partners. It's so unnecessary. Yeah, although his insults also got NATO members to increase their commitments in his first term. And that continues today. So obviously there are Rogerair, who's based in Hungary and travels Europe a decent bit talking to people on the right will discuss. You know, and obviously we remember the Polyev. And I think Eric Kaufman has been making the case about how Trump has harmed populism, right populism globally, with some of his just, unorthodox foreign policy negotiating in public the way that he talks and the like

I don't think that's a crazy argument on the other hand it's the same thing with with Trump it's always you take the good with the bad and the good is that he is the Kissingerian madman to the point where you foreign leaders genuinely never know what happens and so it motivates behavior in a way that certainly Obama or like a 2016 Ted Cruz likely couldn't Markerubia likely couldn't.

And I just don't know if you get one without the other, to be honest. And I feel like that's an impossible counterfactual to prove, but that's my reaction to that. I don't entirely disagree. All right. What else do we have here? Someone on Sky News called, according to Howard, Greta Thunberg, a doom goblin, an odious little troll.

I like Doom Goblin. That's pretty funny. Aaron says, I'm interested to hear you take on the First Amendment issues swirling right now. Australia has taken a pretty hard stance on speech issues. Trump is threatening FCC licenses, and they have targeted free speech on campuses for over a year now. Our government seems more interested in Israel's interest than ours. Is free speech under attack? It's very hard as someone who, like you, was trained as a journalist to accept even threats of censorship.

Sure, Stephen Colbert is a moron. Kimmel is a joke, but the administration is threatening voices he doesn't like. Patriotic News, give me a break. That's what you hear before Revolution just saying, what's your take? Yeah, it's, it's, like we had Brendan Carr on, and Brendan Carr is somebody, this was in the summer, right before the Colbert thing blew up. And I actually was pretty sympathetic at the time to jawboning from the FCC because the right is correct that there are all kinds of, this goes back to our question about liberalism earlier,

but there are all kinds of powers built into having the executive branch that have just not been used. And it's true. Like, he had, Brendan Carr does have the powers that he has at the FCC. They are, they are, he has the right to consider whether what's being broadcast is in the public interest. And that has been defined illegally in different ways over the years. But the jaw boning is not unconstitutional. It's just a question of whether it's outside of the spirit of the Constitution and if there are legal decisions that would render it unconstitutional that have happened since. But he has that power. He absolutely has that power. And I know a lot of conservatives want to see Republicans use that power. So I don't, I'm like not happy it's gotten to this point. But there was media brawagogy

wildly outside the, quote, public interest, mostly from the left for many, many years. I remember saying at the time, if there was a leftist at the FCC who was upset that the networks were broadcasting war propaganda and started jawboning like Brendan Carr, I would understand that. I would totally understand that. So I think my perspective on this is the car thing isn't that big of a deal to me. What is a big deal is that the president, I mean, it's not the biggest deal. But no, I think what happened with college students last year is where it crossed the line from my perspective, like scooping Ramesa Oz Turk off the street, detaining her over an op-ed against,

that was in favor of BDS, so boycotting at Tufts University, a Tufts University BDS boycott. And I get that Osterk is not an American citizen, but that has implications, of course, downstream for American citizens. Trump is now a wartime president. So I think that does change the calculus a bit. It's very rich to hear these concerns from people who have not cared for years, whether it was COVID or before COVID, about free speech when the right was often being censored. So there's so much bad faith analysis in this space that it's a really frustrating conversation to have. but and there's so much that led up to the Trump administration kind of having this discussion internally about what liberalism itself is um and what a liberalism actually is and all of that and

brandy car is definitely somebody who's given a lot of thought to this um so it's there's a frustrating discussion because it's it's full of bad faith analysis um but but it's also free speech is a, I think is arguably the most important right to maintaining a constitutional republic. So that's where, you know, it's especially, it's not just because I'm a journalist. Obviously, I have some bias and sensitivity toward speech as a journalist, but I think you can make a pretty strong constitutional argument or a pretty strong philosophical argument that it's messing with free speech or or conditioning people to rethink the benefits of free speech

from the president's perspective, or the president's approach to free speech, I don't like it. And I don't like the conditions that led up to it either. I'll probably get more emails based on that answer. But thanks for the question, Erica. Let's see. Thanks for the question, Aaron.

The next question here is from Hollister about Erica Kirk. Let's see. This is from, so Hollister is saying basically back when Candace said she was going to have a sit down with Erica, I screamed no in my head. I don't have any quantifiable justification for my feelings. I know it's frustrating, but something is wrong with Erica. I love your show. With me and my empath self, trying to avoid anything political, your show is one that I love. It doesn't add to my stress and I truly appreciate it. I love your perspective and presentation. I just have to reiterate something is really wrong with Erica. I don't know Erica. And I actually don't know Candace either. I've said before,

I honestly think it's underestimated of the degree to which Candace is traumatized, not as a justification, but purely as an explanation. I mean, I watched an episode of a show last week where she was over and over again playing frame by frame, a video from behind Charlie of the moment that he was shot. And I just can't imagine psychologically how you're able to do that with somebody who was so close to you. And I'm not trying to do an armchair analysis at all. I'm just saying that was, I just can't believe that. It was, you know, it was wild to watch. And so I think it's underestimated the degree to which she's coping poorly, perhaps, with a enormously traumatic thing in her life. And I didn't know Erica. I don't know Erica. So I also

didn't know her even as a public figure before what happened on September 10th. So for me, it's hard to say, you know, it's very hard for me to judge, definitively judge her behavior in one direction or the other. And it's unfortunate that she has to go through a lot of this publicly. I do also generally think that people's especially, she's a little bit older than me. Charlie was exactly my age. I think when you grow up with a social media footprint, it's just not, like a lot of things won't make sense. You know what I mean? Like the inside jokes you were posting in Instagram comments in 2013 might not make sense. And the way you describe your own life and when you're, you know, 22 might not make sense after you've lived more years into the

future. So, yeah, I actually, John Daniel Davidson said on the show, kind of what reiterated, what Joe Kent told Tucker Carlson this week. I agree that there are a lot of serious, unanswered questions about September 10th and about Butler. So it's, I actually think that's, There are many questions about that. For me, none of them are about Erica, to be honest. So, again, I didn't know her before September 10th happened. I don't know her now. So I have a hard time judging her.

But I'm certainly praying for her. My goodness gracious. Man. Let's see. This is from Marlow, who says, I had to enjoy this episode twice in reference to Griffin. I was actually awake at 9 p.m. So I gave watching live a shot, but I got lost in the jargon and fell asleep. upon rewatch, I realized it wasn't that I was tired.

It was my age. I truly enjoyed your fast-paced banter over many subjects. But I cannot ask Jeeves or consult urban dictionary fast enough to get all the fine points of your arguments to glean full context. My main takeaway was that you and Griffin are going to fight both sides for us. And for that, I'm grateful. Have you ever considered pre-posting when you're going to be live in the chat? I would make an effort to stay awake for the chance to chat with you in real time. I think I have done that once or twice because we had a pre-tape interview.

So usually if we have like a politician on, those are pre-tapes. And it's sometimes like especially like bigger names. It's pre-tapes. But maybe I can do that more often when I know for sure that I'll be able to jump in the chat. I just pulled the chat up. I have been doing that more often. I do that almost every episode now. I don't always get a chance to respond in the chat just based on the flow of the conversation.

Like Griffin and I were having more of a conversation, I would say. Sometimes it's more interview style. and sometimes it's more of a conversation. If it's more interview style, it's easier for me to be like, oh, I'll answer this question in the chat. But generally, I am paying attention to it and watching it now. So you can usually expect that. And I will try to be better, Marlow, about putting out a tweet if we have a pre-tape that I will be in the chat. If it's a pre-tape, it's, I have to be in the chat.

Otherwise, I have to listen to my own voice. So it's like a, it's a good way for me to get out of listening to my own voice, jumping in the chat. And Griffin's really fun. Griffin is like, in the zeitgeist. we're the same age, but he's more zeitgeisty than I am. So it's even for me to keep up with him, it can be a stretch sometimes. Ryan says, I want to start by saying you're a breath of fresh air in the religious

conservative space. I feel like it is far too often that public officials use faith as a convenience instead of a moral foundation for how they view and interact with the world. Thank you, Ryan. I appreciate that. I wanted to get your take on apps like Hallow. I know you're not Catholic, but it seems to be a growing trend these days. I'm not against making religion accessible to the world, but I struggle with them being for

profit and not AC3. For profit would not be that bad, but the fact that they do not provide any financial disclosures were relying heavily on celebrities while charging $60 plus a year gives me concern. I feel like they're taking advantage rather than providing access, which is unfortunate considering how much I gravitate towards Father Mike Schmitz, etc. Thanks to keep on keeping on. Ryan, I will say to this, I have worked at nonprofits, I've covered nonprofits, I've seen how nonprofits are run. And I do totally understand why some of the tech guys behind Hallow are not organized as a nonprofit because nonprofits are structurally, inherently, the way nonprofits are structured do not lend themselves to the same level of efficiency and innovation that for-profits do.

And so I don't know that you could have created Hallow with a nonprofit. Again, just because of structurally the way things work. And even with nonprofits, You don't have to be really that financially transparent. Maybe that should be a changed law. But I just don't think you would be able to, like, I feel like it probably took a lot of VC money to get that thing going, and especially to, you know, bring Wahlberg on board and make it as mainstream as it has become.

I downloaded Hallow as a non-Catholic because I figured some of it would just be helpful. It wasn't for me. But I do think it's great that it's, it works for so many people. Because as I was like exploring the app, it's not, it's not infected by so much of the, like, cultural climate that has infected much of the church, the Catholic Church, but also, of course, evangelical church, Protestant, mainland Protestant churches. And that I just think is so amazing.

You have celebrities like Wahlberg and Gwen Stefani reaching new audiences that aren't, you know, even, and people who are just watching TV. And word of mouth then, you know, people who are reached by those, you know, out of audiences that wouldn't typically get religious messaging, let alone religious messaging that leads them to a product people stay with and find really helpful. And that is not infected by the cultural climate. I think that's incredible. Like, just a gargantuan achievement.

And again, seeing the inside of nonprofits and for-profits, I really don't know that you could have done that on a nonprofit basis. because it just, you need to be able to hire good people that's really hard with the structure of nonprofits. You need to be able to probably take a ton of cash and funnel it in one direction really quickly and innovate and the like. To create a really good app is not the easiest thing in the world, let alone one that's that popular. So I think your concerns are completely legitimate and valid. and even as a non-user of hallow, I would think there's probably a decent defense of being for-profit in this case. But see where you're coming from for sure.

Hank says, you were right to note last night that some of what we're hearing about Iran is almost certainly propaganda. Goes on to say estimates of recent regime killings I've seen come across tend to be lower. There were those really high numbers like 35 to 45,000 and there are lower ones around 7 to 10. Yeah, I would say it's probably 10 to 20. That's what Hank is looking at here. None of this to say that the decision to go to war was wrong, but as George Kennan warned eight decades ago, it's not a good idea to use ideological propaganda to, instead of a state's legitimate interests, to make that explanation.

That's how Vietnam happened. Yeah, good point, Hank. George Kennan is a great read. A lot of writings of George Kennan that you can read, but George Kennan is a great read, especially right now. I should actually go back and read some George Kennan right now. because those early Cold War writings are so timely. Like, they feel so contemporary.

And I appreciate that note, Hank. That makes a lot of sense. It's another one of those things, too, that you realize, you know, I was going back and forth with someone on Twitter when I was criticizing Joy Reid in the same way that I did on the show. You know, the vantage point was, hey, like, there's no comparison

for women. It's not a marginal difference for women, whether you live in Iran or the United States. Like, it just isn't. It's not. And someone who said they live in the Middle East was going back and forth with me because I cited, I think, an EU report, a UN report, and was going back and forth, or amnesty international, that's what it was, on how the, quote, dot orgs are often propaganda.

And I totally agree with it. It's one of the things that has been most challenging, you know, about the last few years, is peeling back layers and looking at how the sausage gets made in even like the human rights space. That's that is absolutely a real thing. They are infected with propaganda. They're often getting money from like the National Endowment for Democracy or USAID or it's coming from Voice of America and then you try to find the citation. It's just and it comes down to a government or a government funded NGO. And I think a lot of times what we have to just resign ourselves to is that it's very hard to know what's happening in

certain countries in certain times on certain issues. And that is uncomfortable for us in 2026 because we have smartphones. We have eyes everywhere. We have CCTV covering just about every square inch of the United States. Some of these true crime stories, for example, get us frustrated. How can we not know the truth? And I think that's an uncomfortable reality. And it's hard. Actually, this gets to Hank's point. It's hard to make foreign policy decisions when you don't entirely know what's happening. I think that was a problem in the the Cold War as well. We had such paranoia that people were stooges of the Soviet Union and we're going to advance their nuclear agenda towards our annihilation. And the Soviets said this as well,

is that we overreacted. We can see that with the kind of hindsight, the benefit, the luxury of 2020 hindsight. So that is true. And sometimes you just have to admit you don't know what you don't know. And that what we do know is coming from people with vested interests because they're the only way, that's the only way you're going to know is that somebody was led in by the government or somebody got internet from our government or whatever it is. So they're biased in one direction or the other and might not be giving us a full picture of the truth. And what you have to do as a journalist is present that information. And you don't always have to draw conclusions other than there is no obvious conclusion to be drawn about certain things. Like, for example, exactly the

the question of how many people were killed in those awful slaughters of protesters in January in Iran. I don't know exactly. And there's some people who do confidently say it was 35 or whatever the number is. Or some people say, you know, on the other side of that, it's all propaganda. It was only, you know, ex-nomerously, okay, I don't think either of you are right. And I don't think we know. So that's where sometimes we're just not comfortable with we're not comfortable not filling in the blanks, leaving blank spaces. We're not comfortable with that. And sometimes we absolutely have to. And journalists especially have to be careful with that. Chelsea says, I think I know the answer, but I have to know, are you a juicy scooper?

Heather was on the MK at True Crime Show a month ago. And I was so excited. A juicy scooper. Hmm, I'm looking this up right now. Oh, Heather McDonald. I don't listen to Heather McDonald. I follow Heather McDonald. Yeah, I feel like over the years, I haven't thought about Heather McDonald in a long time, but I feel like over the years I've had a love-hate type relationship with Heather McDonald, but just probably how a lot of people are with her. She's definitely entertaining. She's a very interesting person, a very interesting person. But no, I don't, I don't listen regularly. I just kind of follow through tabloids and the like.

Chris says, let's see. Ooh, it's a long one. Thank you for this note, Chris. Very, very interesting stuff. Some thoughts here on CBS and Larry Ellison. Some thoughts on John Daniel Davidson. Yes, I definitely recommend Pagan America. It's a very provocative, very provocative book.

Oh, Marine. Ooh, this is a lot. Thanks so much. for these. Oh, yes, Chris says also, you need to bring your cozy candle back, or your candle back. It used to be there on your bookshelf flickering.

It was a nice touch, warm and cozy. I kind of agree. I kind of agree, Chris. I've thought about that recently. People would tell me, like, I would get publicly people coming up to me and being like, I'm so worried about the candle on your bookshelf.

And that made me think it was more of a distraction because the bookshelf is wooden. So, or whatever wood facsimile IKEA uses, I think it is wood. But that's one of the billy bookshelves, which many of you probably have as well, that my friend Spencer, who's been a guest on the show, assembled. It's, yeah, it's, I'm torn on this because I love the cozy candle look, too. I have a candle in my office. I have many candles in my office, actually.

So it is natural. I try to keep the set looking like exactly what it is. which is my office and not looking too much like a set. And I like, you know, what you want to do is three-point lighting. And if you're in the biz, you know about three-point lighting. So I've got the three points covered. And the reason you have something in the back is visually to add dimension. That's why you would want to back light.

I have the light over the after-party poster, but it does add a sense of dimension for our eyes as viewers that just creates space visually between the person in the front of the frame. and what's happening in the back of the frame. So it can be a really nice look. It's not as flat as an image when you put a candle in the back. So I do have that one light in the back, but I thought the candle was helpful to that perspective too,

and it was a little bit more chill and relax. I struggle with the after-party aesthetic because the brand itself, sometimes we have really serious conversations on after-party, but I think a lot more button-downed than the serious conversations you know, people are having in mainstream spaces. On the other hand, so it feels more, but is that like a party, right? Like, for me, a good party is everybody has a couple glasses of wine or a couple of beers and starts having, you know, super interesting, provocative conversations, but I am a loser.

So that's my definition of party, and it's probably different than a lot of other people's definitions of party, which is like neon lights. And I don't want to go on the neon lights route, but it does a party in the name. So just, just, this question of brand consistency has been stuck in my craw since we launched last year. But recently, I've been much more comfortable. I've been happy with how things are looking and feeling. I feel like it's starting to gel. That's always the thing with a new show. It's got a gel. And it takes, that takes time. Like, you remember Crystal and Saga, if you're breaking points, if you were, had that brick background for a long time, like a year and a half, two years.

And then we moved on to the set, the fancy set that, you know, you take time to kind of figure out what the show is. You can't always have it perfectly at inception. I mean, rarely do you ever. So I love that you all are kind of on the journey, as they say, along with us. And I am conflicted about the candle. I don't want it to be a distraction. I don't want people to be thinking, oh, is that going to burn the bookshelf down? Does it look weird on a bookshelf? Because you shouldn't put a candle on a wooden bookshelf. On the other hand, I did feel like it had in a nice little cozy environment. But as cozy party, these are the things that I have to think about, dear listeners. So thank you for the question. Chris, appreciate it. Eddie says, I spend a good part of my

Sundays watching all the Legacy Sunday shows. I find myself secondhand embarrassment for conservative media, women and media as I watch how truly awful Margaret Brennan and Kristen Welker, or they are really earnest, I'll give them that. Can you imagine you, Rachel Bovard, and S. Stepman, Mary Catherine Hamm or Carol Markowitz, and one of those jobs, sign me up. By the way, Shannon Broom does great. I agree. Oh, and then says, don't forget to promote subscribing. I did that yesterday. I don't think I mentioned once on the Wednesday show to subscribe. Maybe I mentioned at the end, but it's got to be at the beginning. So my bad, please subscribe. Tell your friends to subscribe everyone. You guys know I'm terrible at that. But yes, Eddie, I agree. Shana Bram does a

really, really good job with this. I could definitely imagine Mary Catherine knocking that job out of the park. I love Mary Catherine. And if you remember when she was the co-host of a presidential debate, it was a Republican primary debate, I believe. I think it was a CNN debate. She was so good. I think Mary Catherine would be amazing. I would never want that job. But Margaret Brennan and Kristen Walker are still stuck in this old model where they pretend like they don't have viewpoints.

Like Margaret Brennan just pretend she's down the middle and not a total hawk. But it's a thin pretense. Like they're comfortable getting the pretense thinner and thinner in the Trump era because they're like, I think they buy into this. You know, some things are black and white. Kristen Walker's clearly center left. I think she does a better job than some other people in the quote mainstream media, but she's definitely sent her left. So I think you, that's why Mary Catherine would be so good.

Like she's just capable of seeing the forest for the trees, understanding where people are coming from, wherever they're coming from, but also being really clear. She has a good moral clarity and just a great recall. So she would be awesome in that, and she's hilarious. Should be awesome at that. I once went to, like, funniest DC journalist, and Mary Catherine and Vince Colonais. I went to support them. This was, like, a year or two ago. And Vince and Mary Catherine were funnier than any of the, like, mainstream journalists in there.

They were so, so, so funny. And I think, if I remember it correctly, Vince won. They were both incredible. Tie in my book. But, man, they're funny. Mary Catherine is super funny. I would never want that job, though. But just, first of all, to get those jobs, they are just utterly cutthroat.

And some people can deal with that environment and keep their wits about them, be decent human beings. They're few and far between. Some people can. That's tough stuff, just to be in that position. Shannon Bream does it. Nobody has a bad word to say about Shannon Bream. That's a little inside baseball, truly. Everybody loves working for Shannon Bream.

Nobody's a bad word to say about her. Everybody really likes her, respects her, and she's earned that respect. So some people can do it. I just don't think it's worth it personally because I'm not that interested in politicians. As you know, we don't have a ton of politicians on the show because, you know, frankly, my position is that they're mostly lying and I only really want to have conversations because I'm not one of those, you know, self-serious people who cares about, and it's good that some people do, by the way, but cares about screaming at a politician.

Like, my expectations for them are just so low. it's just so low that I have a hard time even talking to a lot of them. Marla says, all I can say is you and John totally freaked me out. Have a great weekend. I'm praying for us all. Amen, Marl. Me too. And John was worried that he freaked everyone out. I'll tell you that behind the scenes. John pinged me afterwards. It was like, did I come across as crazy? I was like, no, I think I came across as crazy, John, for asking you all those questions. But the story on that is Billy Hallowell was booked on the show. We were so excited to have Billy. Billy was excited to be on. And then had a family emergency at the very last minute. And we were to talk about his new series,

Angels and Demons, on CBN, which you could go check out. And I think it's called Investigating the Supernatural Angels and Demons. And you may remember he was on last year to talk about investigating the supernatural miracles, his other documentary. And we had, I think maybe like 40 minutes to find a new guest. And I was like, ooh, John is really, really good on this stuff. He's in a different time zone, so he's way behind D.C. Like, he's probably still working. And I love to have John on. I love John so much. He is definitely a mentor, and I never get to talk to him enough.

And it would just be so good to have him on the show. He's such an interesting person. And it worked out, so I was really glad. And that way, I didn't have to change too much of the show. Like, we still got to talk about Peter Thiel. We still got to talk about UAPs because John is up on all of that stuff. So it was just part of the reason why we threw John into the mix yesterday is that he, that he has a similar kind of, he talks about a lot of the same things Billy does, but from a

Catholic perspective. He's a good person to talk about liberalism, too. So anyway, that's the backstory. Maybe I should have, I told that at the end of the show, but that's, this kind of went down, what went down. It may have seemed a little random that we were talking about UABs and the end times. And John wasn't, you know, promoting a new documentary about Angels and Demons or anything like that, but he does have a really, really good book on the subject that I recommend checking out. Also gives you a lot of other good reading to do as you're going through John's book, Pagan America. So, thank you everybody for taking the time to listen and taking the time to write in. I hope to respond to all your emails in the next 24 hours or so. You can send

them into Emily at double-maycaremedia.com. Just appreciate you being part of the audience. Thank you so, so much. We'll be back with another edition of After Party live at 9 p.m. on Monday over on YouTube and hope you all have a wonderful, wonderful weekend. God bless. Thanks for listening.