After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Joe Kent Conundrum, Demons and the Supernatural, and That Daryl Davis Interview: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: March 27, 2026

On this week’s Happy Hour, Emily Jashinsky takes listener questions dealing with everything from faith to America’s foreign policy. Emily responds to a series of questions about Joe Kent and the ethical conundrum involving his resignation and subsequent interviews. She also addresses accusations he’s leaking, the Tyler Robinson issue, and explains what really goes on behind the scenes in Washington between government officials and the media. Emily also weighs in on the Iran war, offers her take on the right vs left response to it, the risks of taking out the Ayatollah, and answers a question from one of Lindsey Graham’s constituents. Emily addresses a number of questions about her recent interview with Daryl Davis, why she wanted to interview him, and she responds to criticism about her not challenging him when he said President Trump is racist. She also addresses several faith-based questions including the importance of reading The Bible, why she believes in the supernatural, and a comment about her recent conversation about demons with John Daniel Davidson. Emily rounds out this episode with questions about the Afroman lawsuit, the Cesar Chavez abuse allegations, how our immigration policies allow people to be exploited, and some lighter questions about fishing, favorite memes, her recent profile for Independent Women, and more…   Link to Emily’s Independent Women profile: https://www.independentwomen.com/2026/03/23/emily-jashinsky-is-helping-lead-a-new-era-of-journalism/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

All right, everyone. Welcome to another edition of Happy Hour, which is, of course, itself, a special edition of After Party. We do it here every Friday around 5 p.m. Happy Hour. Maybe that starts a little earlier for some of you. But thanks for being here. As always, you can send me an email to Emily at devilmakermediat.com. That is my email address. I do my best to read all of your messages on the show and to respond to them as well. So let's go ahead and start. As a reminder, I do go through these live. I think this is the only way to make. it entertaining to be honest. So I will already tell you, I mentioned this on the show Wednesday. I know that I have like several emails saying the exact same thing about Daryl Davis. So I'll try to probably put those all together in the same bunch. I flagged them. I flag all of the emails that are coming in for after party in my inbox as the week goes on. So I know there's a handful of them and I'll try to put them all in the same section. So it's not jumping around back to Daryl the whole time. interesting, interesting. I look forward to coming across some of those emails. Christine says, great episode today on After Party. I look forward to this every Friday.

I heard you talk about the Hallow app. I have been using it, but I'm still on the fence on if it's for me. I wondered if you ever tried Bible in a year podcast. I am 81 days in on that one. I'm a lifelong Catholic who recently found my way back to my faith. I feel like even after 12 years of Catholic school, I really don't know the Bible very well. I am sort of trying, sort of enjoying it, although some of Old Testament stuff with all these numbers and lineage and stuff kind of makes my head spin, but I do feel like I'm learning something. I say this, all this way too long paragraph to simply ask if you have ever used it and get your thoughts on whether it's a good app to learning more about the Bible. Have a great weekend and God bless. Well, thank you, Christine. This is a really

good question. Actually, the folks from Hallow got in touch with me after last week's episode. And I just, like, they have a whole explanation up on their website about the nonprofit for profit thing. That's great. You can go check it out. Like I said last week, I think Hallow is an amazing app. It's not the, it's not the best way for me. I'm really good just sticking with the print. And that's what I've been doing for the last several years is just cover to cover, I guess maybe the last couple years, cover to cover, Old Testament, New Testament, in order. I think what I'm going to do from now on is every time I finish, just start over again, beginning to end, so that I'm always reading through chronologically. And then supplementing that,

of course, with different books from different faith-based books and the like. That's how I do it. I have listened to the Bible in a day podcast. It's also not for me because, again, I'm just, I take in information better reading. I listen to a ton of podcast. But when I want to be really, really focused on something, I just, I have to read it in print. So that's why it's not for me, but I totally get why people love it because it's a really efficient way. And I want to say, to build it into your routine. The other thing I want to say, Christine, is I have the exact same experience going through the Old Testament.

Now that I'm older, I'm really able to take it in as history and kind of contextualize it with different periods in world history, in human history. And looking at it through that lens has been really, really interesting as well. So if people have never read it, even if you're not religious, just starting in Genesis and going all the way through. I mean, it's dry and it takes a long time, but it's not always dry. It can often be dry, like Leviticus. It can often be dry. But taking it all in is a really, really cool experience. And you know, I've heard from people who have done, what is it, like the Bible in 30 days or 60 days who say that when you read it all that quickly,

it's also interesting because you get some of the big picture stuff much more, that stuff comes into focus. You know, this is just different methods producing different outcomes. And when you squeeze it all in really quickly and your head is buried in the book, in the good book for so long for a short period of time, kind of those big narrative arcs jump out at you. you get a sense of the big picture even more clearly. So that's another thing I've been wanting to try. It's crazy. That's a lot with my schedule, but I know people who've done it who have crazier schedules than I do. So maybe I'll do that at some point. Great question. Christine, for me, it just hasn't all that's been kind of about figuring out what works, what you can get into your routine so that you

don't get out of the practice. You know what I mean? So you don't get out of the habit. But that the habit is is easily kind of built into your life. That's not to say you shouldn't disrupt your life and your routine and your habits for what's most important. But that's what it's about, is finding the best way to do that. All right, Ben says, the more I read about Afro-Man, the more I love him, I would love to hear your take. You know who had a good take on this. Bridget Fettacy. Bridget had a good take on this. I feel like the libertarians have really been rallying around Afro-Man. And honestly, I think I support it. You know, I've looked into the and I think I'm on his side.

So Afro-Man has been going back and forth. I think it's with like the local police department. Let me just pull up a summary real quickly so that we're all on the same page about what's going on. Oh my gosh. Apparently, according to Billboard, his catalog has risen over 500% since his legal victory. 500%. That's pretty impressive. All right, so local news, WTAJ CBS affiliate in Adams County, PA, says hit rapper Afro-Man recently won a lawsuit from seven Adams County sheriffs in Ohio.

But as strange as the lawsuit turned out, it became a bizarre moment in Pennsylvania. Afro-man real name Joseph Foreman was being sued by seven officers for defamation after the rapper used his home security footage of a raid at his residence to mock the sheriffs via music videos, including the popular someone. a lemon pound cake. The lawsuit didn't go in the officer's favor, which many said was also a win for the First Amendment, and that free speech certainly carried over to Adams County, Pennsylvania. Apparently, the local sheriff says they're being bombarded with calls around the country, quote, news update, we did not arrest rapper Afro Man. Well, we love all the calls in the colorful language with accents from around the country, I assure you, it wasn't this Adams County. We ask you, verify the state before you call voicing your frustration that our deputy arrested Afro-Man.

Just excellent stuff. He was, according to Afro-Man, in Chicago at the time of the raid and was called by neighbors to quote, alert him of police presence. And I guess money was missing from his home afterwards. That's part of this, according to Adams County, Pennsylvania, the local CBS in Adams County, Pennsylvania. But of course, this happened in Adams County, Ohio. So it's affecting everyone in the United States. I'm sure there are many Adams counties that are being bombarded. But yes, this was Adams County, Ohio,

Afferman was in Chicago. And I think it does sound like a free speech victory. There are a lot of, I think sometimes the right has an instinct to quote back the blue because the blue gets so much unfair, gets so many unfair attacks from the left. And, you know, I think from some corners that are just honestly, transparently, anti-police would abolish the police. And, you know, most Americans aren't on board with, aren't on board with abolish the police, of course, that sometimes, sometimes the police are like armed agents of the state, which we want in our community.

of course. But sometimes that's, you know, power goes to people's head. And that's especially true on a local level. You could get the trailer park boys phenomenon with Randy. If you, if you watch trailer park boys, you know exactly what I'm talking about in your local communities. And maybe we had a little Randy situation here with Afro-Man. All right, moving on. Monique says, this is a longer email. This is about Joe Kent. All right. I just wanted to comment on Joe Kent and his resignation. I think all that is fine. And if it wasn't a good fit anymore, that's his business. Where he went wrong is that he did it in the midst of the war with Iran. He could have waited until everything calmed, highly discommed down and did it quietly. Instead, he wanted to make a statement and make it all about him. And I think it was highly disrespectful, especially coming from such a high rank in the military. He should know better. That's why I believe he wanted to make Trump in this administration. look bad, and therefore I don't think he is someone you can totally trust. Then not only did he quit in less than 24 hours after, he allowed himself to be interviewed by Tucker Carlson, who was somewhat

controversial, and he knew that lots of people would listen. I never know who Joe Count was or is, but I know who he is now, and he's someone that is disrespectful and wanting attention and glorification. In closing, I say to Joe Goodristen, stop talking, grow up, you're acting like a child, but mostly you're hurting our country and this very sincere president wanting to do the right thing, and had the boss do it. I excuse my language. All right, Monique, thank you for the email. I think we have another, yeah, we have another couple emails here about Joe Kent. I'll read this one from Sue, who says, I found your discussion about Iran with John Daniel Davidson confusing on several points, but I'll focus on two. Why is Joe Kent

considered a reliable informed source on Iran? The Trump administration reportedly banned him from intelligence briefings because of concerns about leaks. Was he in briefings or not in briefings? If not, then how does he offer worthwhile informed contributions? The U.S. structurally. Iran on Saturday, February 28th, because the top 40 Iranian leaders were meeting above ground in one place. What's the origin discussion really about? How have pundits forgotten the above ground 40 leader meeting? Or is it convenient overlook to generate clickable copy? Here's one from Bob, who says, the attacks on this man, a true American patriot and hero who resigned from his post and principled opposition to this war by this administration and its supporters, is both predictable

and disgusting. It is nothing to do with anti-Semitism and what really highlights is the issue of initiating the only war in the 250-year history of our country that lacks the support of the American people. We can now just to see if we have any other Joe Kent emails to make sure we kind of tackle them all at the same time, not to avoid kind of jumping back and forth. Yeah, okay, so this looks like what we have on Joe Kent. All right, so Monique and Sue are anti and Bob is pro. And it's not, surprising that we have emails from different directions on this because, you know, I think people's opinion on Joe Kent right now is heavily covered or is heavily colored by their broader perception

on the war in Iran, which makes sense, right? Because if you think that the war is right and just, then you see what Joe Kent did as disrupting a righteous and just cause. If you don't think it's right, then you see him as really blowing the whistle. So that makes sense. And since you all sent these emails in, a lot more has happened. I think most of these probably came last Friday, Saturday, around that time period. And Kent has since been everywhere. You know, he did go on Tucker. He went on with Megan last Friday. He went on with my colleague, Sager and Jeddy, breaking points last Friday. And since then, he's been on with Mark Levine. and that conversation was very interesting if you haven't listened to it yet. Levin questions him,

just like Megan did, just like Sogert did on the leaking and such. And Kent is very firmly denying all of it. Then this week, Megan covered on her show. Another controversy broke out because Kent had done an interview with Michael Schellenberger. And Kent told Schellenberger he would testify, if it meant testifying if he was called by Tyler Robinson's team, as I think was the thrust of this quote, then, yeah, he would testify there was the same thing that he had said in the media over and over again, which is he felt as though there were leads about potential foreign involvement that were not exhausted. So this set off another string of controversies because Blake Neff, who have known for a long time, and Andrew Colvette over at the Charlie Kirk Show, Charlie's close friend,

were infuriated. They had Schellenberger on right away and just teed off because they were, they saw that as a really deep betrayal of Charlie as Joe Kent fomenting conspiracy theories that take the focus away from like Trans Tifa and Tyler Robinson. And then Joe Kent was also accused by some people who were in a group chat with Charlie of legal. I don't know if leaking is the right word for this, but of sending a picture that had been given to him while he was in the government for investigative purposes to Candace Owens. And he denies that as well. So we're going to see how some of this shakes out. Yes, the Trump administration accused Kent of leaking.

He has totally denied that. Probably some of this is going to depend on the definition of leaking, right? because if you're talking, as I assume he was, to be honest, just like here, D.C., I think the consensus is that he was chatting with people either in, like, news media or podcast space while he was in the government. But I think a lot of people see leaking as being classified information, confidential information, documents, that sort of thing, not kind of just having conversations. Now, that can count, obviously, if you're sharing confidential. or classified information, if you're chatting about kind of the mood, if you're chatting about what you think should happen, what you think might happen, whether that's considered leaking, I'm saying just as a journalist, as opposed to, you know, talking to your friends, right?

Because if he's friends with this podcaster or this journalist, blah, blah, blah, that would be potentially a way to deny leaking while also having been in conversation with people in the media and other places. Now, as a journalist, one of the reasons I probably couldn't work in government is that, you know, I don't know that I would be able to cope with information that I think should be public, not being public. But if you're in government, obviously, you sign up to be responsible with the information you have access to. And so I'm always torn about this because I think whistleblowers are really, really important. Really, really important. I think the government understandably, but unfortunately, tries to thwart whistleblowers. And I also think loyalty

and self-discipline to commitments that you make are important. So I think this is a serious ethical conundrum. And I don't know what Joe Kent was saying behind the scenes. I actually never talked to him. And I've admired him, but I've never talked to him. I think he's, he's friendly with others, like in podcast world and in the conservative world, you know, if you're not even talking to a journalist, but if you're talking to somebody else in the government about what's happening at Odie and I, is that leaking, that person then, you know, it's just, it could be so many different things. I, as someone who can say that he's not a source of mine, I don't know what those relationships are like. But on the base,

question. If he didn't think he could support the president, he did the right thing by no longer putting himself in the position to be in ODNI. That's my perspective on it. He says he believes this war is wrong and he's served. He's earned his right to say that he believes this war is wrong and that he believes the intelligence was wrong. It does seem, per all of the interviews he's given in the last week that Kent was kept out of briefings. Totally seems like it. Whether it was because they didn't trust him or because they didn't like his foreign policy and they stopped trusting Tulsi Gabbard after she put out that nuclear Holocaust video last year, I believe that was ahead of Midnight Hammer, because there are just these really, really deep ideological differences.

There's a gulf, an ideological gulf between Tulsi Gabbard and a lot of people in the White house. So is it because they didn't, is it because they were leaking or because they didn't trust them? Because let me tell you, the leak accusations are constantly weaponized by people who leak just as much as everyone else. Anyone who says they are taking a principled stance against leaking in a high profile position in the government, I've seen people do it. It's bullshit. Because a lot of people who do it are leaking themselves. And so I would take that with a gigantic, gigantic grain of salt. It's accepted as a norm in this administration and any administration. We might not like it as members of the public, but it is accepted as a norm and as an ethical

thing to do when you want to get a particular message out to the public. So it's also very likely that's being used cynically, hypocritically as a smear against Joe Kent. So I'm not saying that what he's saying is totally true or, you know, everything that he said is totally responsible. He probably went further than he should have in that conversation with Tucker Carlson when they were discussing Butler and Charlie. I agree with Blake Neff when he says it sounds like somebody vague posting on Facebook. You know, like, I know something. You know, watch this space, that type of thing. I agree. And it's really frustrating. At the same time, if you're on a journalist's show and you're asked point blank about X, Y, or Z. It's also really hard when you know information

not to get into that information. So he's in a difficult position because what he wants to do and he said he's wanted to do is stop the war. He resigned so that he could talk to as many people as possible calling for the war to be stopped, which I think is, again, if you've served and you're a gold star husband, you've lost your wife in a Middle Eastern conflict, I think you've earned your right to do that. People might not like it. They might not agree with you. But he's also being smeared. He's the subject of a smear campaign. And he was a very high-level intelligence official.

So he did. He said he still had access to the PDB, the Presidential Daily briefing. So to say he was out of the loop because he wasn't in briefings, that's just not correct. When you're at ODNI, you know things. So was he in on all of the meetings? No. But the gist of the intelligence would have been known to Joe Kent. So this is a long-winded way of kind of addressing what everyone said here.

Just another response to Sue about that Saturday meeting of the top Iranian leaders being above ground in one place and that making it a good time to strike. The United States had intelligence, according to new reports, I think this was the latest was in Reuters, that taking out the Ayatollah could result in even, more hardline succession from the Ayatollah, that someone even more radical would take his place. And actually, that's, that was what people suspected in 1979. There were some people in the intelligence world that suspected that would be the case in 1979 that this wasn't like a, like a revolution, necessarily just secular revolution. There were a lot of different factions fighting for power. And so that's why the,

the origin still has to be questioned because we know from people in the government. We know from Dan Cain reports about what Dan Cain was briefing Trump on. We know that there was skepticism about doing that Saturday strike that Trump had been informed the risks were there. And so, yes, I agree, Sue. You know, it's important to give Trump agency and to say he made this decision because he thought it was rational to take this window and act during that window when you could take out the Ayatollah and other leaders. What I don't believe is actually that that was a rare one-time opportunity because I've heard that many times, like over the years. You could have done it then. You could have done it then. You could have done it then. You could have done it then. This stuff, I mean, they had Al-Qudsday coming up. I think you probably would have had similar.

opportunities down the line as well. I think the timing was that Netanyahu thought it was a sort of ripe opportunity. And when we figured that Netanyahu was definitely going ahead, you know, we said the timing is right for us now too. It's, you know, midnight hammer decimated, but they're building stuff back. And that was our decision because a lot of people in our government also agree with Netanyahu about taking out Iran. So there's a lot going to on. But I really just, I don't have this anger at all towards Joe Kent, given what he went through as a veteran and given that he has been open about his philosophical disagreements, even as somebody who was hawkish towards Iran. And he was in the past hawkish towards Iran. He's been

supportive, even in his interviews, of Midnight Hammer as a limited strike. So I really feel like we just all need to be, have our eyes open to the smear campaigns. It doesn't mean that the smear merchants are always wrong, right? Like, it's wrong to be a smear merchant and to be hypocritical and run these smear campaigns that aren't based in fact, sure. It doesn't mean they're always directionally wrong. But I think in the case of Joe Kent, it is a really, it is wrong to not let this man say his peace. I feel like he has absolutely earned the right to say his peace. He didn't do it while he was in the government. publicly. So I really have been, it's been hard to watch, I think, some of the backlash. I think people have a real emotional backlash to Joe Kent because they're upset with the media for taking an anti-Trump tone on this war. I get that. Totally understand it. But I also think, while that all may be true, there's a lot of reason to not buy in. into the smear campaign. The other thing I want to say is Megan did a great segment on Blake and Andrews coverage of Kent and Schellenberger's conversation, so many people to name in this controversy,

but Megan did a great segment explaining actually why this doesn't jeopardize the legal case against Tyler Robinson, which she believes is extremely strong. So I would go check that on on YouTube or on her podcast. I believe it was on Wednesday's edition of the show. If you're interested in more from this, Monique, thank you. you, Sue, thank you, and Bob, thank you. That was a long detour on the Joe Kent front, but I think worthwhile. We didn't cover Joe on the show again this week. Honestly, some of it was just getting so ugly. And Iran coverage, you know, it's hard to do Iran coverage. Let's just say it's hard to do a Ron coverage on after party too much, right? Because the tagline I rolled out this week is if you

like your news a little later and a little lighter. I don't know. I'm workshopping it. I'm workshopping it. But that's really what the show is supposed to be about. So we covered it last week when it was big breaking news. That was too hard to ignore. But it was good to kind of get through some of these questions on Happy Hour Today because I know we've all been thinking about it. It's kind of been on the backburner of the news cycle still over the course of the week. This is from Nate, who says you talk a lot about how we're in an era of low institutional trust. That's absolutely true. I think that would be a great topic for you to explore more explicitly. There are a lot of great people who work in the civic space. Nate says his work touches on this,

and quite a few in D.C. focus on this as well. There's reason to be optimistic and hopeful about civic life. Well, I hope that's the case, Nate, to paraphrase your invocation of hope or to repeat it. Yeah, I do hope that's true. I know that Washington is very, very divorced from communities around the country. My family's been involved in some local stuff for a long time. And so I've seen this up close. And it does make me helpful when I think about that. So this is, I think, a really a really warranted counterweight to some of my doom and gloom, Nate. I appreciate that. Local governments can be, they can range from, you know, Parks and Rec level awfulness to a parks and wreck level inspiration, right?

Like, inspirational community cooperation, like across divided and difficult issues. And it can get so nasty, but it can also get so moving at times. I like this comment, Nate. So this is some good food for thought. All right. Howard says, I think you are one of the brightest people I've come across and continue to be amazed. Thank you. On one of your shows recently used the word epistemological several times. I had to go look it up. Very smart. So it was a bit surprised on your show with John Daniel Davidson when the two of you went off in the weeds on the mystical demons.

Really? Is this 2026 or 1326? I was kind of expecting the next segment to be on people that have gone up in flying saucers. There are people who claim that. I promise you they're out there. What about all epricons and fairies? They sound like fun. It seems strange. that the brilliant Emily would have a serious conversation with some clown who takes this stuff seriously. Of course, you're just smarter than me, and maybe you know something I don't. You said that he called you after the show and asked if he had come across as crazy. The answer is yes, maybe a demon made him do it. Howard.

So John is a good friend of mine. I know when I brought him on mine, I said he was like, he's like a mentor, someone I consider a mentor. He's also brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Definitely one of the smartest people I know, one of the most principal people I know. And I do recommend John's book, if you think this all sounds wacky. There are some different books I would recommend checking out. Gosh, I have one of them right behind me.

I'm not remembering the name right now. I think it's called The Devil's Best Trick. And that is a great book. It's a dark book, but it's a great book. Rod Dreher's recent book on the re-enchantment. I think it's called Life and Wonder. It deals with all of the stuff really, really directly. I read Rod's work every single day.

And I think about this stuff a lot. And this comment about 2026 or 1326 is funny. I mean, I have this weird, I don't know many people, I guess, who find themselves spending so much time with the left. And I mean like the real left, not the kind of center left and the populist right. And that I do think is like a vantage point. I think it's perspective that I wish more people had. Because when I talk to folks on the left a lot,

my conversations are you are missing something from potential voters, potential persuadable people when you are divorced from the language of religion, which is so central to so many people's lives on the right. Sometimes it's, you know, this is esoteric. And it is not going to appeal. And it's probably not even, you know, practical at some point. You know, I think I like Aaron Wren's framing of this as the negative world, right? I think we were talking about this in a show a couple of weeks ago, especially like some Christians who expect that the world, it was because somebody chastised me in an email for laughing at something really like that some, like I think it was some sexual celebrity.

comment. And someone chastised me for laughing at it. I was like, I think a big mistake a lot of Christians make in, in 26 is expecting that American culture and public life is going to reflect a Christian ethics in the way that it might have in, you know, 1986, something along those lines. So it's, I'm always kind of squeezed by both of, like going between both of those. spheres. And I find it really, really interesting. But I'm an evangelical Christian. I'm absolutely somebody who believes in the supernatural, like most people throughout human history have. And I think I would just recommend Rod's book on this. I think Rod's a little more woo than I probably am. Billy Hallowell also has a great book called Playing with Fire. John was subbing in at the last minute to

replace Billy because John wrote a book, I think, really more from a Catholic perspective called Pagan America about a lot of this. But that's why we were talking about it, because Billy was on to discuss his new docu-series or documentary that you can find called Supernatural Angels and Demons. I think that's the title of it. People throughout history have taken angels and demons and the supernatural very seriously. I got mocked relentlessly by some of the people who watched like breaking points on the left when Charlie Kirk was killed. and I did a segment on Jezebel saying, an author at Jezebel saying they had paid an Etsy witch to cast curses on Charlie before he died. One of them, I think, was that his head would pop off, which is he eerie and gives you chills.

And a lot of people are like, oh, Emily's obsessed with Etsy witches. She thinks Etsy witches are serious. No, I actually think the supernatural is serious. You couldn't possibly shame me by mocking that. I think it's serious because it's real. The spiritual world is real. Most humans have believed that. It's only been the last 100 years that we thought we're too smart that we could explain everything.

Premier Unbelievable is a podcast network and a channel that I really like. They've done a lot of episodes with some brilliant scientists who, because of the advanced nature of their scientific work, they have come to believe in God and in Christ. So I cannot recommend those episodes enough. Go check those out. If you're interested, if your intrigue is peaked by any of this, it is really interesting stuff. But I think also, you know, the last 100 years have been hyper-novel, as Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying say in their book, A Hundreder Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century.

And that's blinded us to the reality of the spiritual world in certain ways. So Rod's book is really great on this, Life and Wonder, Living in Wonder, I think is what it's called. It's excellent. Jesse says in a little over a week, I will be completing my conversion to Catholicism at Easter Eve Vigil. An aspect of the faith I still struggle with is speaking about the issue of life. I'm a Gen X male who grew up in deep blue New York. It's hardwired into me that Christianity of being pro-life equals disrespecting women and their rights.

When confronted by liberals about my conversion and issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, I usually just take the position of, well, I'm not planning on having an abortion or getting same-sex married. I chose Catholicism because of its message of peace and peace. and dignity for the poor, I figure being comfortable with hot button social issues comes in time. We'll come in time. Do you have any advice as a conservative woman of faith? Well, this is a really good question, Jesse, because I've basically been Christian in a blue city for, I don't know, like 15 years. So it's something I've had to think about a lot and probably wouldn't have had to think about a lot if I never left home. And many people, you know, live where they grew up and they grew up in red areas, culturally similar areas and the like.

So I just have been thrust into a world where you're confronted with that a lot. And I would say on abortion, I definitely recommend Christopher Hitchens' work. I always recommend Christopher Hitchens' work. He says, you know, basically, what is the entity after implantation? Two questions. Is it alive and is it human? Okay. So then you have a human life.

And when do you think it's okay to take a human life? And some people will go all the way to the logical conclusion, saying, well, if you don't have brainwaves, if you don't have a heartbeat, and they get to the territory where you're basically talking about people in comas, elderly people who are in vegetative states and alike. And they will push it that far and be honest about it. But that makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it puts the power to end human life, you know, of people who are. aren't capable of making that decision for themselves in other people's hands. And for me, drawing those lines is not our job. So unless it's self-defense, of course. And that's one of the other reasons that, you know, I love the message of the gospel. Yeah, it's blessed or blessed with the peacemakers. And so I totally understand, especially

if you listen to pro-lifers that get ignored by the mainstream media, do a very good job of elevating the voices of people who have just been exploited by the abortion industry. Again, these stories often get totally ignored. People in inner cities who are exploited by the abortion industry. People who take Miffipa Prestone, who aren't warned and regret it. When they see what looks like a baby in their toilets, it's really, really horrible. horrible, horrible. So the issue just doesn't get treated with the fairness and fullness it deserves. And I know a lot of people who, as they look into it more, become parents themselves who go through

ultrasounds and they'll change their minds on it. So I always just recommend, you know, telling people to read more, giving them more sources, to think more about it. And one of the great things that I've heard from my pastor is I don't get to change this book. This book changes me. And we were talking a lot about religion today. So I'll probably try to keep this short. But I like that formulation, because if you believe historically that Jesus Christ died and rose again, boom, you don't get to change the book. The book gets to change you. Like, that's the predicate, that there was a human being who walked the earth, who rose from the dead. And if you believe that that is historically true, as again, there are historians who believe that. There is read Case for Christ. That does a really

good job with this. Tom Holland has done a good job with this. Many have done a good job with this. But if you believe that, nothing has changed the world like that one event in human history. And so you don't get to change the book. Book gets to change you. There are a lot of ways to think about it. But I think always just going deeper and you're recommending reading. I feel like that's a really good way to do it because it's coming from a place of humility saying, I read this and it changed the way I thought about something. and or I read this and I hadn't heard X, Y, and Z before. So that would be my advice.

Congrats, Jesse, that's awesome. Let's see. Howard says that I viewed your comments on the CBS evening news having less than 4 million viewers and how bad that is being curious. I checked to see how many viewers the program had back in the glory days as Walter Cronkite. 30 million. I guess they didn't call him the voice of God for nothing. Oh my gosh, that is something else.

And it looks like Howard also asked when there is a briefing at the White House or some other situation where reporters are gathered, they listen to comments to the president or maybe the press second and there's an opportunity for questions. I know that as a member of a major news organization, they're entitled to attend a report on the news. But when it comes to time for questions, each reporter raises their hand and waits to be called on. So if the president or other official knows that a certain reporter is going to be miserable, why call on them? Well, if they're from one of the major networks, you kind of have to deal with them because there's this constant tug of war happening behind the scenes with the press secretary, the press team, the entire administration really, and that network. So the administration is constantly trying to give as little as possible, and they're trying to get as much as possible. So that involves making deals and compromises. We'll let you interview this person at this time.

We'll give you 10 minutes on camera. We'll give you a comment for this article. The way it works behind the scenes is actually very political. on an interpersonal level. And so it's just an easy thing to do because you can predict what the networks are going to ask 10 times out of 10. And usually the big papers, too.

Trump likes the fight, so he'll call on people who are going to spar with him just about any time. But the networks typically end up asking similar versions of the same questions because they all want a clip on the same issue for their nightly news broadcast or their morning news broadcast.

So it's just something, like it's pretty, easy for most presidents to take their questions. And that's an insult to them, by the way. So that's where it comes from. Now, it's also not unusual for a president to kind of know they should call on one person or the other. People saw when Biden actually had, I think, the name of who was going to call on or a list at one point. That's, again, not entirely unusual because it's part of the negotiations that the press team has with the reporters. What shouldn't be happening is they're asking the reporters what the reporters are going to ask. Sometimes I know that they'll ask for a topic. And I don't think I've ever been asked for a topic.

But sometimes I've heard of that happening. And hopefully the reporters aren't giving them the exact question and that they're not asking for the exact question. But it does happen where they'll have a list because it's like they want to make sure Biden or whomever it is. I don't know if Trump's ever done it. I think he has gets to this person or this person or this person because they said they would likely get a question, something like that. Let's see. Howard says, I was surprised to find you were into hunting and fishing. This was in the independent women profile who knew when the apocalypse comes, you will be all set. That is quite a change from the woods of Wisconsin to the madhouse at D.C. So the profile, this happens sometimes.

I don't remember exactly what I said. It did make it sound at one point like I was hunting and fishing every weekend. And hopefully I didn't say anything to that extent, but sometimes things get lost in translation. Translation. Now, my father hunts literally every weekend that you could possibly hunt. It's, yes. I've only been hunting a couple of times. It's boring and cold. Fishing all the time growing up. My grandma lived on a lake, and we were up there. For a while, we were, my dad was like remodeling my grandma's place. So we were up there when I was a kid for a couple of years like every weekend. Love fishing as a kid. Love fishing as a kid. So much fun. I do it pretty much every time I get back to the lake. But my brother was more the fisher than I was. I think what I said was

something to extensive like that's what my family grew up doing. That's what I grew up doing with my family. No, I would have said that's what my family did when I was growing up. And it's true. It's just like with my brother, he was like obsessed with fishing. And the profile was me saying that was partially I would see the stereotypes of like redneck Christians with guns who were hunting and fishing in the media. And it just drove me crazy. And it was a fixture during the Obama era. And it's one of the reasons I did when I come to Washington, D.C. I get into that in the profile.

You can go read it at the IW website. If you're interested, you haven't seen it yet, go ahead over there. There's nothing I hate more than taking pictures and answering questions about myself. So that's why it's a little painful, as you can probably tell. This is from Craig, who says, you don't need my recommendations, but I feel compelled to throw this out here. A few people I would love to see you have in the show. Sarah Isger. She's on the dispatch a lot, balances out their typical egg-headed knee-jurkey, never-Trumpism.

She seems to actually understand why people vote Trump over-establishment type politicians. I think Sarah Isgar does understand that better than most people in never-trumpism. Trump circles because she does focus groups. This is my commentary on it. So that was suggested to me at some point not long ago and I kind of blanched at it. Maybe I should reconsider it. Maybe I should reconsider it. We'll see. I guess I still find it a little bit. What's the best word? Sometimes bad faith, but I might be judging too harshly. So maybe I'll take another look. Carl Cannon from RCP. I know you've mentioned him a few times. I'm a faithful RCP listener as well. I'd love to get Carl's unhindered perspective on things. I don't know that you want it to be that unhindered.

Carl Cannon is great. Listen to the RCP show. Carl Cannon is one of the most interesting people that I know. He's like the dosat case man. So if you want the insights from somebody who's been in Washington journalism for decades and at some of the highest levels, Clinton administration, I mean, this man has seen it all. Bush administration, Trump, Obama, he knows the stuff up and down and has met every interesting person in politics. He's fascinating. So I do recommend the RCP show. And then Craig says Phil Wegman from RCP, look up straight shooter. And you see Phil's picture, dude's reporting is top notch. Well, Craig, that is a great recommendation. Philip, unfortunately, can't come on the show because he is my boyfriend. That's just not a good idea.

You don't mix work impersonal like that. We've been together a long time. Love Phil. Literally love Phil. He is great. Everybody should follow his. work if they haven't yet. He's on social media. He's a great Twitter account. If you like scoops and Dillian News updates, he is the best. So it's a really good suggestion, Craig. Unfortunately, not going to do that one. All right, here we go. Daryl Davis. This one's from John, who says Daryl Davis says Trump is a racist. He seems like an honest broker and I'm willing to hear him out. Give me examples. You could have respectively followed up on that statement, but you did not. Why? This one is from Sabina, who says, well, I appreciate you're challenging me to listen to people I disagree with.

The conversation with Daryl Davis was a bit frustrating. One example, when he said that a European artist who was trying to bring to the U.S. was afraid to come here, you did not ask why or push back. On the one hand, I really want to know why. On the other, it sounded like hyperbole. This one is from Sarah. I'm not kidding. There are a lot of questions here. I don't want to take anything away from Mr. Davis's work and bringing people together. and I understand your point in this conversation was more likely was likely more interview than confrontational, but I felt there were so many contradictions in strongmen in the conversation that it was difficult to finish. He began by calling Trump a racist and later claimed we need to get back to the original definition of racist. That's an interesting observation, Sarah. I'll flag that for people to keep in mind.

You go on to say, Sarah, maybe he does criticize the left as you claim, and I'm never opposed to pointing out Trump's of the rights contradiction, feelings, but it's difficult to hear criticism that seems to come from a mild case of TDS and is sprinkled with contradictions and take it seriously. Just my two cents, and I appreciate you interviewing a variety of people, but it may have been interesting to even lightly push back on some of his assertions. Let's see, what else do we have here? Hank says, you show the other night with Daryl Davis was that, dot, dot, dot, interesting. It's nice that he's been the impetus to disabuse Klansmen and Nazis of their obviously vile beliefs, at least.

someone thought it was worth trying, but he's really going after the low-hanging fruit, isn't he? I mean, how much influence to the clan and Nazi party have in 2026? Hank suggests he picks up a copy of Jack Castle's untenable. Cuddle me skeptical that any European musicians are afraid to come to America. If they are, what information are they consuming that caused the sphere? I'll just interject Hank. I honestly don't doubt that one bit. Like, you guys know, I'm a columnist at Unheard, which is based in London.

And so I do absorb a good bit of chatter from across the pond. And it doesn't surprise me one bit. There's so much fear-mongering. I mean, you've seen Davos and EU meetings. There's so much fear-mongering about the United States. Certainly not from unheard, but from people in Europe. They really have stereotypical beliefs about Europe. So it wouldn't surprise me at all about that.

So that's Hank. This one is from Sybil. I admire you for bringing such a range of things. guests on your podcast while your conversation with Daryl Davis was fascinating. I was disappointed that you didn't impress him on that claim is Trump is that Trump is racist. I don't believe it. And I kept waiting for you to ask him why he believes this, especially in light of so many black people supporting him. You could have also asked him if he thought Biden was racist. Yes, Biden said, if you don't vote for me, you ain't black. Were you so impressed by him and his work

that you didn't want to push back on such an incendiary claim? Or do you just agree with him that Trump is a racist? Either way, I'll keep listening to your podcast. Thanks for a response. Well, thank you, Sybil. Let's see if we have any more in Daryl Davis questions. Oh, Sarah, I read, I think I already read Sarah's email. Sarah sent another email to apologize for that email. No, Sarah, don't apologize for being critical in your emails and for giving critical feedback. I don't mind it at all. I appreciate it. Looking for anything else here. Yeah, okay, so I think I just got through all of the Daryl comments. Thanks for writing in. Like I just said in response to Sarah, I really don't mind it. I appreciate

it. And when Darrell said, when he made the claim that Donald Trump is a racist on the show, I immediately started formulating in my head ways to politely push back on Darrell. And what was the question I was going to ask him? Well, I was going to ask a couple of times. I wanted to ask a version of this. Many black Americans did. disagree with you that Donald Trump is a racist. And then I was going to work that into the question about the definition of racism, which we got to at the end. And one of you noted, he said at the end, he believes the left uses too broad a definition of racism. Sometimes when you're doing interviews, your mind, especially longer interviews, is going in a million different directions. And when you

want to frame a question in a particular way, you forget. So that did happen at the end. I did mean to worked that into the question at the end. I didn't do it in the moment because we were having like a flowing discussion about bigger picture things than Trump, to be honest. I didn't really want to talk about Trump in that conversation at all. I probably shouldn't have even used Trump as a news hook, to be honest, because it's distracting sometimes from the bigger issue. But this is all, like Monday morning quarterbacking myself. I don't mind you all Monday morning quarterbacking me at all. I didn't mean that in a majority of way. That's what the email inboxes for. But, you know, these interviews are just, I try to be pretty casual in my interviews

and to have a conversation that's not so much heated. But I think it would have been great to ask Darrell that question. I don't at all deny that I think it would have been great to ask Darrell that question. But the flow of a conversation, that is always paramount to me, as opposed to getting in every disagreement. So I usually err on the side of conversation unless it's a public figure that is like a politician or somebody who has like significant influence over our daily lives, like a CEO or something like that, then I will always prioritize accountability over conversation. And it's honestly why on a conversational show like After Party, it was supposed to be pretty casual. I don't do too many politician interviews.

We do them on breaking points. But yeah, that's and that's a different story, right, by the way, because we're left right. and you have to prioritize what gets asked and when you interrupt and all of that stuff, yeah, based on handing off questions between one person and another. But, yeah, with Daryl, I actually don't disagree with any of you. I think it would have been really interesting to get his point on that. In fact, I wanted to ask him in the moment to get his point on that. And when the conversation was flowing, I said, I will work that into this question that I have

towards the end of the interview. And then it honestly just slipped my mind. So that's why I should probably have a piece of paper in front of me because when you type things out, I just don't tend to remember them that much. But, you know, again, I feel like that's, I don't think it was wrong to not ask that question. Respectfully, I guess disagree. You know, I think it would have been better to ask that question. I think it would have been interesting to get his answer to that question. But would say I respectfully disagree that it was wrong not to ask it if anybody disagrees with that because he's much more interesting than Trump. his experiences are much more interesting than Trump and for me the goal of the conversation I don't disagree that maybe there's a little I think with Trump I mean the other thing is by the way

this is something that was going through my mind during the interview as well Trump has said many things I do not think people are wrong to say that sounds racist same with if you said Biden saying what he said that one of you pointed out if you don't vote for me, you ain't black. I mean, what was the other thing Biden said?

If you, in my state, you can't walk into a 7-Eleven without having a slight Indian accent. You haven't seen that video of Joe Biden. That's a good one, too. But Trump has said a lot of things that many people take his jokes. I get it. But I'm not going to litigate every quote that Donald Trump has ever said. And I think actually there's a, that's part of the reason I wanted to build it into the bigger question about the definition of racism because then it wouldn't be a back on forth on, well, how can you say this isn't racist or that isn't racist? Because Trump says, he talks like no other politician. So anyway, that's my answer to the question. I didn't think it was worth. I think if you asked that question in the moment, you end up litigating specifics. But I did want to bring it in to the end because I do think it's genuinely interesting. Although I was glad to hear Daryl say he believes the left operates. on too big of a definition of racism, too broad of a definition of racism. And overall, that was the purpose of the discussion. If you want to hear Daryl Moore in like an even longer format, he's done Rogan a couple of times and they are incredible. He goes into more depth about the, a couple of the stories he told on the show. He goes into even more depth about

them. They're utterly fascinating. And he just has the street cred, especially with a lot of people on the left who I think need to hear his message. So that's why I wanted to bring him on the show and talk to him about that. Again, I think there are people on the left who really need to listen to what he's gone through, people he's talked to, and where he comes down on still having conversations, still never giving up on people. And I listened to his latest Rogan when all of the Heritage Foundation controversy was brewing last fall. And it was just like, I think that's when we invited him on the show, because I was really moved by his Rogan episode amidst all of this conversation on the right about purging this person and purging that person and the like.

So anyway, that's a little background of the interview, but I don't necessarily disagree with the emails that you sent. Thanks so much. Like, I really don't mind the criticism. All right, Abe says, listening to your interview with Malice just now, love that guy. So glad you brought up the made-up T. Carlson quote. It was just posted on Instapundit and the comments are all, what happened to Tucker? Let's see. It goes on to say, tribalism is. is killing the country. Yeah, right now, Abe, thanks for the email. I'm getting backlash on X from people saying the same thing. Like, oh, Tucker did defend Sharia, X, Y, and Z. Even if you think that his general sentiment has been more pro-Islam than you agree with, even if you think that,

it still matters that people told a blatant and spread, told and spread a blatant lie about a quote that put words into his mouth. Your argument is weaker if you're not arguing. against the actual quote. So it's bad for everybody. If you take a verbatim quote and put it in someone's mouth falsely, that is not good for anyone. That is what we talked about on the right for the last 10 years about the importance of truth. If you are not starting from the same foundational point of truth, then you are already off to a bad start when you are in arguments or public policy debates or campaigns or efforts to change someone's mind, change the world, and the like. We have to defend truth at all costs as cliched and silly as that sounds. So it is

never okay to put made up words in someone's mouth. People do it for cynical, political reasons, partisan reasons. But it's not okay. It's never okay. Even if you think Tucker has defended Sharia on other occasions, you don't say he said something he didn't. It's not good for anybody. So again, thanks for the email, Abe. Marlowe says it was challenging. It was challenging. for me to listen to Daryl Davis as I deeply disagreed with some of the strong opinions. It makes me wonder in all of his hundreds of conversations with those who oppose him, did he ever become aware of his own cognitive dissentance? You know, it is funny.

We all have our blind spots, right? I think pretty much everybody has their blind spots. You see it with some of the, like, intellectual dark web people who have been anti, you know, group think, conformity, partisanship, and then fall into partisan traps. You know, Daryl's job isn't debating Trump. with people. So I don't know that he's ever tried to like pull people away from the Trump world and found common ground with them on that. So he's, I think he's usually more focused on, you know, people saying that black people are inferior and the like. So he maybe just hasn't, it has been

incorporated into his work heavily. Marlowe says, if I myself wondering how the left believe their intentions and policies are helpful to American citizens, am I experiencing cognitive dissonance because I don't support a single thing they do. Did you catch the weave there? Well, yeah, let's just pinpoint exactly your question, Marlowe, when you said American citizens. I think a lot of the left tends to see themselves more as part of a global community, and that increasingly, and that explains why immigration under Biden happened as it did, because they prioritize the well-being of the world ahead of the well-being of Americans. And we should care about the well-being of the world, but we can't balance every single other

country's concerns at the detriment of the American citizen. And so this is like my steelman perspective on the left's immigration policy is that they really believe that borders are unjust, or, you know, the kinds of borders that we've had in this country are unjust. And you should have the freedom of movement. You're a citizen of the world. You're a citizen of the world, you're born to the world, not a particular country, and the like. Tom Holland might argue that's actually a hyper-Christian argument. All have sinned in false role of the glory of the God in the way that Christ universalized human dignity. So maybe some folks would make that argument, which is interesting. But I think really it's just the globe has totally shrunk to a point

we're now everybody because of technology can see what's happening around the rest of the world. It's demanding. We are demanded to think about the rest of the world at every given moment. And that can have an effect on the way we, yeah, of course, the way we see the world. So anyway, I see it more downstream of that than anything else. All right, let's see. Got a few more here. Hank sends a Bovart article in the American Mind.

Rachel's a national treasure, albeit a slightly obsessed treasure, I love her writing, and how she knows the history of her speciality and how to explain it so a layman can understand. Yeah, Beauvard wrote a great article for American Mind on how the media botched its coverage of the Save Act debate. Go ahead, check that out at Americanmind.org. It was fantastic. I texted Rachel about it this morning, and she said it was literally her Super Bowl. her recall of Senate history is just incredible. Great stuff. All right. Richard says, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Werta scandal, here we go. Amazing how little attention this is getting.

Yeah, that's a good point. Unfortunately, this activity is way too common in the Mexican-American migrant community. None are surprised because most families have experienced and buried it. Oh, I'm so sorry. The goal of the story is not justice. It's to cause the retreat. The real question. is who does the retreat benefit? Yeah, Richard, we talked about this a little bit last week. I want to say it was on Happy Hour when I said, I think part of the reason it's easier for the left right now to discard Caesar Chavez is that he was against, there's debate over how much this changed, but he was for much of his career against illegal immigration because it was undercutting the wages of American citizen workers who were Chicano. So, that's, yeah,

So many such cases on the left until rather recently. So I think that's partially why people are a little bit trigger-happy on this one. I do think also to your point, migrant communities are really, really vulnerable. It's part of the reason why we shouldn't allow a system or we shouldn't have a system that allows for such wide-scale human trafficking. It's part of the reason why our system about asylum, it just allows people to be exploited. sanctuary cities allow people to be exploited. Labor policies allow people to be exploited. I don't, I think actually there are different directions of the e-verified debate, even among

hawks. There are different, that debate's actually pretty complicated. But I will say, so many employees relying on illegal labor is just, it allows so many people to be exploited. And so then I think it does risk becoming a culture in those advocacy communities. because it's baked into the culture when you have people dealing with so many people who are easily exploitable. So, yeah, it's an interesting point. And I agree it's really not getting a lot of coverage either.

I feel like the left just wants to bury Cesar Chavez and move on. Rod Dreher, who I mentioned earlier, had a good rundown of MLK's problem on this front as well. In his newsletter, it would have been his Thursday newsletter. So you can go check that out. All right. Let's see. What else do we have? Looks like we have a couple more.

This is from, this one's from Zach. I live in South Carolina where Senator Lindsay Blazing Guns Graham is for re-election. He seems yet to have a viable primary challenger. As a father with young boys, I can't imagine supporting a candidate so war-hungry. As an America first conservative, I feel like I don't have a party anymore. What advice would you have to conservatives feel like the conservative movement went neocon overnight? night. Yeah, yeah, it does seem like the tone of the last five years has been kind of thrown out the window. And I'm just talking about the tone. Yeah, that was part of the conversation we had on the

show many times with Trump and Iran, meaning I think a lot of people took from him saying, I'm not going to start new wars, I'm going to end wars, while also being hawkish on Iran, because he has been, is basically that he prioritized not starting new wars. And some people would still say that's true of him, that he had to do this. One of you wrote in earlier. He had to do this when he did it. I think Sue wrote that in earlier. So I hear that argument, too, but it does feel like the tone has at least shifted. We've gone to not so much talking about no new war is to defending what was pretty clearly a new war for a while. They were trying not to call it a war, just refer to it as what, Epic Fury. But that's, I think, getting more difficult.

because the president is referred to it that way and the like. So anyway, my advice, you just as a journalist, I can see how people calling offices and complaining works. You've got to make yourself competitive with the donors. It's an uphill battle, but the donors who are in the ear of people who have been in the Senate for a really long time, those are other people who have their phone numbers and are texting them and calling them.

But you can balance that out by calling and writing in and the like. That does really matter. to the offices. So if you're so inclined, it can't hurt to give the office a call, have your friends give the office a call. If you're involved at like the grassroots level, local conservative groups, conservative churches, you know, to have those conversations with the local movement. If you're involved, or if you want to get involved, or if you've been thinking about it, that can't hurt either. Yeah, it's really tough when someone's so entrenched like Lindsay Graham is. He's had primary challenges over the years, none of which, and I think he has what Paul Danz, used to at the Heritage

Foundation, challenging him. And Paul Danz is a somewhat polarizing figure on the right. So I don't know. I never see Lindsey Graham primary challengers as serious, even as polarizing as Lindsey Graham is on the right, just because he is so entrenched. People keep trusting him who have voted for him for years. So I don't know. I don't know. Maybe work on, I guess maybe my advice is to work on others. who seem maybe persuadable because that's what happened, frankly, to Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance. Marco Rubio changed his foreign policy. And listen, he's still very hawkish on Latin America. That hasn't changed one bit. That hasn't changed one bit. But I watched this happen up close in the Senate. He clearly rethought the full-throated neoconservatism that he had espoused before.

he had people around him who were bringing up different issues, different issues, and the Trump movement, I think, did in some people inspire humility. I think Rubio was one of them. So, you know, I would say to, it also helps to call up persuadable members who might represent you in the House or in the Senate. That can't hurt either. And to, you know, have hope that it'll change at some point down the line. Again, you know, I tend to be more anti-interventionist. And part of it is just because, you know, like everyone, I hate war and I was born at a time where I saw the country in a lot of it and in a really unfortunate way. And I know a lot of people were born before me or maybe born after me. I don't even remember that. But I think that's probably colored my perspective on it. But, you know, I'm not totally anti-interventionist, right?

Like, I'm not against literally everything. Every use of military force, there'd certainly be a, depending on how an invasion of Taiwan went, a potential necessity to do it to keep the lights on, so to speak, here in the United States. But rather than just rolling over. But anyway, yeah, it's a, I do think the GOP has to shift just because we're in 10 years as Zoomers age and vote more and even younger people are. are voting and in the workforce, it's just going to change. So I think it's a transition period. This is from Dylan, who asks if I have thoughts on David Brooks's Bobo's in Paradise. Dylan says, I think he does a fairly sharp analysis of the boomer ethos. Yeah, I have read it. To me, I read it later. I think I probably read it in 2017. So some of it

just sounded like, okay. Or probably 2018, maybe even when I read it. And I think that was from, Let me go find the date on that. So I think it's probably fair to say it was prescient. Yeah, let's see. What is the date? Yeah, 2000. That was written in 2000. So probably fair to say it was prescient.

He did have a front row seat to it in the American elite at the time. But, you know, I think also people forget that the conservative movement was talking about this. You know, it wasn't just Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Russ Perot either. this was there were a lot of for years right the conservative movement was saying the media is snobbish elitish smug looking down their noses at middle america and that was happening at the time so i don't know that maybe i'm just this maybe this is cope for not wanting to give uh david brooks his due uh because david brooks is obviously intelligent uh and compelling and interesting uh but i think maybe just by the time i read it it all seemed so obvious i don't remember

any specific criticisms of it other than that. Okay, yep, I get it. But anyway, that's, it's a good recommendation if you're interested in the subject. It's sort of like an essential read. If you're into like the Charles Murray, Robert Putnam, class-based social science, Tim Carney is alienated in America. These are all books that people should definitely read. Let's see, what else do we have? I think we have one or two more. Stephen says if you're stranded on a deserted island, it can only bring one meme, what would it be? That's a good one. Maybe Jim Downey, the Conan Jim Downey meme.

I love that one, right? Where it's like someone gets identified in a really specific way and then you put it into the meme and you're like, Donald Trump, the celebrity apprentice host, Donald Trump, that's a really, really weak example of it. But wait, I did one. the other week that I thought was pretty good. This was, yeah, this was a Jim Downey Mead where someone posted 2007, what a time, and it was a screenshot of an article that Matt Iglesias, we don't know Matt Iglesias, he's the butt of a lot of jokes online and has been for like

basically his whole career. He's sort of a neoliberal, aggressive, relentless centrist and owns all the criticism of himself. It came out of the blogging era. And this was a him braggy, about being named to one of Playboys, Girls of the Pack 10 issue. Like, his blog was featured in Playboys, Girls of the Pack 10 issue. And I used the Jim Downey meme. He said, Matthew Iglesias, the man whose blog was once featured in Playboys, Girls with the Pack 10 issue? I don't even know how this one started.

I really don't know how. Now I'm explaining and bragging about my own memes on Happy Hour. We've reached that portion of the podcast. I don't even know how that happened. But like the meme, I don't know how that happened, but that is one of my absolute favorites, absolute favorites. So it might be the Conan Jim Downey meme. There's so many good ones. All right. Last question. Katie says, I'm genuinely confused about this and can't get a straight answer from anyone. I went through the list posted on the White House official site about the history of the attacks by Iran on America.

For the last 50 years, even if you include all Iranian-back terrorist groups, you get about 1,100 Americans killed by Iran. We called that many Iranians in June after the 12-day war, and we started this war by mortaring 170 schoolgirls. If you include all the groups we've backed, you'd need to include the Iranians killed by Saddam Hussein. Has Iran ever attacked us without provocation? How does this constitute a threat to us? We could their government made them, oh, couped, I think their government made them live under a dictator for decades, sanctioned the howled of them and slaughtered over 100 of the children and now are pretending to be the victims. What am I missing? Katie is echoing a pretty common sentiment that I've seen, not that I've seen that everyone's seen.

I think from the left, Glenn Greenwald did a great debate with Coleman Hughes. on Coleman's conversations with Coleman podcast this week. And Glenn expresses a version of this that I think is a pretty, like it's one of the best iterations of the argument. Now, I don't agree with it completely because it's obviously complicated when you're a nuclear power and you don't want there to be other nuclear powers because you're the nuclear power. and that threatens your power.

And you also have now the, quote, death to America, death to Israel ideology of a lot of people in Iran, which, again, we and the British, in the 1950s, for what was a much more compelling reason at the time, cooed, helped coup, assisted in the coup,

of the Iranian government. of Mosaddeg. And yes, there are questions about Mossadegh and whatever. But we did that because we didn't want someone working with the Soviets. And we were very paranoid about anybody working with the Soviets.

You know, whether it was in Argentina or Chile or Cuba or I mean, all of these Cold War conflicts. Indonesia, Sukarno stem from that.

And sometimes it was paranoia. At the time, and I think this is where the Cold War history of the left really does lose something, the paranoia was much more compelling because nuclear was much more rational. It's funny to say rational paranoia, but it was much more rational because we were terrified. We didn't have all the nuclear agreements that we have today, although I think we should still be terrified of nuclear power. But we didn't have all that in place. It was so brand new, so brand new, that nobody. I mean, it was a terrifying time. Kids doing the nuclear drills under their desks in school and the like.

So I think in the early stages of the Cold War, it was much more rational. But Iran never forgot that. And it's what led to 1979, because the Shah, who, you know, I think it's probably reasonable to say, was probably better than the Ayatollah on human rights, still had a lot of human rights abuses under his leadership. And people were furious. and they saw him as an agent of the people who had cooed Mossadegh. And after that, everything went to hell. It's not completely surprising.

But in America, nobody knows about the history of the 50s. Like, it's not that nobody knows about it. I guess we just don't talk about it. But that factors heavily in the Iranian mind. Not everyone is continuously bothered by it or is continually bothered by it or thinks that it's some reason to stick around, with the IRGC, but it weighs heavier on the Iranian mind that it does the American mind. And to some extent, they do see that as the original provocation, the original provocation.

And it was about nationalizing oil. It really goes back to that. And so if you follow the trail, the question of provocation becomes kind of semantic, but it becomes interesting. And there are different perspectives on it historically and alike. The far left sort of sees America as the terrorist regime. I don't. We commit war crimes. And because we're the biggest power, we do it on a big scale.

Or we have historically done it on a big scale, bigger than other countries who are not as powerful. But we are not a terrorist regime. our goal is not terror. When it happens, people are punished. Now, there have been some cases that haven't gone right, but our legal system is built in a way that punishes war crimes. Not to say we're perfect at doing that, but our legal system is built in that way. It isn't our goal to visit terror upon other countries' civilians. It happens more than it should, but it's not our goal. And that is the goal of terrorist groups and terrorist regimes. So once a regime transitions to a terrorist regime, then I think the moral high ground is totally lost. But at the same time, yes, American history is whitewashed. Obviously, American history is whitewashed. There's no question about it. I think some of those things can be true at the same time.

And when it comes to Iran as well, American history is whitewashed. So, yeah, they're, you know, that's, it doesn't, the story doesn't get told accurately. and I think the left misses some on Cold War history. I think the right misses a lot on Cold War history, and Iran is a good example of that. So that topic could take up like hours, but it's a good question, Katie. Thanks so much for sending it in. Appreciate it. Thank you to all of you for listening and sending in your comments to Emily at Devil Maker Media.

com. Tell your friends to subscribe, send them clips from the show. You can do that really easily on Instagram if you're a meme fiend in the DMs like I am. That's a good one. That's the Instagram helps share the show. if you are so inclined to help share the show. Hope you all have a great weekend. God bless.

We'll see you back here with more on Monday.