Ross Douthat says Trump's Christian Nationalism just needs more Christian in it

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:10 Thomas: And welcome to opening arguments This is Vapid Response Wednesday. I'm Thomas, that over there's real-life attorney Matt Cameron, immigration attorney. How you doing?

0:00:20 Matt: Right, Thomas, just having a December kind of a day, just got no heat in the office. So I'm enjoying a nice cold 13 degrees or whatever it is out there. Beautiful day in Boston.

0:00:29 Lydia: My gosh. Wow.

0:00:31 Thomas: Another slow day in a slow, uh, work the industry of immigration law, I'm sure. What do you do to pass the time?

0:00:41 Matt: Just watching the clock, man. That's all I can do all day.

0:00:43 Thomas: Wait until you can punch out, go home. Yeah, how's it going, Lydia?

0:00:47 Lydia: Good. I'm sitting in my heat, heat working location in a balmy 40, 43 degrees, 45 degrees in California.

0:00:58 Thomas: We have actual What you would almost register as cold here, it's

0:01:01 Matt: That sounds great.

0:01:01 Lydia: I will say it is a little chilly when I go outside and I have to pick up the kids. It's it's like it's shocking, you know?

0:01:02 Thomas: It's a little chilly yeah there's a Chill in the air. Yeah, it's, this is my favorite. I wish it was 50 degrees all the time. That's what I want. I want 50 degrees and everyone's like, no, wouldn't you want like 72, It's like now, because if I start walking, then I'm hot. I want, I want it to be cold. Like the default should be a little cold. And then when I start moving, then it'll be perfect. That's how I want to make it happen.

0:01:17 Lydia: Like overcast. No. Yeah. I think that's a good idea. All right.

0:01:30 Thomas: Somebody as soon as climate change.

0:01:31 Lydia: Well, Democrats, right? Democrats control the weather.

0:01:34 Thomas: Yeah. I need, we got to pick the, the proper, um, biome or whatever. Like when climate change hits another few degrees, you know, we'll just go to the right, the right place. It might be, it might be Boston, you Know, that might be the perfect temperature.

0:01:43 Lydia: So, yeah, yeah. Do that and daylight savings time at the same time. Like just kind of fix everything. Yeah.

0:01:51 Matt: Unfortunately for now, Republicans control the weather, but we'll see.

0:01:54 Lydia: Dang

0:01:54 Thomas: Yeah. Well, speaking of, what are we, what vapid nonsense are we responding to this week?

0:02:00 Matt: Well, this week we have to ask, is the United States not quite Christian enough? Very important question. And also, are we too empathetic? These seem like too

0:02:10 Lydia: It. Very important questions.

0:02:10 Thomas: Two prank questions to ask in the year 2025. You know, it reminds me, we just had a Where There's Woke we did that'll be out shortly, where Bill Maher was giving examples of how we already have so much socialism, you know, in our government.

0:02:15 Matt: Much.

0:02:25 Thomas: In the year 2025 in the United States, it's almost 2026 and it's like people don't realize we have so much socialism, it's like, is this a prank? That's the, if, we have not enough Christianity, we have not enough empathy, or too much empathy, I get, or no, yeah, we've too much empathy and apparently too much socialism as well I don't know what world these people are living in yeah

0:02:24 Lydia: There's plenty. Yeah it's enough. Yeah Matt, Matt I have to I have to give you a sneak peek. One of the things he listed as socialism was the military-industrial complex. So, you know, yeah,

0:02:53 Thomas: That's that's what I think of when I I want more socialism uh

0:02:58 Lydia: That's a very interesting example.

0:02:58 Matt: And yeah. But healthcare is, if anything, too cheap. We should be raising rates. We just look into how to make more money off of it. Yeah, Good. We've also got a classic Josh Hammer joint, one of our new favorite stars here on the conservative right, explaining exactly why Pete Hegseth is not a war criminal. I'm sure you'll find it very convincing. We'll see.

0:03:05 Lydia: So good. Position to take

0:03:20 Thomas: Once again, I feel like he is a war criminal. I get it. You're punking me. We're just it's opposite day here. I mean, I guess that's every day, really. Looking forward to all that. And of course, we have the patrons, the ones who make it all happen. Love doing these shout outs. So happy to be back to it. And so as we go. Into our first break, I'm going to thank our patrons. We do a third of our Hall of Famers each break. And those Hall of Famers, by the way, are those who pledge at the five dollar level and above for at least a month on patreon.com/law. They make the show happen. Join their ranks. All right. Thank you to the Office of Arbitrary and Capricious PC. PC? What would that mean? The Arbitrary and Capricious PC. There's no legal. There is only Zuul.

0:03:26 Matt: We're seeing.

0:04:09 Thomas: I like a lot of that, but I feel like I'm missing something. I love the Ghostbusters reference though. Vetinari for America 2028, One Man, One Vote. Alec. UnreMerkable. Aminah. Donna Treadaway, Mother of Harridans. Protect trans kids. Deep Space Nine was the best Star Trek. I love that. That's great. Cause it's like a good message. And then also sneaking in a quick Star Trek opinion.

0:04:13 Matt: That's a company, right? A PC.

0:04:32 Thomas: Fantastic. That is the best use of the shout out.

0:04:31 Lydia: Opinion yeah yeah get people fighting in the comments yeah I see you

0:04:38 Thomas: Mike Lapinsky, race fast, safe car. Oh, wow. Wait, that can't be right. Wait. Wait? Is that, does that work? Race? Oh, well, yeah. Cause the T's exactly in the middle. Okay. I was thinking there was only only one T, but that's the middle of your palindrome there. That's the foundation on which the palindrom is constructed.

0:04:49 Lydia: The tea oh interesting yeah man

0:05:00 Thomas: Sionitus, normalized bidirectional spooning, always good. Fourth Circuit attorney reluctantly changing her font. Charlie Kelly, attorney at Byrd Law, Apprentice of Adventure, Probably a real person. Nick Fish, unfrozen caveman lawyer. And how many many chunks would, how many chunks would a chunk hunk thunk if a chunk hunk could thunk chunks? There we go. That's a hard one. I was not ready for how hard that would be. So those are our amazing patrons making the show happen. Thank you so much. And with that, we'll take our first quick break and then we'll get to it. Where do we begin here?

0:05:28 Lydia: That is tough all

0:05:37 Matt: All right. Today's amuse-douche is brought to us by Allie Beth Stuckey, a voice on the conservative right who's got some opinions about empathy. Now, she wrote an entire book about what she calls toxic empathy. She said that empathy is only an emotion, which isn't even true because empathy really is kind of a thing you have to do. It's an action.

0:05:55 Thomas: Also, Paul Bloom or whatever wrote the Against Empathy book. Already. They already did this.

0:06:00 Matt: It has been done.

0:06:00 Lydia: A biter I've been waiting to say biter for a long time actually like biter like you copy somebody I don't know it's just like a I'm trying to bring like the old slang that I used to say and like oh yeah that's from when I I was in high school yeah yeah you're a biter yeah I guess I don't know it's

0:06:02 Matt: Right. But, oh, wow. Never heard that one. Is that West Coast? Wow. Okay. All right.

0:06:05 Thomas: What? Oh, you're bringing in the, is this a young person thing? Oh, old slang. Biter? All right. Okay. I've also never heard of it. It's probably made up.

0:06:20 Matt: A different part of the West Coast. Okay, yeah.

0:06:23 Lydia: Not anyway she stole the idea it's

0:06:27 Matt: So, I thought this was especially interesting in light of the two pieces we're going to read today, because she's talking about empathy as it relates to policy, which is something that I'm very concerned about as somebody who deals with policy that should be grounded in empathy but is not. So let's just see what she has to say at this event where she's speaking.

0:06:41 Thomas: All Well, once again, it is portrait mode, which is going to ruin my sanity, but I'll make it work.

0:06:46 Lydia: All right I

0:06:49 Clip: Toxic empathy. So my question is, what is the worst thing that toxic empathy has done to our society and how do we as young people fix it? Yes. My argument is not that empathy is always bad, but that it's powerful and it can lead you in a good direction or a bad direction. If you feel so deeply how someone feels, you might end up doing three things, affirming sin, validating lies, or supporting destructive policies.

0:06:52 Lydia: Did yeah

0:07:14 Clip: We see this when it comes to abortion.

0:07:15 Matt: One of these things are

0:07:16 Clip: We We see this when it comes to gender, we see this when it come to sexuality, we see this one it comes immigration and we see this when comes to crime. We feel so badly for the purported victim that is elevated by the media that we forget about the person on the other side of the moral equation. We might feel so badly for person who swears that he is born in the wrong body that we forget about women and girls who are now forced to share a locker room or a bathroom with a male. Or we forget about the consequences of butchering children's bodies and stealing from them their fertility all because we have so much empathy for these children who supposedly believe that they're born in the wrong body so I would say it's hard for me to say what is the worst because it's how women and Christian women justify abortion, it's how they justify transgenderism, it's how they justify redefining marriage and soft-on-crime policies and open

0:07:16 Matt: Not like the other.

0:07:32 Thomas: The criminal?

0:07:33 Lydia: Redefining marriage

0:08:12 Clip: Borders, this toxic empathy. So it has wrought, in the name of good intention, so much destruction and chaos. Christians are not primarily called to empathy. We're called to love. And 1 Corinthians 13:6 says, love never rejoices in sin. It never rejoices in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. So this truth and love dichotomy is what Christians are called to, and it makes us a lot more thoughtful about our politics. So.

0:08:14 Thomas: Open borders. We don't have that.

0:08:38 Matt: So this is toxic, obviously. Sorry to be platforming obvious transphobia here, but the whole idea that empathy-based policy is inherently wrong, or sinful, like obviously you're affirming sin. That's really the thing that she really means is she just doesn't like it. But the idea that by supporting trans teens who would otherwise be at high risk of suicide, by supporting people who want to get married so they can do things like sponsor their partners for immigration purposes, by supporting, I don't know, not having people go to life for prison for stealing a candy bar when it's their third offense. I mean, that kind of thing, that's all bad.

0:09:12 Thomas: It's also just such a jack -off book because it's like well it's um it's not always bad but sometimes okay so like fucking everything uh you could also frame every single one of those things as just empathy in the wrong direction. Okay, well, you have too much empathy for the unborn fetus, and really the problem is that, so the problem's not empathy, it's where you're pointing it, so it's like, all, it's just a useless thing. I, I would argue you have too much empathy for God. You have toxic empathy for God because you're all, you're, you're like, I, I'm so worried about God's feelings. Oh, he's gonna be so upset if I, if I, you know, have sex with the wrong person. He's gonna be sorry. I'm just scared of hurting God's feeling you're being empathetic with the literal least victim there could possibly be, definitionally. God is not, can't be a victim, cannot be a victim, cannot suffer, cannot experience anything bad. God is perfect, immutable, everywhere. So that should be the last person you give a shit about. Everything that we do is inconsequential to God. God has already just maxed all the stats. God's got all the cheat codes. There's nothing we could do that God would give two shits about. He's all powerful. Why would it care? It does no effect on him. You should be empathizing. Is that the word? You should be empathetic

0:09:46 Lydia: He's very sensitive sensitive.

0:10:29 Thomas: Toward word, the people who can actually suffer. Sympathizing is a word, right?

0:10:33 Lydia: Yeah.

0:10:34 Thomas: Empathizing?

0:10:34 Matt: It works works both ways

0:10:35 Thomas: It should be, should be a word. But anyway, yeah, you're just too worried about what God's feeling. Stop worrying about what god is feeling. Stop being so concerned with god's feelings. He doesn't care. He shouldn't care. There's no reason. He's fine.

0:10:35 Matt: And different things, but pretty

0:10:49 Lydia: Now this book came out, what was it, Matt, like two years ago now, I think, Toxic Empathy, but she's still parroting all of these talking points to this day. Like as of today, as we're recording this, December 9th, 2025, she posted this tweet that I'm just going to share with you guys, where it goes even beyond what she said in that clip. There was a man who'd wear a dress while riding his bike in my husband's small town growing up. Everyone knew he was unstable for the simple reason that he was a man wearing a dress. The last thing they would have done is let him around kids. Consider what we call unfair stigma and shame today likely protected countless children and other vulnerable people in generations past. Our unconditional empathy has hurt far more than it's helped.

0:10:54 Matt: Recent. What?

0:11:36 Lydia: What a gross take.

0:11:37 Matt: I, I don't.

0:11:38 Thomas: You know what also resembles a dress is the fucking catholic robes that all the fucking priests are in that actually are the ones abusing kids. We have too much empathy. Our, our, our empathy toward these fucking idiot priests who are, who are abusingkids and then going from church to church and just getting moved around. That's who, that's, who's actually abusing Kids. Look at the fucking stats. God.

0:12:00 Matt: I was, let alone the youth pastor in your small town who wears jeans and a t -shirt every day and does the same stuff. I mean, it's not, I mean the guy in the dress, just having a good time on a bike. What are you, you're pulling him aside and get him off the road.

0:12:12 Thomas: He might just like the airflow. It might be just a dude who, yeah,

0:12:14 Matt: Sounds

0:12:14 Lydia: It might just be a kilt guy. It might just be a kill guy from scotland

0:12:16 Matt: Great Great.

0:12:17 Thomas: It could be a kilt and And then it's all of a sudden normal.

0:12:18 Matt: On a July day? Sure. It's true.

0:12:22 Thomas: Have you seen the shit those priests wear? The Pope and the Catholic priest? That's some weird crap. They're unstable. Don't let kids around someone dressing like that. Look, it's weird. He's cosplaying like he's in some fantasy novel. What is that?

0:12:21 Lydia: Unbelievable yeah

0:12:36 Thomas: That's weird, creeps. Perverts, don't let your kids around them.

0:12:35 Lydia: Yeah so strange yeah dude

0:12:36 Matt: Well, as somebody who cares about good policy, the idea that we want to actively screen out empathy and make sure that empathy is not part of it. I understand to an extent what you're saying, right? You don't want to only empathize with people who do bad things over the people they hurt, obviously. I think we can all agree on that. But the idea that you can't make policy out of empathy is how we get to Josh Hammer, who we'll be looking at in just a moment, who clearly has no empathy whatsoever, or to Ross Douthat, who we now call him.

0:13:08 Matt: That's right, Lydia. But who just refuses to see what's going on, I think, more or less. He's just got his head in the sand. But this is a toxic message in itself, I'm just going to say, and it's a terrible way to make policy. I mean, it's just a means to

0:13:07 Thomas: Dude, I've

0:13:07 Lydia: Hat yeah yeah and you know she seems like sort of a an unknown character in all of this stuff but Let me just say, she testified before Congress about anti -abortion efforts. You know, she has the ear of the Trump administration to some degree. She was very close with Charlie Kirk. You know all of these people are connected. And she has, you know, a fairly popular podcast, I guess, in the realm of conservative podcasts.

0:13:49 Thomas: Heard of her name.

0:13:50 Lydia: Yeah, Allie Beth Stuckey. And she's been affiliated with Glenn Beck for a long time. She was with the Blaze for a while, left, and then came back when her other venture was bought back by the Blaze. So she is a platform. She has access to everyday folks. She has access to the Trump administration. She has access to other conservative commentators with also very large platforms. So it's not like this message is going to be insulated in any way.

0:14:17 Thomas: Yeah, look at this. Do these look like healthy people? Do these look like balanced people? Look what they're wearing. That's dresses. They're wearing dresses.

0:14:22 Lydia: Freaking weirdos yeah

0:14:26 Matt: At least if they're not riding bikes, it'd be a lot worse.

0:14:28 Thomas: Well, maybe they should be. Look at this. Does this seem normal? Does this seem like normal behavior? Fucking perverts. Don't let your kids around these perverts! Look at them. Deviants. So weird. All of a sudden, you don't question. Look, they're stupid hats. Look at those dumb hats. What is this? That's normal. That all fine. Give your kids to them as much as you want, you know, because they're probably fine.

0:14:46 Lydia: Crazy

0:14:52 Matt: And yet the Pope still understands better, at least this Pope, understands empathy better than this woman does, Allie Beth Stuckey. So he's got that going for him.

0:14:57 Thomas: That's true. That is true. The Pope has been too woke for these hardcore Nazis for like decades. Yeah. God, so funny.

0:15:01 Lydia: Radical leftist yeah yeah

0:15:03 Matt: That's Well, I regret to inform you that it is Hammer time. We have to get to Josh Hammer, our first piece here.

0:15:13 Thomas: Let me think. Do we need another break? Or so we need two more breaks. Do we? So let me do quick math. I can't ask Matt to do math. I guess we do, unless we do a break at the end, right?

0:15:24 Lydia: I think we do need a break yes

0:15:25 Thomas: Well, I guess we We got it. We got to do. I'm I'm excited for Doot Hat. We're saving Doot hat to the end, I guess. So we're going to take a quick break before Hammer Time. And, and of course, we've got to thank our middle chunk of patrons. So thank you so much to A Negative Phenomenon. David Souther. Amy, must I jujitsu my ma?

0:15:49 Thomas: Did we have that last time? I think we did. So good.

0:15:49 Lydia: Yes we did but I I saw someone say that it doesn't actually work you have to like you have to switch the letters in ju jitsu it's like j u I j I u no I didn't I didn't fact check them but I think like

0:15:53 Thomas: Wait, Amy, most I ju... no oh jujitsu is yeah because there's an I before the u

0:16:07 Lydia: I think they said it's close but not quite yeah

0:16:10 Thomas: I see so the I just I didn't it does so it is a palindrome as presented the the letters work but it's because they misspell jujutsu I didn's notice that okay so close it was too, it was too good to be true, is there a way to work juice like if you could do juice the other way because that's ui because isn't it j I u No, that doesn't work.

0:16:21 Lydia: Try again yeah yeah but east east sea yeah

0:16:32 Thomas: Yeah. Okay. So I stand by my earlier skepticism, like how in the world could you work jujitsu into a palindrome? Turns out it's impossible. Somebody, maybe somebody can do it.

0:16:33 Lydia: That's I don't know

0:16:43 Thomas: I don't know. Yeah. Like food, feed. Nah, I don't know. (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte). Jaysank, council member elect. Vehicular Man's Laughter, That's it, That's the joke. Not to be confused with New York Penal Code 125.12. cavalri, throw fascist in holes again. Can we do that again? Again, I just want to do that clip again where the guy is like, I was the one thrown into a hole.

0:16:41 Lydia: Someone will crack it yeah just throw them in holes

0:17:09 Thomas: Oh, God, I'll never get over that. That was my favorite thing ever. Make sure you watch last week's, everybody. Even a blind squirrel can find these chunks. Today's episode is brought to you by the letter. Oh, no, there's a what?

0:17:03 Matt: Turns

0:17:11 Lydia: Nick sorter yeah I

0:17:22 Thomas: Oh, it's a weird symbol.

0:17:22 Lydia: Don' t know your special character oh

0:17:24 Thomas: Yeah, but I don't. Sometimes that's the import by the letters. The letter one fourth. Hold on. I'm going to. Here's what I'm gonna do. I want to make sure that we properly thank this patron. I'm going to, I'm gonna go to Patreon and when I go to the actual patreon I want to track this down to thank our patrons properly it says brought to you by the letter and then it just says obj like object kind of thing so it's like okay

0:17:27 Lydia: Man they deserve it What? Yeah. Oh, yeah. So it must be an emoji.

0:17:50 Thomas: But it does, even on Patreon it doesn't work. Damn, well, I was, I was, I tried Patreon, I tried, I don't know if you're pranking us or what. Thomas Freeman. Cajunkilla. Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. Chris Simpson being told to support Gavin Newsom by the the Luna Matter Who people who oppose Mamdani has me at my limit. Gavelhead, Chucking Away, E.T., and Mark Schultz, hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. All right. We'll take our second break and then get to Hammer Time.

0:18:15 Lydia: It's hammer time.

0:18:19 Thomas: Show is brought to you by Quince. It is finally cold here, and I love it. I love getting to wear warm cozy. Is, it's always so warm around here, I need to actually buy some clothes for the cold weather, and there's only one place I go to update my wardrobe, and that is Quince. That's because everything I've gotten from Quince has been high quality, has, I have gotten is in as good a condition as when I bought it, and that is like one of the most important things for me. I made at Quince is made from premium materials by trusted factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. You might wonder how in the world can they do that and still be affordable? That's by cutting out the middlemen. Delivers the same quality as luxury brands at a fraction of the price. No middlemen, no markup. We've gotten a nice set of towels from Quince. When it comes to cold weather, don't sleep on having nice, thick towels. What's like the coldest time when it's cold? It's right after you get out of the shower. It's like, oh my god, it's freezing. It's so you never want to get out. We got these really nice thick towels from Quince that are so cozy you'll actually get out of the shower. That's how cozy. We got our Quince luggage, which was so nice that the Manchester airport decided to keep it for three days. That's how nice it was. It is great. I love them. You'll love them too. Get your wardrobe sorted and get your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait. Go to Quince.com/OA for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com/OA. Shipping and 365-day returns. One more time, Quince.com/OA.

0:19:58 Thomas: Josh Hammer. Hold on a second. Let me make sure I have it pulled up.

0:20:00 Matt: Out we can touch this.

0:20:04 Thomas: All right, so let's find out why Pete Hegseth is not a war criminal.

0:20:07 Lydia: Can't touch this. Hmm.

0:20:11 Matt: Somebody had to make this case, and I'm going to tell you up front, he makes it pretty badly. But let's take it apart, because I actually did some legal research on this one.

0:20:19 Lydia: Ooh, I'm excited.

0:20:21 Matt: Josh Hammer is not even a lawyer, but I don't think, right? He's not a lawyer.

0:20:25 Lydia: I don't think so.

0:20:26 Matt: Certainly doesn't write or think like one.

0:20:28 Thomas: Does he go to Harvard Law? I feel like he might be. Somebody yeah yeah He's a lawyer, yeah, I think I remember that what's

0:20:29 Matt: He might be thinking Shapiro. Okay, well, that's

0:20:34 Lydia: I'm checking it. Oh attorney. Yeah. University of Chicago Law School.

0:20:45 Matt: Right. He That's right. Okay.

0:20:47 Lydia: Do better.

0:20:47 Matt: Well, sorry to get your CV wrong. Yeah. I refuse to believe he's a lawyer after reading this or in his other work, but yeah. He also, this is a man who does not believe that Israel has ever committed a war crime. So keep that in mind as we read this. That is also relevant to this.

0:21:04 Lydia: That's interesting. Well, I mean, that's what one

0:21:05 Thomas: This editor's note this is a preview of the josh hammer report why so we're on newsweek getting a preview of the Josh Hammer report wow

0:21:13 Matt: He's a senior editor at large. He gets to do that.

0:21:14 Lydia: He's the senior editor. Yeah, at

0:21:15 Matt: Yeah, he gets to throw his his weight around nothing

0:21:16 Lydia: Newsweek. So he gets to try

0:21:17 Thomas: What happened to Newsweek, didn't they used to be real right wow Senior Editor at Large Josh Hammer charts a path forward for the American, for American conservatism I love how you're in control of literally every fucking thing. You're like, we need a path forward, we need to be even more shitty and exposes the woke left, a voice for the new right, hammered. Why is this editor's note here? What it's like a promo for him

0:21:17 Lydia: And like push people. Yeah not good.

0:21:21 Matt: Good yeah right

0:21:43 Lydia: Yeah because Josh put

0:21:44 Matt: Into, he's the editor blistering

0:21:44 Lydia: Himself there. Yeah he was he's trying to direct people to his podcast instead of reading it on Newsweek which he's also benefiting from yeah he's just he just doesn't want to share the money with anybody else so he's trying to get people to podcast instead all right at some point the american left must decide whether it still believes the united states has a right to defend itself its interests and its citizens

0:21:51 Matt: Commentary blister and commentary I Think it does, yeah. If

0:22:08 Thomas: You're Already strawmanning, yeah, everybody believes that. Boy, it's like you put it in a way that everybody would say, yeah, it has a right to defend itself so You're arguing against nobody

0:22:16 Matt: We're being invaded no

0:22:18 Lydia: The latest round of performative outrage this time directed at secretary of war Pete Hegseth, over a

0:22:24 Thomas: Performative outrage yeah

0:22:27 Matt: It's real, it's actual outrage, I promise I'm pretty mad I

0:22:28 Lydia: Second

0:22:28 Thomas: That's very real I don't think you should kill people for no reason that's I'm not pretending that sorry

0:22:36 Lydia: Precision strike on a narco -terrorist vessel in the Caribbean Sea this past September makes clear that much of our legacy media would prefer the answer be no.

0:22:48 Matt: Like to use the word precision as if it matters, right, like it makes it worse. Don't you understand how that makes it worse like that the

0:22:53 Thomas: The answer to what, I just love also he's such a bad writer it must decide whether it still believes, you know, the latest, this time blah blah prefer the answer be no, that's that's so unclear, it's just bad writing like it's not okay I

0:22:54 Matt: The yeah I'm

0:22:55 Lydia: Whether it still believes, yeah, that the American left, yeah. Right. Oh yeah, Yeah, no, I agree. I agree with you. Yeah.

0:23:08 Matt: Right, I mean, because I don't want to hit a fishing boat in the Caribbean for no reason. Yes. Okay.

0:23:15 Lydia: The accusation is as predictable as it is unserious.

0:23:19 Thomas: Love, they love that construction, it's as dumb as it is fucking stupid, like that, every time it's always like it's as imaginary as it is bad, and you're like, how, I don't know how to do that yeah

0:23:30 Matt: I mean. To be fair, you really could have seen this one coming. This is a very predictable accusation.

0:23:36 Thomas: Oh, you're gonna complain when I kill people in cold blood. Real original, that's all they do. What is the one

0:23:41 Lydia: That's the SNL skit that they just did, too, on this.

0:23:45 Thomas: Did they do? I was gonna say, there's a comic from the first Trump era I think there was like a guy with, or no, what is it, the guy with a spider on his face or something? And he's like, oh, you're probably going to say like, why do you have a spider on your face or whatever?

0:23:46 Lydia: It's good.

0:23:56 Thomas: It was something like that.

0:23:56 Lydia: Mm hmm yeah yeah.

0:23:56 Matt: Right, right.

0:23:57 Thomas: And it's like, it is that they just do that. If you can, if you can like preempt, you know, totally normal human reactions with a, with a sarcastic tone, then you can just invalidate them. I think you can not pay your rent and just go to your landlord and be like, oh, this guy is like, you'll pay your rent like like stupid, technically

0:24:16 Matt: First of the month, huh? Yeah.

0:24:20 Lydia: Hegseth, we are now told, is a war criminal. Why?

0:24:24 Matt: I will say, I meant to mention before. Sorry. The headline. I do agree with the headline. Pete Hexeth is not a war criminal because we're not at war. He's just a criminal. He's a regular criminal. So it just happens to be the Secretary of Defense. All right. Yeah, please go on.

0:24:36 Lydia: Because, under presidential authorization and pursuant to ongoing counter -cartel operations against narco -terrorists in the Caribbean, U.S. forces executed a follow-up strike on a boat ferrying fentanyl -running, human -smuggling narco terrorists, actors who have wrought more death on

0:24:56 Matt: So there's the setup. Okay. All right.

0:24:58 Thomas: I just, I know I'm complaining a lot about the same thing, but like, this is Newsweek, this is an article, like, have you, like, does everything have to be presented in a tone of, can you believe we're told? Uh, it's just doing it, might as well be the Seinfeld, like, brick wall, but they're saying war crimes, it's like, can't you even just, you could still have the wrong opinion, but just be like, okay, so there's an argument that this is war crimes, here's why I, a fascist, think it's not war crimes, but they can't do that because they've lost all connection to reality. So everything has to be a total joke all the time.

0:25:35 Thomas: The only way you can start your stupid argument is by presenting it in the worst way that you're countering a made up thing by a bunch of clowns. But it's just silly. Like it's, it's so childish. Like you did two paragraphs that was just like, that's how you start your article.

0:25:53 Lydia: Yeah, set it up to make it seem like a complete farce when, like, there's actual issues at play, and they could just engage with it seriously, but they don't, yeah. Yeah.

0:26:01 Matt: And just to make this very clear for everybody, I don't believe we've actually been told which narco-terrorists are supposed to be. Trump did designate cartels as terrorists in his January 20th order. That still doesn't mean you get to just strike them in the water and blow them out and kill them. But he's just taking it as given that these are narco-terrorists. There's been like mixed bag responses about which one it's even supposed to be, they've got this Cartel de los Soles that they've kind of made up. They've got Tren de Aragua, of course, the popular one, which doesn't really run fentanyl. So, you know, again, there's a lot of presumption going on here, obviously, as you'd expect.

0:26:29 Thomas: It's a bad sign when we're like complaining about the war crime and they're like, well, first off, I don't know which war crime you're talking about. It could be lots of them.

0:26:39 Lydia: Many of the same pundits who moralize about democracy between commercial breaks have suddenly discovered a novel legal theory under which defending the American homeland is a grave prosecutable offense.

0:26:43 Matt: Quote, unquote. This is so stupid. Like, so much stupider than usual.

0:26:54 Thomas: Hey, I got a question. I always mispronounce it. Is it the My Lai or the Me Lai? I mixed it up. Whatever that is.

0:27:01 Matt: Meal I am. Yeah, yeah. Right.

0:27:03 Thomas: That massacre, or, is, does any of that, the logic of this article, like, why, why would you not write it about that it's the same thing oh defending the homeland is a grave prosecutable offense if you do that tone, and just straw man yeah they're moralizing about war crimes, like, yeah, or it's just war crimes, like, just be a fucking grown-up, this guy is such a child here,

0:27:11 Matt: You totally could have written this in 1971. Absolutely. Right. Novel legal theory. Right?

0:27:28 Lydia: This is nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that, and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding, willful or otherwise, of the Article II commander -in -chief power yeah

0:27:39 Matt: Interesting. The Article II Commander -in -Chief power. What What about the Article I power to actually declare war? I guess we're not going to talk about that.

0:27:40 Thomas: We go Oh, well,

0:27:42 Lydia: Let's just skip over one one doesn't matter

0:27:47 Thomas: Two is the sequel. It's better than article one. So it, yeah, it's like the lore in the sequel replaces the lore of the original.

0:27:50 Matt: That's right. It's twice as good. That's it.

0:27:52 Lydia: We don't need the exposition yeah the framers did not design a national security posture that forces the

0:28:00 Matt: Period. Right there. Let's just end the sentence right there. Did not design a national security posture. Just want to point this out. They did not intend for us to have a standing army. That was never part of the deal. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt, but very important to note. They thought maybe we should have a permanent Navy because that's a lot of work to get boats in the water. But they're like, you know, every two years or whatever, we can maybe come up with an army if we need one. They thought it was a pretty bad idea to have standing army because they'd seen what happened. So I just wanted to end the sentence there where it belongs.

0:28:07 Lydia: Unfortunately

0:28:21 Matt: Did not design a national security posture. Yeah. Yeah.

0:28:21 Thomas: There we go.

0:28:22 Lydia: That forces the president to petition cable news bookers for permission to act, even preemptively or prophylactically, in the national interest. Why did he say it like that? Why? Okay. The Constitution vests the executive with the power and indeed the solemn duty to repel threats, protect commerce, and secure the nation against those who would do it harm. It's all

0:28:36 Matt: Stupid. Hey, guess how many of those things are in the Constitution? None of them. None of they're in the constitution.

0:28:49 Thomas: Tech commerce, nah. Yeah, the concept

0:28:53 Matt: Now, the Commerce Clause, only this, right.

0:28:53 Thomas: Of executive. Well, he's the commander in chief, right? That's somewhere in there.

0:28:59 Matt: Well, no, but I meant this in this sentence, repel threats, protect commerce, and secure the nation against those who do harm to you.

0:29:02 Thomas: What I'm saying. In the constitution, if he's like, could those things be by implication? Because he's the Commander-in-Chief of the military or whatever. I don't, you're the only one who's read the fucking thing. What does it say, Matt?

0:29:06 Lydia: Explained

0:29:07 Matt: I suppose. I don't know. Yeah. Commerce is mentioned twice in Article 2, which again has to do with Congress. But the Article 2 Commander-in-Chief power, just to reiterate that as a very stupid way to put this, because just to be very clear before we go on, Congress has the power to declare war under Article 2. The executive has the Commander-in-Chief power under Article 1. And so the Commander in Chief carries out what Congress is supposed to tell them to do. Now, we've only declared war 11 times. We're going to talk a little bit more about how we actually get into all those things without declaring war. But the idea that which he's pushing here, which is becoming kind of a popular heritage MAGA kind of argument right now, the idea of the president just gets to do whatever he wants with the military is certainly not envisioned in the Constitution or the founding at all.

0:29:58 Thomas: You know, yeah, why don't we, you know, it turns out they have, they have this thing on the internet. We can, we can actually look at the Constitution. You can actually read it. Okay, here we go. Article 2, section 2, we're on section 2. I don't know what section 1 was.

0:30:09 Matt: Too late for Josh Hammer now, I don't know.

0:30:11 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, if you're watching, the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army. I nailed it. I knew that was in there. And Navy of the United States and of the, okay, they do say Army. Me, but you're saying they didn't want a standing army? Anyway. And of the militia of the several states. What's that?

0:30:24 Matt: Well, it's every two years.

0:30:28 Thomas: Okay. When called into, there you go, militia, when called into actual service, he may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. And he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses. Okay. There's that. And then like the very next thing says congressional control over president's discretion. That's interesting. Thing. That seems like Congress can somehow sometimes have control over the president, but I don't know if that's a different thing. Uh, okay. We've got, uh, yeah, so that, that doesn't, I don't see commerce. Um, but that's, this is the, this IS the commander in chief clause. Is there more to it than

0:30:29 Matt: We'll get to that part. Well, in Article 1, it mentions commerce, that's the Congress, gets to regular commerce. But no, there's nothing else about this. He's supposed to enforce the laws and he's supposed to basically protect the nation or whatever, But yeah, but he's making up presidential powers, essentially.

0:31:20 Thomas: This? I didn't, I didn't see it. I just wanted to fact check them. You know, I, I don't, I don 't see it, see it anywhere.

0:31:23 Matt: You got it.

0:31:26 Lydia: Clearly by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 70, in which he explained, quote, that unity of the executive conduces to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.

0:31:49 Thomas: Well, that's just clear as day. What and

0:31:53 Matt: This is not in context, obviously. I went and looked. I read our Federalist number 70. Well, no.

0:31:57 Thomas: It's not the constitution like sometimes they help you with certain things but they didn't get everything they wanted into the constant okay go ahead matt sorry

0:32:05 Matt: Jefferson

0:32:04 Lydia: That was half the time while they were writing.

0:32:06 Matt: And Hamilton were both very clear that they did not want the president just waging war by himself. Just for one thing, the Federalist 70, the entire purpose of that one is to do the debate over. It's kind of a funny thing to think about today, but they were debating whether we should have one executive represented by one guy or a committee of executives. And he was saying, if you have a committee, the blame will be spread around, the responsibility is spread around. And Heritage loves Federalist Seventy. It comes up a lot in their writings, I noticed. But I'll just read part of it he didn't quote for some reason.

0:32:38 Matt: So he's saying basically that if you get a small number of people that if there's an artful leader of those people, then it'll be more abusive because then they can spread it around. Then if it be lodged in the hands of one man who from the very circumstance of his being alone will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected and who cannot unite so great a massive influence as when he was associated with others. This is before Twitter, obviously, and TV. I think they just couldn't imagine.

0:33:00 Thomas: Well and all this is about the executive as a whole whether it should be one person or multiple people so it's completely irrelevant to this point it doesn't tell you that like like our argument isn't like oh no someone someone else, like someone else within the executive should start, you know, the argument is that Congress should declare war and this should, you know, right? Like it could, I guess what I'm saying is let's say that this had gone the other way and we, instead of a president, we actually had a presidential board or something and they did this same crap that wouldn't fix it. Like this, this, This question is irrelevant, right. To the point of this is a fucking war crime. I

0:33:06 Matt: What

0:33:25 Lydia: That it's outside of the executive branch. Yeah.

0:33:44 Thomas: Don't care if he did it with a group, did it, or if just he did it. It's all within the executive anyway, right?

0:33:44 Matt: Do you do with the the executive power. Right. Right, right. And yeah, Hamilton comes down on the side of one person because he thinks it's easier to hold one person accountable because, hey, we put impeachment in the constitution, so clearly we're going to use that, right?

0:34:01 Thomas: Yeah.

0:34:01 Lydia: Yeah.

0:34:01 Matt: That'll be fine.

0:34:02 Thomas: It's almost like we should use that sometimes. Otherwise, it doesn't exist anymore.

0:34:05 Matt: I do want to point out too that in Heritage in 2018 had this great headline based on this exact argument. It is no easy task for president to quote-unquote abuse his authority over the justice department. It's hard to abuse your authority of the justice department."

0:34:21 Thomas: Challenge accepted.

0:34:21 Matt: Yeah, pretty much. And they're saying basically that you can't because whatever the president says goes. And so whatever the President wants them to do is, yeah, yeah.

0:34:27 Thomas: So it's the Richard Nixon. That's now the mainstream Republican view, Richard Nixon, what famously, you know, the movie Frost Nixon is going to be confusing to later generations because the whole frost nixon frost nixon movie builds up to the dramatic moment of him saying I believe when the president does it it isn't illegal and that's like the wow gotcha holy shit but now they'd be like yeah well that's what that's that's yeah that's that's the trump law of the trump clause of the constitutional yeah constitution yeah

0:34:31 Matt: That is the big reveal. Yeah. That's the law. John Roberts. Yeah,

0:34:58 Lydia: Man. Man depressing

0:35:03 Thomas: Wow Wow. Depressing.

0:35:04 Lydia: Exactly all right back to the article translation the president and his cabinet must at times act swiftly and decisively to defend the nation this ought to be axiomatic to anyone with even a rudimentary conception of american constitutionalism this understanding has been confirmed repeatedly, Josh.

0:35:04 Matt: Repeatedly.

0:35:21 Thomas: That wasn't the constitution though. Repeately.

0:35:28 Lydia: Josh.

0:35:28 Matt: Editor -in -Chief or Editor -at -Large or whatever, Yeah. Yeah. Come on. Edit thyself.

0:35:31 Lydia: Buddy.

0:35:31 Thomas: You need to, you need to get an editor at larger to repeatedly.

0:35:36 Lydia: Candace Owens wouldn't have made that mistake. Just saying. I'm stoking flames here.

0:35:40 Matt: I do want to note that the link there is to a tweet by Hugh Hewitt, the conservative great mind legal thinker. It's a very typical kind of conservative tweet where it's like, well, have you considered this case from 1936? And it doesn't really, the case from 1933 has nothing to do with anything.

0:35:54 Thomas: Confirmed, confirmed repeatedly. All right.

0:35:56 Lydia: Confirmed repeatedly by the U

0:35:58 Thomas: I'm going to, yeah, here we go.

0:35:58 Lydia: .S. Supreme Court. Yeah. Show us the

0:36:00 Thomas: Oh, it's a tweet.

0:36:00 Lydia: Evidence for that.

0:36:01 Thomas: Wait. Oh wow. What

0:35:58 Matt: You're citing a tweet. I mean, This is the level of intellectual rigor we're working with here, folks. Your citation is a tweet from Hugh Hewitt, not a law review article from Hugh he doesn't have any of those.

0:36:12 Lydia: And it's also too long of a tweet. Like don't why yeah

0:36:14 Matt: It's way too long.

0:36:15 Thomas: In the world? That means he he pays for like the x premium what you're citing it he's citing a tweet that's

0:36:15 Matt: These are people, if you pay for X, total loser. But I will just note, this is the best you can do.

0:36:25 Thomas: A that's many con law experts on it more

0:36:29 Lydia: In quotes con law experts in quotes who are the experts oh boy

0:36:34 Matt: I'm not even sure what principle he's saying has been confirmed repeatedly because from this Hugh Hewitt thing, he's talking about this US v. Curtiss-Wright case, which talks about the president having obviously supreme authority over foreign policy and being able to stop arms manufacturers from selling to Bolivia during a civil war. They're just saying like that's something he's allowed to do.

0:36:54 Matt: And they're saying that you have to have a supreme will somewhere. That's what he's saying here. And that's what Hewitt is saying. And it's what he's trying to do, I guess Josh Hammer is trying to say, is that there is a sovereign, there has to be a sovereign so he's in charge. But that's not at all what any of this stuff, the Hewett thing is so convoluted. We should keep going. It's not even worth it. I could could break that down, but it's not worth the time.

0:37:10 Lydia: Man the president's constitutionally legitimate war -waging powers certainly encompass targeted interdictions against non -state actors operating outside u .s borders and menacing our citizens citizens yeah

0:37:20 Thomas: Waging yeah

0:37:25 Matt: Certainly, certainly. Constitutionally legitimate war -waging powers is quite a phrase because Article I, of course, specifically only gives Congress the power to declare or wage war. And the War Powers Act of 1973 was passed after Nixon bombed Cambodia because we realized that maybe the president shouldn't just be able to bomb Cambodia. That's not a great move. Nixon vetoed it because he didn't want to have his power restricted that way. Congress passes it over his veto. And now the president has to submit reports within 48 hours of any military action that we take outside of war. And I just want to point out that Trump did actually file a report on this and we can link to it. It's nonsense. He filed a report of that on the boat strike, I should say.

0:38:03 Matt: I will file a whole report against this piece.

0:38:02 Lydia: Not on josh hammer's piece yeah

0:38:06 Thomas: He filed it on the cambodia bombing that nixon did just for fun by the letter of the law no

0:38:12 Matt: But it's kind of a joke, but he's supposed to basically not do this anymore after six months after you've determined that it's not necessary or whatever. There's at least some kind kind of attempt from Congress, and it's been upheld, to restrict the ability of the president to do military actions without a declaration of war, because we don't do this anymore.

0:38:31 Matt: Also, the thing about non -state actors operating outside U.S. borders, that is true. Certainly, we've had plenty of military engagements against non - state actors, certainly all the way through the war on terror, the war on drugs. But people often cite back to, you might have heard about the Barbary Pirates back in 1803. That's where the Shores of Tripoli from the Marine Song comes from because that was actually our first foreign engagement. And it was because there were pirates off the coast of the Mediterranean that were intercepting our trade. It turns out, I didn't know this until I went and looked it up today, they declared war on us. We were actually responding to a war. It wasn't just that we were going and killing pirates for no reason. So yeah, a bold move in 1803.

0:38:44 Lydia: Interesting oh wow they declared war on us oh wow dang

0:39:07 Matt: But we were kind of worn out. We're still kind of recovering from the whole revolution thing. Yeah, it is.

0:39:07 Lydia: Pirates

0:39:10 Thomas: Now that's swashbuckling call back to last week's

0:39:14 Matt: That's right. But yeah, I mean, just the multiple stretches here that he takes from constitutionally legitimate in 1803, that's right, and do it that way.

0:39:14 Thomas: Episode yeah I'm a swashbuckling originalist I think that we should look what the swash bucklers swash buckle back then yeah that's how they did it cool

0:39:30 Matt: And they literally declared war on us. So yeah. All right. Let's keep going.

0:39:32 Thomas: Sometimes

0:39:29 Lydia: Man Hegseth's critics want to re -litigate Vietnam era debates about executive power without acknowledging the world as it is cartels cartels

0:39:43 Thomas: There are boats of people places and that's just new yeah

0:39:46 Lydia: Today are not mere criminal syndicates they are militarized politically influential transnational organizations that destabilize entire regions they are in every meaningful sense of the term narco -terrorists And when intelligence confirms that one of their vessels is engaged in armed smuggling operations, the president need not convene an obstreperous congressional committee before acting in such a manner to defend the American people.

0:40:14 Matt: He doesn't? Are we sure? I feel like he should.

0:40:16 Thomas: But all this I'm sorry even this all is really doing a good job of tricking everyone into the wrong framing because the problem mainly the most simple problem is the double tap nature of it like that's all like we can argue about this and I'm sure he's wrong about this too but we could say okay yes and even if I grant all that bullshit you doesn't mean he could just like kill whoever he wants and he doesn't mean he can violate that the very obvious principle of once people are just shipwrecked you know they're just like swimming because you've destroyed their boat you don't get to then also just kill them like even if all this crap were true he doesn't need to convene a committee maybe but he can't commit war crimes he still can't admit war crimes

0:41:05 Matt: Oh, he's going to respond to that argument shortly in a few paragraphs. Oh yeah, Yeah, we'll get there. But I agree with you, of course, but I do think that obviously this is all nonsense. Every part of this is nonsense, just to reiterate that. We all understand that, we all agree. But all right, let's keep that.

0:41:07 Thomas: He does oh okay

0:41:19 Lydia: The left cannot resist turning every question of national security into a morality play starring America as the villain. The same commentators who defend, quote, harm reduction at home suddenly clutch their pearls when the U.S. military reduces the harm posed by fentanyl trafficking thugs in the near abroad. The same editorial pages that applaud drone strikes against foreign jihadists, so long as a progressive like Barack Obama is in the Oval Office, now pretend that maritime counterterror operations amount to My Lai 2.0.

0:41:52 Lydia: Did I say that wrong? I said that wrong.

0:41:54 Matt: That's me lying. I wasn't making the noise at you though.

0:41:56 Lydia: Me lie. Okay, thank you. Yeah,

0:41:58 Matt: Just as a pronunciation, that's what I don't like about this paragraph, yes.

0:41:58 Lydia: Matt's really disappointed in my pronunciation. Exactly.

0:42:05 Matt: No, I just want to point out just as a literature guy, morality play can't star America as the villain because morality plays sort of abstract concepts like truth and justice, but Josh doesn't know that. But yeah, the harm reduction thing really annoyed me very much. That's very stupid. The idea that shooting people in cold blood is harm reduction that compares to needle exchanges. I mean, come on.

0:42:29 Lydia: Yeah, the gross co -opting of a term that is actually valuable and a policy that's actually valuable, yeah.

0:42:33 Matt: Doing good, right? Yep. Yeah, it's

0:42:37 Lydia: What Hegseth did, more precisely, what the administration authorized him to carry out, is not a crime. It is policy, it is constitutional, and it is in the national interest.

0:42:48 Matt: One of those things. It is policy. Policy. Give you that. I don't think it's the other things. Also, weird setup there that what the administration authorized him to carry out. He is the administration. He's the guy in charge of the military. So I don't t know.

0:42:49 Thomas: Wait

0:43:04 Matt: There's only one person above him.

0:43:01 Thomas: Yeah what more precisely what what the administration authorized him to carry out.

0:43:07 Lydia: Just trump I guess is that all he's trying to indicate there yeah

0:43:10 Thomas: I mean, yeah.

0:43:09 Matt: And the intelligence community, I guess, but which is still his decision. But yes,

0:43:12 Lydia: Nor contra some cable news experts in quotes is there any legal distinction between the first and second strikes in september if the relevant legal threshold for the strike such as the imminent threat of lethal action against the american homeland or something along those lines was met the first time then it would would be met the second time as well to pretend

0:43:22 Thomas: Here we go. Okay.

0:43:23 Matt: Go on, please. Sure. Okay.

0:43:35 Thomas: Wait, does he actually mean the double tap thing, or is he talking about two different strikes?

0:43:42 Lydia: I think it's the double tap well

0:43:44 Thomas: Is it not a second?

0:43:46 Lydia: So so here let me finish out the paragraph and we can chat uh to pretend otherwise that the initial strike is somehow legitimate but not a second strike is to fall prey to the same morally dilapidated and legally coherent logic as leftists when they support on -demand abortion but then suddenly care a lot for a baby that survives a botched abortion.

0:43:46 Matt: Because he's writing it after this news came out. Yeah.

0:44:03 Thomas: What the fuck are you talking about?

0:44:06 Matt: Perfect analogy.

0:44:07 Lydia: Make it make sense.

0:44:07 Matt: 10 out of 10.

0:44:08 Thomas: What are you fucking talking about, you fucking idiot? Idiot. Yeah. You make it make sense. That doesn't make any sense. I like this.

0:44:09 Matt: Please. Please do. Yeah, thank

0:44:17 Thomas: First off, I think it is extremely funny to be like, to, to use the fact that you attack people who weren't dangerous to begin with, to then be like and if they, if that was fine, then when they were even less dangerous, it's fine. Cause like, like if the first one's fine, and then the second one's fine. How about a third one? Maybe a fourth one.

0:44:37 Thomas: If the fifth one, why can't we go attack their, they're people at home, they're family at home. If the first one was fine, we can do that because they gave birth to them. So we can, yeah, it's like, it is a, I'm no expert in any of this shit, but even I know there's a distinction between an imminent threat and somebody that's neutralized.

0:44:36 Lydia: Just keep going. Where does it end? Yeah.

0:44:57 Thomas: Like you don't, we don't execute prisoners of war. We're not supposed to do that, right? I don't want to, I're not the lawyer, Matt, but we're not opposed to execute prisoners prisoners of war because they're not dangerous once you've captured them.

0:45:06 Matt: You. That's an accurate summary of the Geneva Convention. Yeah,

0:45:09 Thomas: Yeah. And so there could, you could, this argument is fucking idiotic. You could be like, yeah, let's pretend it was a completely legitimate military strike. Again, because you're saying we're not even at war. We're nowhere near any of this, but let's say we were in a war and let's says that there was a strike against, and maybe it was some sort of vessel that had weapons on it. That could be justified, I imagine, but then once they're neutralized, then they're, if they're not a threat, you can't justify it by being, well, the first strike was fine, so why not a second one? Well, because you're in a different situation. Once you've disabled them or once, you know,

0:45:09 Matt: But you know, in for a war crime penny, in a war -crime pound, right? So

0:45:51 Thomas: Once you've neutralized the threat, it's like if you disarm someone, that's a different, you're In a different context now. You can't justify it by saying, well it's fine that I did the first thing and then what I look I can usually at least follow the nonsense baby idiot logic that this moron uses but this one's tough okay they fall prey to the same fucking blah blah word count word count when they support on -demand abortion we don't but whatever on well or do I don't know maybe I do like if why why wouldn't

0:45:52 Lydia: You have to reassess. Yeah, I mean, yeah,

0:46:30 Thomas: It be on demand trying

0:46:31 Lydia: If you can go get Mifepristone when

0:46:32 Matt: That's just what they call it.

0:46:33 Thomas: To think like what's the difference yeah, what's, I don't, that's not the thing that matters.

0:46:35 Lydia: I demand it yeah yeah

0:46:37 Thomas: It's like, do, do you, do I support on the on -demand boner pills? It's, like, yeah, any medical thing should be, like when people need it, right? It shouldn't be ,like, well, you gotta, yeah you gotta wait six weeks for your boner pills or whatever. No, okay, so that's, anyway, um, but suddenly care a lot for a baby that survives a botched abortion.

0:46:46 Lydia: In consultation with their doctor yeah yeah

0:46:59 Matt: Because that's a baby. That doesn't really happen either, there, I don't think. I don't know. I'm not a doctor, but

0:47:04 Thomas: This is, I am just, this is incredible. And then putting make it make sense after that is just chef's kiss, man. Chef's kiss. So you're saying because, okay, if you support abortion, then if an abortion doesn't work, but then the fetus is no longer in the moral status of being a fetus and being in someone's body is later a baby, then caring is hypocritical because you were okay with abortion.

0:47:10 Lydia: Then why why do you care because

0:47:33 Thomas: Does that extend into adulthood? Oh, you thought abortion was fine. So So then now that this person's 30, you should be okay with killing them.

0:47:32 Lydia: You thought that they should have died yeah yeah it

0:47:40 Thomas: No, that's not anything. But then also for that to relate back to the double strike, the double tap is incredible. Like, it's the opposite, if anything. It would be like if you did an abortion on a fetus and then it became, like, even less of a person. Because, like to try to do the analogy. Mythology so now it's just like cells now it'S not even anything and then you're like okay but now I don't support throwing away these cells like that would be the thing that would Be weird but that's you're not even close it's so abstract and stupid what you need an editor dude like this is this is so bad

0:48:04 Lydia: Regressed yeah yeah Yeah.

0:48:27 Matt: It's almost over.

0:48:28 Lydia: We live in an era of border chaos, cartel empowerment and corrosive moral relativism. The press.

0:48:34 Matt: Like comparing boat strikes to abortions, that kind of relativism. What?

0:48:37 Lydia: The presidency must not be cowed by editorial board tantrums. The constitutional order requires a strong executive, precisely the sort of executive who does not blink when American lives and sovereignty are on the line. The left may not like that, but the Constitution does not care. I

0:48:54 Matt: Great work.

0:48:55 Thomas: More importantly but no one will do anything about it and the The Supreme Court doesn't give a shit and Republicans don't give a shit. It's not the Constitution. It is what these corrupt people say it is or just avoid the subject altogether.

0:49:08 Matt: Yeah, yeah. There you have it.

0:49:09 Lydia: Feel like he just like hit his keyboard and then published it. And like, honestly, it's it's word salad for half of it. The other half is stupid words that like for no reason he's incorporating that we don't need that I then have to stumble over. It's just not fair. So yeah.

0:49:25 Thomas: It just childish. It' just fucking childish crap.

0:49:30 Matt: And doesn't really acknowledge the existence of the legal system or the laws of war or the Geneva Convention or anything that actually constrains or is supposed to constrain the military. This is the height of conservative thinking. Oh, no, wait. Actually, that's ross duthat uh the height of conservative thinking we should move on to the dude head

0:49:42 Thomas: Ross Duthat. Yay. I guess I'll say in summary if your entire article needs to be typed with the face that's like Like, like you're not doing anything that's stupid. The whole thing, the left may not like that, but the cut, it's just, it just fucking make a point. Just be a grownup, be an adult. Like just, It's just silly. Who would read this? The people who like this don't read, do they?

0:49:56 Matt: Yeah right but

0:50:13 Thomas: I don't think they do.

0:50:12 Lydia: I hope not.

0:50:13 Matt: We just read it to them so hope you enjoyed that

0:50:15 Thomas: They probably, he probably just like does it when they don't, our listeners don't like this. What are you talking about? But the yeah, well, the I think they he probably does it on his podcast, too, where he can really, you know, because I know I know that people like this don't read. All right. Well, we've got to take our final break here. And, of course, thank our top, top, tier of patrons.

0:50:21 Matt: I'm just saying if you want to hear it we just write it to you so

0:50:39 Thomas: And these are the folks that are at the top of the leaderboard. Thank you so much to the Cincinnati Kid, Bob Loblaws Law Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is busy organizing. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association Baltakatei Philip Kizer what's that lassie timmy got thrown into a hole that's really good uh thank you uh patrons making my day Coryn_Lann, a string of unpronounceable characters, Malaika Chandler, Milo Meadsong is fighting petty tyrants, RhondaTheDork.com, hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report, Big Easy Blasphemy, Chris Waltrip, FRED R GROOTHUIS, Classic libtard, and Mitchell. Thank you so much, top patrons. Take a break and we'll get to our, to get to the dude hat of it all.

0:50:53 Lydia: Day More holes, more holes Yay Yeah

0:51:29 Thomas: Hat, dude hat, dude hat. Here we go. Give me some dude.

0:51:32 Matt: I was thinking they could have a really terrible morning drive show called the hat and the hammer or the hammer and the hat I don't know no

0:51:39 Thomas: Yeah. I think even, even dude hat I don't think could handle talking to that fucking idiot.

0:51:46 Matt: No I think he'd lose it um so great american and Christian intellectual, Ross Dudehead, has some opinions about how we're not Christian enough. And this to me really highlights, this one piece really highlights the entire problem of Ross Dudehead and where he's at right now, and his little island of intellectual Catholicism.

0:52:08 Lydia: Yeah. The original title of this article, by the way, was the Trump administration needs more Christianity and its nationalism. They have since changed it because like what happened last month with the feminism in the workplace situation.

0:52:21 Thomas: I was going to say he's on a real streak of of like fucking up with the first title here that's

0:52:25 Lydia: Now the title is why is Christianity so hard to find in the Trump. Trump administration. It's a lot different. But taking out that nationalism title?

0:52:30 Matt: Promise it's not. It's not hard to find. Yeah,

0:52:30 Thomas: A lot different like before it was like you need christian nationalism and now it's like they're just there's not christian anymore christianity that's the big difference that's

0:52:40 Lydia: The content hasn't changed at all. They're just trying to take it out of the title so it's not as obvious.

0:52:44 Thomas: Yeah it's funny though that's second time are this are they trying to do this now is it just like they the first try is like horribly offensive crap and then they're like oh change it real quick and then people talk about that or something.

0:52:48 Lydia: I don't know. Yeah. And then people will talk about the title changing like I'm doing right now.

0:52:57 Thomas: He's like, we got to find a way for someone to read Ross Dudehat. Nobody is doing it.

0:53:02 Matt: And make fun of it on a podcast. Let's give it the best possible headline. Yeah. All right, we can get through this one.

0:53:07 Lydia: We got to talk about Pete Hegseth again. As soon as he was nominated to to be Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, with his Crusader Cross tattoo and his attendance at a hard -edge Calvinist church, became a natural vessel for liberal fears about that dread concept, quote, Christian nationalism. This is a term that can be understood in two ways. The first understanding emphasizes the Christian part and imagines nationalism as the vehicle through which conservative believers impose their doctrines on a pluralist society. Society.

0:53:36 Matt: Literally, yes.

0:53:37 Lydia: This is the vision that inspires the strongest liberal paranoia with images of inquisitions, witch trials, the Republic of Gilead.

0:53:44 Thomas: Mean, just images of what's happening right the fuck now. Yeah. What are you talking about?

0:53:47 Matt: Now, exactly, this is Maga.

0:53:49 Lydia: Look around. Look around.

0:53:50 Matt: This is Christian dominionism. This is what it is. They believe they should be controlling the country.

0:53:53 Thomas: Of Roe v. Wade being overturned, of gay marriage being threatened, of trans people not being allowed to exist. You don't have to go to witch trials. Like it's now, man.

0:54:01 Lydia: Books being banned. Yeah, yeah,

0:53:57 Matt: And you literally just cited the church that Pete Hegseth, one of the most powerful people in the country, is a part of, and it's a pretty extreme thing.

0:54:12 Matt: You can read about it yourself, but it's an extreme conservative Christian church. It is not Roth's friendly Catholicism here. Here.

0:54:19 Lydia: But there's a second understanding in which nationalism is the controlling word and the religious modifier is the pinch of incense that makes believers comfortable with worldly deeds and choices.

0:54:30 Thomas: And this misunderstanding doesn't exist or have any relevance at all, except to me, Ross Dudehat.

0:54:34 Matt: Outside of this column. Yeah, pretty much.

0:54:36 Lydia: With this kind of Christian nationalism, the core fault might not be too much religious moralism and politics, but too little. And this second understanding often seems closer to the realities of the second Trump administration.

0:54:50 Matt: That's it. Those are the realities of the Trump administration. It's full of dominionists. So, yeah.

0:54:55 Lydia: Start with the current controversy surrounding Hegseth, his orders to rain down death on Venezuelan boats believed to to be carrying drugs, and the alleged decision, in at least one instance, to ruthlessly finish off survivors. Not if you talk to Josh Hammer. I don't want to say that a policy of direct attacks on drug cartels is inherently inconsistent with Christian ideas about just war. Perhaps a case could be made and a strategy constructed that clarifies when exactly a drug mule becomes comes a combatant yeah and

0:55:26 Matt: WWJD.

0:55:23 Thomas: Oh, never. Let me just clarify. Yeah. And that's when Jesus did a preemptive missile strike on the drug mule. Yeah, well, no, this is about the first part he's saying. So, yeah, no.

0:55:34 Lydia: Hit him again yeah well no and then he said you know and ruthlessly finish off survivors I thought but but

0:55:45 Thomas: But he's saying this is he's he's this part is about the first aspect so perhaps a kid yeah of the first thing see

0:55:49 Matt: Yeah, just the concept of... No,

0:55:52 Lydia: I do not hear such a case from hegseth or the administration the argument instead is mostly a bloody -minded utilitarianism bad guys being killed saves American lives. You can trust us that these are all bad guys. No, you can't see the legal justification. And anyway, Obama killed more people with his drone strikes. Traditional Christian just war considerations don't seem to enter in at all.

0:56:15 Matt: It turns out they're not reading Thomas Aquinas, guys.

0:56:15 Thomas: I know this is why like I can't hate dude hat he's just irrelevant like he also I I think he yeah and I and he I don't know what like because he's juste conservative and anti -left he has to present everything in this weird way that pisses everybody off but you could very much like Like if someone wrote a column that was like, hi, I'm a Christian and I wish Trump was actually Christian. This thing where he just killed people, not very Christian. This like, I got no problem with that. Write that. But it has to be presented in this first off, this Christian nation, that title. I can't believe

0:56:19 Matt: I know. I know, yeah,

0:56:21 Lydia: He lives in a different world. Yeah. Crazy.

0:56:51 Thomas: It. That's funny. We didn't know until today that it was changed. But like that. So there's that. And then also like all this language around, like, first off gaslighting us about what what we fear with the christian administration like it no it's not that it's there's almost this is why I don't hate him that much it's like at least he's saying like this isn't christian give him a little bit of credit okay we'll see it all right I've I've well I'll hold my judgment yeah

0:57:13 Matt: Got to get weird about it, though. He's still going to get get weird.

0:57:18 Lydia: This particular lacuna is hardly unique to the Trump era. From Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the post-9-11 era, American hawks have never felt especially constrained by religious attempts to put limits on the use of force. What's notable about this administration, though, is how widely the religious deficit extends. When the Trump administration slashed foreign aid programs that often reflected an explicitly Christian humanitarianism, some religious conservatives welcomed or made their peace with the cuts.

0:57:37 Thomas: Sorry

0:57:47 Matt: Hey, let's say more about the people that welcomed the cuts. What's up with them? He's just kind of glossing through the head, right? Yeah, I don't know. I

0:57:50 Lydia: But with the exception of the transgender issue, more, quote, right-wing coded religious priorities have also received little attention from this administration. It has conspicuously kept the pro -life movement at arm's length. It has offered, at best, symbolic moves toward the regulation of spreading vices—pornography, drugs, gambling—that evangelical Christianity especially wants vigorously opposed.

0:58:05 Matt: Wonder why.

0:58:15 Thomas: It's conspicuously kept the pro -life movement at arm's length even though he nominated many judges that got rid of roe v wade and like and took credit for it what is the link what is that hyper okay now I'm gonna yeah pro -life sold out for a seat trump's table now it's out in the cold oh those poor pro -lifers they're just not getting their way enough anymore boohoo

0:58:24 Lydia: Yeah I I don't really know what they're trying to get there also isn't um yeah it's washington examiner pro pro -life sold out yeah

0:58:26 Matt: Still too far away. Yeah. I mean, I think after Dobbs, the MAGA people did realize that it's very unpopular and it's losing them elections. And generally, you look at the polling and it is 13 % of America wants to criminalize abortion. So it's not...

0:58:53 Thomas: It's still just funny to be like after them having a major fuck the victory they worked for for 50 years or whatever. Like, it's hard to be like, they're out in the cold. It's like, yeah, because they won.

0:58:59 Matt: He's whining about it. Yeah. Right, right.

0:59:04 Thomas: Like I, I guess they're not, maybe he's not going after the next thing, which is like the, you know, the, the artificial insemination. What am I thinking? You know, I'd be, yeah. Like maybe, maybe they're Not going after The Next Victory, but come on, boo hoo. You know?

0:59:05 Lydia: Like what else do you want ivf yeah um

0:59:20 Matt: Yeah. And remember, this paragraph is full of complaints. He's complaining about these things. He wants them to do these things, yeah.

0:59:24 Thomas: That's all anything is now. It' just complaints.

0:59:24 Lydia: Don't they participate in march for life though like folks in the trump administration didn't they participate again like yeah whatever um nor has it yet offered serious responses to the newer religious concern over falling birth rates oh

0:59:28 Thomas: They're all pro -life. They're incredibly pro -life oh

0:59:40 Matt: Didn't know that was, but all right. Yeah.

0:59:42 Thomas: Yeah they've been all in

0:59:44 Lydia: They've been talking about it a lot that's

0:59:44 Matt: All Didnít know it was a religious thing.

0:59:44 Thomas: On that yeah but but they do they do do that though isn't that in project 2025

0:59:48 Lydia: Part well that's part of why they're they're actually trying to make ivf more affordable is because they think that's one of the ways to address the falling birth rate so they are they are pursuing that Right.

0:59:59 Thomas: Well in a lot of their rhetoric around rhetoric around like well women shouldn't be able to get divorces because we need more babies it's like awesome

1:00:07 Matt: And for sure, for

1:00:07 Lydia: And the turn to the traditional gender roles. And yeah, exactly. And the influence of Turning Point and the focus on family that's throughout all of this stuff, I think that they are absolutely pursuing ways to address falling birth rates.

1:00:08 Thomas: I mean he's got a semblance the thing that he's sort of dancing around is just that trump's not not a Christian. Like that's I mean, everything else is there. But it is true that like Trump kind of doesn't I mean he he actually I think he kind of is getting a little religious with the assassination attempt and him being old and close to death. But he doesn't care about those values. And that's that's the only common ingredient here. It's not you know, it's like the people all around him care about this stuff. They're all empowered, like everybody in his movement and in maga it's just him that's like sometimes not cool with emphasizing certain parts of this because they've been unpopular to matt's point who's

1:01:01 Matt: They're also to Dutat's perspective, the wrong kind of Christian. And I mean, I agree they're the wrong Christian because the kind of Christians that they're fine with cutting off humanitarian... He's saying basically the Trump administration is full of these Calvinist, dominionist, hard -edged people that don't do the humanitarian stuff. They're cutting off humanitarian aid. They are justifying murder. And I would agree. I would like to see people that do not do that. And he's just complaining that they are not his kind of Christian.

1:01:07 Thomas: They hmm yeah yeah okay

1:01:25 Lydia: And it has done little to address growing Christian anxieties about the dehumanizing effects of an artificial intelligence future. If the Rights Coalition is divided between an AI -boosting donor class and a potentially AI -skeptical base, which has Steve Bannon as its would -be spokesman, the Trump administration has strongly favored the side that wants to build the machine god.

1:01:47 Matt: It's like the one thing Bannon's right on, I just have to point out. Bannon is actually really against yeah and tech bros yeah yeah also

1:01:48 Thomas: What oh yeah yeah yeah fair yeah

1:01:51 Lydia: He's very anti -AI. The administration has offered a lot of general rhetoric about the value of Christianity to American civilization, along with presidential complaints about christian persecution overseas and pious social media posts on catholic holidays but in the absence of religious informed policy making this sometimes feels more like a performance of a christian politics than a full reality man I'm just like I'm so over it like it's it's everywhere it's everywhere why are you freaking complaining dude hat jesus

1:02:08 Matt: A social media post of trump trust is the pope but let's not talk about that well

1:02:20 Thomas: I mean it kind of is but like boohoo yeah yeah it's like I'm trying to think of of why this sucks so much. And it's like, it's like taking the complaint. Cause again, I, it could be a totally legitimate article. And I think someone more people should fucking write articles about like, Hey, I'm Christian. Here's what Jesus would have wanted. The opposite of everything Republicans and MAGA stands for. I would love article after article.

1:02:48 Lydia: Constant.

1:02:48 Thomas: I'm an atheist, but I would love that because it's fucking infuriating to see people talk about Jesus and all that, and then just kill immigrants and stuff like that's, that would be fine. But he's turning that into like a boo who I'm, I don't, I'm not special enough to the administration or something. It's like, what is this tone? It's just weird.

1:03:05 Matt: And also that they're not far right enough on social issues like why aren't they criminalizing porn it's like one of the things he says in here right or why aren'T they embracing pro -lifers even though they're super unpopular

1:03:14 Thomas: Cause Jesus said, I don't know. What did Jesus ever say about porn? Nothing. I don't think they had great porn back then. Step one.

1:03:22 Lydia: I don't know. I didn't read the Bible.

1:03:24 Matt: You can't look with lust on anybody basically so uh and

1:03:26 Thomas: And it says pluck your own fucking eye out. That's right. Look at that one. You don't like that one, do you, Christians? It says if If you would look at a fucking, what's that one? If you'd look at it, if you'd talk to a woman or whatever, lustfully, you know what you don't do is slut shame her. You're supposed to literally pluck out your own eye.

1:03:43 Lydia: Because you're the problem.

1:03:44 Thomas: So you, exactly. They don't listen to anything Jesus actually said at all.

1:03:45 Lydia: Yeah not her. No, no.

1:03:49 Matt: We all go blind at 11 but

1:03:51 Lydia: Yeah Mike Johnson just downloads an app so his son can make sure he's not looking at porn. Gross. In offering this analysis I should stress that that sincerely Christian policymaking can go badly astray. You think? Where the Middle East is concerned, I prefer Trump's pagan transactionalism to George W. Bush's evangelical idealism.

1:04:08 Thomas: All right, I'll give them that.

1:04:11 Lydia: Or simply prove unpopular. I don't imagine that a war on porn would dramatically improve Trump's approval ratings. Okay?

1:04:17 Matt: let'S do it anyway project 2025 suggested it. They did say we should criminalize them, but

1:04:23 Lydia: And sometimes the Trump administration's not especially religious priorities simply reflect what its supporters want. The Rights Coalition abolition is more secular than in the past, and even many church -going conservatives seem more concerned about immigration than abortion. Many very online converts are more invested in meme wars than morals legislation, and religious fears about AI are inchoate.

1:04:37 Matt: Not the good way.

1:04:46 Thomas: Yeah, inchoate.

1:04:46 Lydia: God, we've done this one before and it does not stick in me.

1:04:50 Thomas: What?

1:04:50 Lydia: There isn't some clear trad alternative to outracing the the Chinese. Trad in quotes.

1:04:56 Thomas: I don't, no, I know. There isn't some clear trad alternative. What is that? I don't think I understand that. I'm not saying it's wrong or anything. I just don't feel like I get it.

1:05:05 Matt: We can't out -Christian AI, I guess. I don't know.

1:05:09 Thomas: Religious fears about AI aren't co -ed. Oh, okay. So he's saying there isn't enough of an organized religious opinion, like traditional religious opinion about AI. So they haven't formulated it enough.

1:05:18 Matt: They could overcome it. I

1:05:21 Thomas: There's not a clear other option, I guess, to AI. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.

1:05:25 Lydia: Nonetheless, I think a more Christian politics could serve the White House on three fronts. In policymaking, a Christian social vision would help the

1:05:33 Thomas: Don't fucking kill people for no reason would be be one. That'd be my first one.

1:05:39 Lydia: Administration come to grips with the central social problem of our time, the substitution of transient hedonic vices for permanent commitments.

1:05:48 Matt: Think the central social problem of our time is that we're glorifying sadism and bullying, but it could just be me.

1:05:51 Thomas: Yeah, I don't either. Yeah. I also think it's, let's see the, the, I think the biggest social problem of our time is that too many of us are fed propaganda and just believe incorrect things about what's happening. And so have all these horribly cruel views about other people like trans people and all that. Intoxication. That's right. Entity is really the biggest problem yeah

1:06:14 Matt: Toxic empathy.

1:06:15 Lydia: Politics, a public rhetoric infused with more Christian charity might win an increasingly unpopular administration some badly needed friends. Please clap.

1:06:35 Thomas: This whole column is a please clap I don't like this part of it where he's saying a public rhetoric infused with more christian charity might win an increasingly unpopular administration is that true I mean what would that actually mean because like the culture wars is what people want that's that's the whole point of the culture are worse

1:06:38 Matt: I had to I don't think it's true. That's not what people want. That said, sadism, bullying.

1:06:54 Lydia: They want to see people get owned. They want to get destroyed. That's the internet culture that exists in politics.

1:06:56 Thomas: They don't want yeah this is why again dude hat what world are you living in like you're in your your column is irrelevant you're writing about an imaginary land this isn't anything

1:07:08 Matt: Does he live in a literal monastery? Because I'm starting to think he might. He loves being around Catholics.

1:07:10 Lydia: And morally, in certain concrete cases, from the treatment of the detainees we ship to a Salvadoran prison to the fate of alleged drug runners our missiles might have left helpless in the sea a little more christianity in its nationalism might simply prevent this administration from doing wicked things yeah

1:07:31 Matt: Disagree. I don t think it would.

1:07:32 Thomas: Don't know why you need the nationalism part like what is that

1:07:37 Lydia: I feel like he's trying to spin like whenever we hear christian nationalism he's try to be like hey no it's actually not that bad of a phrase because let's think about it this way and so yeah

1:07:44 Thomas: I think that's what he was doing. Yeah, I think, I

1:07:48 Lydia: So anytime we hear cristian nationalism if we think about the way that that Doothat thinks about it, then our alarm bells aren't going to go off.

1:07:54 Thomas: Think, kind of, but I think my finer point on it would be, I think he's just making a kind of a rhetorical play based on people criticizing this as a Christian nationalist thing. And I think his weakness here is that he doesn't understand how or doesn't, I don't think he feels in any sort of imminent way how scary and dangerous Christian nationalism is. So you can kind of use it as a little rhetorical thing to be like, oh, they say it's Christian nationalism, but it should really be more Christian. It's like, yeah, man.

1:08:26 Lydia: And I guess my position is like I don't necessarily think that he is trying to do that himself. Like that's a really cynical view. But what I think it's doing is it's allowing people who do want to use something like that, now they can, you know, like lean on this article should they need to, to kind of like wave away any concerns about Christian nationalism and make people start to feel crazy for being concerned about it I don't think that's necessarily like his position but

1:08:52 Matt: Well, he's also not confronting the actual problem of what the majority of at least the outspoken in political Christianity is right now, which is the Seven Mountains mandate, where they believe they should be controlling every part of life, education, religion, family, business, government, military, arts, entertainment, and media. But the fact that we've gone from George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism, where he was actually working with leading faith leaders. I'm not glorifying Bush. I wasn't saying he was doing it right. I was just saying, relatively speaking, that's looking pretty good in terms of now, you have the White House faith office run by Paula White, who's a pretty extreme hard right evangelical charismatic type who's associated with the new apostolic reformation types, the really hardcore dominionists who believe that Christians should be running government. And again, I'm not glorifying or justifying Bush here, but I'm sure that's really where the Bush people were coming from. I mean, they were running government anyway. But this idea that it's an absolute mandate and that we have to do everything possible and justify whatever it takes to have Christians running government, that's the real danger with the current Christian nationalism, I think, just in

1:09:57 Matt: My observation. He's not confronting that at all.

1:09:58 Thomas: I think the Bush administration was maybe a little more that way than at least based on my memory. But I think they were more cagey about it. Like, I Think they were they were less apt to just say it out in the open. That's a lot of this, I really do think the lesson of this past 20 years is that these people were never, they never were actually cool. They just weren't saying it as much. And then it just becomes more and more open.

1:10:28 Matt: Was the last president to prosecute obscenity in any way, right? You remember Ashkosh covering up the statues, right, that's the kind of stuff that Duthat wants to see. I mean, he's pretty clear.

1:10:35 Thomas: Man. I don't remember that. Yeah.

1:10:36 Matt: Remember the The topless statues, they went into the DOJ, they covered them up. Yeah, Ashcraft did that.

1:10:36 Lydia: My god freaking

1:10:41 Thomas: Men. That sounds familiar, but I can't. Wow. Wow. That's funny.

1:10:43 Lydia: Babies that's crazy you

1:10:46 Matt: But I mean, that's the kind of stuff that Douthat would love to see, right? The kind of like the signaling. And that paragraph where he's complaining, I think is very telling when he's like, well, you're not prosecuting pornography and drugs and gambling. You're not bringing in the pro -life movement at every meeting and putting it to the table, right? That's what I want to see. And you're doing that for me.

1:10:48 Thomas: He would love that. Yeah, yeah.

1:11:02 Lydia: Know it's kind of interesting too because like the fracturing that I feel like we've seen um specifically with like Like the Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson conversation and the anti-Semitism stuff where like the Heritage Foundation's position was like, oh, you know, not a big deal, blah, blah. And then Robert P. George, who's been long, long time, very, very conservative, head of the Witherspoon Institute out of Princeton University, very involved with all of these like far right political think tanks, has left the Heritage Foundations. So, like, we're seeing that fracturing there when it comes to religion and politics. It's really interesting. It just reminded me of that as we were reading through this.

1:11:47 Thomas: Well, in the end, a dude hat is irrelevant. And, uh, I think he's, he's a, again, he somehow managed to take a message of this administration should be more Christian, which I think is actually, or at least should be more in line with like what Christianity should be, which is fine. And he made it suck. Like he, made it into, first off, they are not appealing to me enough. And the pro -life move, it's like, come on, man. So anyway, that's Dude Hat for you.

1:12:19 Thomas: Well, this has been another Vapid Response. Thanks so much, Matt. Thanks so much. Lydia. And we'll see everybody on the podcast feed for Rapid Response Friday. I'll be coming back for that. Excited to speak to you all then. Thanks, listeners. Thanks, Matt. Thanks Lydia. And thanks most of all to our patrons.

1:12:19 Lydia: There he is. Thanks, Thomas.

1:12:38 Thomas: Oh, you're welcome.

1:12:39 Lydia: You never get a thank you, so I'm making sure you get one.

1:12:40 Thomas: It's true. It's about time.

1:12:42 Matt: that'S right. Thank you, Thomas. See you soon.

1:12:44 Thomas: All right. See everybody next time.

1:12:46 Lydia: Dude hat. Did I get it in before you turned it off?

1:12:56 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon.com/law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments@gmail.com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.