Joe Kent Talks Iran and Charlie Kirk, Talarico’s Troubles, with John Daniel Davidson, PLUS Trump’s Big Poll Numbers & CBS Gut Punch

Summary

After Party with Emily Jashinsky

Episode: Joe Kent Talks Iran and Charlie Kirk, Talarico’s Troubles, with John Daniel Davidson
Date: March 19, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode tackles key political and cultural flashpoints in the American news cycle, bringing on Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson for an insightful, candid discussion. The conversation dives into the Trump administration’s Iran war, polling dynamics among MAGA and non-MAGA voters, the Joe Kent–Tucker Carlson interview and Kent’s comments on his resignation and Charlie Kirk’s assassination, as well as surging “disclosure” talk about aliens, religious and technological anxieties, and Texas State Senator James Talarico’s “progressive” Christianity and meat-eating controversies. The episode closes with a sharp look at plummeting CBS Evening News ratings under Tony Dokoupil and what it says about trust in media.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Iran War & MAGA Polling Dynamics

• Monolithic MAGA Support:
  Pollster Harry Enten outlines that, among self-identified MAGA GOP voters, Trump's approval on the Iran war is 100% ([03:19]), likening Trump’s unshakeable base to the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins:

  • “You don't have to be a mathematical genius to know you can't go higher than 100%.” — Harry Enten [03:22]

• Coalition Nuances:
  Emily explains the important distinction between MAGA loyalists—rally-goers, merch-buyers, activists—and a broader “MAGA-adjacent” constellation comprised of independents and Trump-curious voters ([05:00–09:00]).

  • Trump’s grip on the MAGA base is “rock solid,” but the coalition required for a 2024 victory is broader and less monolithic, especially among younger, independent voters and podcaster audiences.

• Support for the Iran War Across GOP Segments:

  • Among non-MAGA Republicans, support for the Iran war drops sharply:
    • NBC: from 90% (MAGA) to 54% (non-MAGA GOP)
    • CNN: from 85% to 61%
    • YouGov: from 85% to 63%
  • Independents who backed Trump in ‘24 are “not at 100% level of support for the war.”
    • “If it's a question of the MAGA coalition, that's different than the MAGA voter.” — Emily [07:30]

• Media Misunderstanding:

  • Elite media often lumps together disparate groups under "MAGA," misconstruing nuanced public opinion and coalition realities ([08:00]).
  • Emily notes the distinction is key to understanding both the strengths and limitations of Trump's support as the war drags on.

---

2. Joe Kent–Tucker Carlson Interview: Iran War & Resignation

• No Imminent Threat from Iran:

  • Joe Kent, recently-resigned head of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells Tucker Carlson there was no intel suggesting Iran was preparing to imminently attack ([16:22]):
    • “There was a religious ruling—a fatwa—against developing a nuclear weapon since 2004... We had no intelligence to indicate that that fatwa was being disobeyed.” — Joe Kent [16:24]

• War Initiated on Israeli Timing:

  • Kent asserts the war started not because of an imminent Iranian threat, but because Israel’s timing dictated it. Israel's independence in its military actions, and US officials believing “Iran would respond... by attacking our bases" if Israel acted alone, played a major role ([18:23]).
    • “Nobody can articulate in a clear and consistent way why we had to go to war.” — John Daniel Davidson [20:10]

• Critical Analysis of White House Messaging:

  • Both Davidson and Kent highlight the "shifting justifications" and lack of clear public message, eroding public trust ([25:00]).
    • “The burden of proof is on the people who launched the war... What was the imminent threat?” — John Daniel Davidson [21:45]

• Imminent vs. Ongoing Threat:

  • Conservative talker Mark Levin argues that the distinction between “imminent” and “ongoing” threat is semantics—but Emily and Davidson assert it matters deeply to Americans ([27:26]):
    • “Playing semantic games about imminent and ongoing... Man, screw that. That's not what people want to hear.” — John Daniel Davidson [28:05]

• White House Decision-Making Critique:

  • John speculates Trump saw this as a quick, possibly 72-hour regime-toppling adventure, with an evident lack of planning for broader region-wide consequences, including the absence of a unified chain of command with Israel ([32:00]):
    • “This is the first conflict in American history where we are fighting a war with allies, where we don't have a unified chain of command.” — John Daniel Davidson [31:45]

---

3. Charlie Kirk’s Assassination: Dissent, Investigation, and Conspiracy

• Kent’s Explosive Claim:

  • Kent says he was stopped from further investigating “whether Charlie Kirk’s death had any connections to foreign government, state actors and the like” ([37:42]).
    • Kirk’s last words to Kent: “Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.” [37:51]
    • Kent: “We were stopped from continuing to investigate. FBI will say they turned everything over to the Utah state authorities... but there was still a lot for us to look into that I can't really get into.” [38:33]

• Questions About the Official Narrative:

  • John Daniel Davidson is openly skeptical, comparing the official explanation to a “lone gunman” scenario, and likening it to patterns around high-profile political assassinations in US history ([40:00]):
    • “We essentially don't have an FBI... None of it makes sense.” — John Daniel Davidson [40:06]
    • “These are the kinds of things that destroy ordinary people's confidence in the people at the top of this administration.” — John Daniel Davidson [41:38]

• The Broader "Sword of Damocles" Thesis:

  • Emily references the pervasive suspicion that American presidents are constrained by implicit threats (post-JFK), especially when challenging intelligence agencies or Israel ([42:42]).

---

4. Alien.gov & The Age of Disclosure

• Government Domains Alien.gov & Aliens.gov Registered:

  • Emily and John note the government’s new domains and wave of UAP disclosure, with context about missing Air Force General McCasland and enduring conspiracy culture ([47:04]).
    • “Pagan America isn’t about aliens, but you do talk about demons... John, tell me if I’m wrong: I’m gonna guess you believe that aliens might be demons.” — Emily [49:26]
    • John: “Yeah, I think aliens are demons.” [49:39]

• UFOs as Modern Spirituality:

  • John recommends Diana Pasulka’s works, calling emerging UFO culture a “new kind of religion,” where technology and “discarnate intelligences” (demons or spirits) provide forbidden knowledge ([50:49]).
    • “Throughout human history... seeking divine knowledge from spiritual beings has been part of every human culture... the link between spiritual beings and technology is very close.” — John Daniel Davidson [52:30]

---

5. Tech Anxiety, End Times, and Peter Thiel

• Why “Are We in the End Times?” Is a Repeated Question:

  • John attributes cultural anxiety to rapid technological change—especially media and AI—prompting a metaphysical crisis and fear of spiritual consequences ([56:06]):
    • “There’s a deep anxiety... that there’s something malign about it, that there’s something sinister about this technology.” — John Daniel Davidson [56:06]

• Peter Thiel & The Antichrist:

  • John is wary of Thiel and "transhumanist" visions, seeing them as much closer to Antichrist possibility than environmentalist "decelerationism” ([59:00]).
    • “What [Thiel] would like to do and thinks he could do with technology... is totally antithetical to my Catholic and Christian cosmology.” — John Daniel Davidson [59:50]

---

6. James Talarico and the “Progressive Christianity” Debate

• Viral Sermon and “Meatless” Controversy:

  • State Sen. James Talarico proclaims his “biblical Christianity” at SXSW ([60:41]), prompting critique from Emily and John for reducing faith to welfare-state talking points.

• Mainline Protestantism as “Pseudo-Christianity”:

  • John argues Talarico is recycling failed mainline Protestant strategies, e.g., trading doctrine for wokeness and social cachet. ([63:34])
    • “His version of Christianity is actually an old sclerotic, worn-out version... wrapping it in TikTok and Instagram. That’s all he’s doing.”— John Daniel Davidson [63:37]

• Meat-Eating Flip-Flop:

  • Talarico previously declared his campaign “officially become a non-meat campaign,” then later is pictured eating meat as a campaign gag ([67:01–67:36]).
    • John lampoons the political optics: “You don't go out there and say, ‘We're gonna go meatless for our campaign’... Texas is oil and cattle and AR-15s.” [69:02]

---

7. Media Trust & CBS Evening News Ratings Collapse

• CBS’s “Gut Punch” Ratings:

  • Emily dissects ratings freefall of CBS Evening News under Tony Dokoupil:

    • Fell below the “4 million viewer critical threshold,” reaching just 3.83 million, with an especially bad performance in the 25–54 demo ([74:25]).
    • ABC World News Tonight: 8.5M; NBC Nightly News: 6.5M; CBS floundering at under half those figures.

  • Critiques personality-driven, “patronizing” newscasts and says the platform isn’t leveraging its Free Press/Barry Weiss investment ([74:25–76:00]):

    • “It always feels so ham-fisted, heavy-handed... and so it's no surprise to me that Dokoupil is dipping below 4 million.” [74:25]

  • Larger point: Despite CBS’s heavy rebrand and resources, low trust and misreading of the media environment, as well as weak personality fit, are largely to blame.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |------------|-----------------|-------| | 03:22 | Harry Enten | “He is the 1972 Miami Dolphins.” | | 16:24 | Joe Kent | “The Iranians have had a religious ruling, a fatwa against actually developing a nuclear weapon since 2004… we had no intelligence to indicate that that fatwa was being disobeyed.” | | 21:45 | John Daniel Davidson | “The burden of proof is on the people who launched the war… What was the imminent threat?” | | 28:05 | John Daniel Davidson | “Playing semantic games about imminent and ongoing... Man, screw that. That's not what people want to hear.” | | 37:51 | Charlie Kirk (recounted by Kent) | “Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.” | | 49:39 | John Daniel Davidson | “Yeah, I think aliens are demons.” | | 56:06 | John Daniel Davidson | “There’s a deep anxiety... that there’s something malign about it, that there’s something sinister about this technology.” | | 63:34 | John Daniel Davidson | “His version of Christianity is actually an old sclerotic, worn-out version of mainline Protestant Christianity... wrapping it in TikTok and Instagram.” | | 74:25 | Emily | “It always feels so ham-fisted, heavy-handed... and so it's no surprise to me that Dokoupil is dipping below 4 million.” |

---

Key Timestamps

• Trump & MAGA Polling: [03:19–12:48]
• Joe Kent Resignation/Iran War: [13:48–32:47]
• Charlie Kirk Assassination Probe: [37:42–44:51]
• Alien.gov & Disclosure: [47:04–54:01]
• Tech & End Times Anxiety: [54:01–60:05]
• James Talarico, Christianity & Meat: [60:41–71:09]
• CBS News Ratings & Media Trust: [71:48–end]

---

Tone & Style

Emily Jashinsky’s trademark tone mixes sharp media analysis, political skepticism, and big-picture iconoclasm, with John Daniel Davidson providing both wit and clear, unapologetic conservative theorizing. The conversation is lively, occasionally irreverent, and textured with references to familiar personalities, pop culture, and intellectual touchstones.

---

For Listeners Who Haven’t Tuned In

This episode is a rich, critical look at the contemporary American political-media zeitgeist. Nuanced discussion of polling and coalitional politics, skepticism toward official war narratives, questions about the intersection of faith, culture, and emerging “disclosure” mythology, and a no-holds-barred analysis of collapsing institutional trust make this a must-listen for those curious about the deep currents shaping the 2026 landscape.

---

(End of summary.)

Transcript

[Dr. Horton Advertiser]

Your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton, America's Builder has new homes that are ready today. With new construction communities throughout the Puget Sound and Central Washington areas And more coming, Dr. Horton has the right home for you at Dr. Horton. We're still building with more construction, more communities and more homes available every day. Tap your screen now or visit drhorton.com to find your new home. Now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder.

[Progressive Insurance Advertiser]

Support for this podcast comes from Progressive, America's number one motorcycle insurer. Did you know? Riders who switch and save with Progressive save nearly $200 per year. That's a whole new pair of riding gloves and more. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $197 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between October 2024 and September 2025. Potential savings will vary.

[Emily]

Well hello everyone. Welcome to another edition of afterparty. Appreciate you being here. My friend John Daniel Davidson, senior editor at the Federalist, will be joining us in a moment on tonight's show, excited to go through all of the big news that has actually even just since the news day ended. Technically, it doesn't really ever end at 5pm these days, not that it actually ever did. But John is going to help us break down some of what we just heard in a very stunning conversation between Tucker Carlson and Joe Kent, who up until yesterday was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He is a gold star husband. He is a combat veteran. He is a close confidant of Tulsi Gabbard. And we learned a lot more about the new conflict in Iran from Joe Kent's perspective in this conversation with Tucker Carlson. So there's going to be a lot to discuss on that front. We're also going to be talking a little bit about why the government just bought alien.govalien.gov we'll have details for you from that. James Talarico is against meat, but he's not against meat. We're also going to talk about that. I can't resist that particular subject. And the CBS Evening News ratings that we have been tracking for months now are looking less than rosy now that Tony decouple has a couple of months of hosting under his belt. Actually, we're pushing four months. He's like three and a half months in. So we're going to bring you the latest on that. But first, but first, let's talk about Donald Trump's ratings. So now we're the politics of of the Iran war are very interesting. So now we're what, three weeks? Not, not quite three weeks, but almost three weeks into this conflict and it's not as some expected, tanking Trump with self identified MAGA voters. There's some important nuance in that though. We're going to get to in just one moment for, for now, let me go ahead and put this video of Harry Anton, the polling guru over of CNN up on the screen.

[Harry Anton]

Hundred percent, 100%. If you are a member of MAGA and the GOP, you approve of Donald John Trump, zero percent say that they disapprove. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to know you can't go higher than 100%. He is the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Now, there are some Republicans who disapprove of Donald John Trump, but they are not members of the Make America Great Again movement. The bottom line is this, if you are a member of maga, you approve of Donald Trump.

[Emily]

It's interesting though, because there have been

[John Daniel Davidson]

a couple prominent people who have sort

[Emily]

of come out online and they're very mad about this war with Iran because

[John Daniel Davidson]

he promised no new wars. Is there any sign that people might be leaving Maga relative to 2024?

[Harry Anton]

Yeah. Okay, so, you know, I've said it before and you know, the theme of this segment is Tucker Carlson be darned. And when we look at the numbers, I mean, I've heard some people say, oh, you know what, when you look at those MAGA numbers, it doesn't account for those who might have left MAGA. But take a look here. Americans who identify as MAGA. In November of 2024, it was 28% of Americans. Now it's basically the same. If anything, it's slightly higher at 30%. The bottom line is this. The MAGA base within the GOP is not shrinking and it's the same size. If anything, it is slightly larger than it was back in 2024 when of course, Donald Trump won a second term. So that 100% that Donald Trump has approval among MAGA GOP, that is not an artifact of MAGA shrinking. It's just an indication of how strong Donald Trump's grip is on that MAGA base.

[Emily]

And so. All right, so we can just stop it there because this is enough to tell you what you need to know about how Trump, Trump voters who identify as MAGA think about this war. And it should be enough to demystify any, well, let's just say myths or any stereotypical impressions about Trump voters and what they make of the last couple of weeks that exist in elite media spaces. But, but I will say how we define MAGA can often be different from how voters define maga. So this is not all good news for the president, though it is certain, certainly very good news for the President. I would say, you know, to add some nuance, it's, it's likely true that many Trump voters are trusting him to prosecute a war that doesn't start feeling like, and threatening to become a quagmire. So I think, you know, he's to some extent, I don't want to say borrowed time, but he's to some extent on a timetable, probably with some mega voters. But more importantly, this was brought up not long ago in a Free Press story where they looked at all of the surveys, this was last week, and they talked about YouGov looking at Republicans who identify as, as Maga Republicans finding 85% support, only 5% opposition to the Iran strike. So that certainly puts those numbers from NBC that Harry Anton was looking at, that, that looks a lot like support for those numbers. Um, the NBC poll, of course, had 90% support, 5% opposition, 88% support from CNN with 13% opposition. So these numbers are very good for Donald Trump. But, but among Republicans who don't identify as MAGA Republicans, the war has only 54% support with 36% opposition. I mean, that's in the NBC poll that plummets From MAGA at 90 to non MAGA Republicans, not non MAGA voters, but specifically non MRAGA Republicans. At 54%. In the CNN poll, which had 85%, that number plummets to 61%. In the YouGov poll, which had 85%, that Number plummets to 63%. So these numbers are pretty consistent across the board. And I would argue what's worse is that there's a cohort of independents, I don't know exactly how big it is, but of independents who voted for Trump. This is a hard cohort to poll because it's, it's relatively small. But independent voters, they're not Republicans. They voted for Trump. This is the type of person that maybe heard Trump on Joe Rogan or Lex Friedman or Tim Dillon or JD Vance on Tim Dillon, for example, and thought, oh, I like what I'm hearing about no new wars. You know, I like what I'm hearing about ending all of this, like, cultural elitism. I like what I'm hearing about draining the swamp. I think this guy, I don't necessarily trust him 100%, but I think he's certainly better than Kamala. Harris, that type of voter is not on board to the extent that MAGA Republicans are. But that's not also the type of voter. This is something the media gets wrong a lot. That's not the type of voter who defines them themselves as a MAGA voter. Megan, Megan Kelly, of course, has made this point that she is an independent. She gets sort of lumped in with maga, but she considers her MAGA adjacent. So it would be incorrect to say, like, quote, MAGA podcasters are in disagreement with the president, as though that's representative of the MAGA base. Because a lot of people who identify themselves as, as maga or the most, most people who identify themselves as MAGA are not in the sort of podcaster, independent podcaster space that was sort of identified as what fueled a demo that fueled Trump's 2024 win. And that's true, right? He, he won young voters, or he, he made huge inroads with young voters, I should say. And he won over a lot of independent voters, and that's really what helped tip the scales for him. So if it's a question of the MAGA coalition, that's different than the MAGA voter. So again, I don't want to downplay what much of the media is downplaying, which is that Donald Trump has the support of his base on the war in Iran for as long as we're about three weeks in, he has the support of the, quote, MAGA base that's rock solid, as Harry Anton points out, literally 100% in that new NBC News poll, which is updated since the one that I mentioned Free Press wrote about. So that's significant, extremely significant. But if you're talking about the midterm elections, is it politically helpful for Republicans who now have to defend this in purple districts in a state like, let's say, Maine? Perhaps not. That's, that's a totally different question. Maybe even in a state like Nebraska, that's a totally different question. So this isn't exactly the same as what a lot of the, I think media is saying that it is in a couple of different ways. So on the one hand, yes, Trump has supportive his base. On the other hand, his coalition isn't just MAGA voters. His coalition often gets described as maga, but it's people who are independent in many, many, many cases and were MAGA curious, mega adjacent, or simply said they looked at the options and they said, if I'm being asked to choose between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, I'm going to go with Donald Trump and Those people are not, certainly not at 100% level of support for the war. But I wanted to talk about this because I think it's one of the things swirling right now in the media environment that's just gets misunderstood about what the MAGA coalition actually is, who's in it, what it means that there's a huge amount of support for Trump. People who identify as maga, these are people who go to rallies, they're people who buy merch, they're people who are super active, probably making calls at the county headquarters. That's a bit different than somebody who's in the same type of vein as like a Joe Rogan or a, you know, Tim Dillon, Lex Friedman type character. So important distinction there. Some good news for Trump, some bad news for Trump. And I just wanted to add a little bit of texture to what the media is in some sense panicking about and cheerleading about, too, at the same time. All right, who I'm going to bring John Daniel Davidson in in just one moment. But first, everybody is talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic. So dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and then reducing appetite. So what if you're looking to lose weight, but you're not interested in those painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those awful, intense side effects. That is why doctors created a weight loss supplement called Lean. And the results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in Lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite and cravings so you're just not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual dieter. With only a few pounds to lose, the doctors at Brick House Nutrition created Lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. So let's get you started with 20 off and free rush shipping so you can add Lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit Take Lean and enter Emily for your discount. That's promo code [e-mail] your new home is now ready.

[Dr. Horton Advertiser]

Dr. Horton, America's builder has new homes that are ready today. With new construction communities throughout the Puget Sound and Central Washington areas And more coming, Dr. Horton has the right home for you. Dr. Horton, we're still building. With more construction, more communities and more homes available every day. Tap your screen now or visit drhorton.com to find your new home now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder, an equal housing opportunity builder.

[Progressive Insurance Advertiser]

Ever notice how life's best stories don't happen in your living room? They happen on the open road, out on the water or parked under the stars. At Progressive, they get that you want to focus on the experience, not worry about the what ifs. That's why they offer quality insurance designed for your ride, whether That's a boat, RV or motorcycle adventure with confidence. Visit progressive.com and see how easy it is to protect your favorite way to get away. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in D.C. prices vary based on how you buy.

[Emily]

All right. So happy to be joined now by my former colleague at the Federalist, senior editor at the Federalist, John Daniel Davidson, who's also the author of a wonderful book called Pagan America. John, I I don't know if I've ever told you this, but I certainly think of you as a mentor and I'm very glad you're here this evening.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Well, thank you for having me, Emily. I'm very proud. If I'm your mentor and you're my mentee, I'm very proud of what you've done with your career. And I watch your writings and your commentary with great interest and learn a lot from you. So I'm glad to be here.

[Emily]

Well, if anyone's ever heard of me, say, you know, I was in northern Mexico during the Biden surge and saw this, John, I dragged you there. You didn't really have to drag me there, but you definitely dragged me through a forest towards the Rio Grande looking

[John Daniel Davidson]

for migrants and cartel members.

[Emily]

And we definitely saw some.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Well, we, we ended up being yelled at by a couple of Texas national guardsmen with M16s because we were not where we were supposed to be. But that's okay. We're American citizens. You know, there was a lot of people that weren't where they were supposed to be that day.

[Emily]

As you told them in the moment, you said, we're American citizens. So, John, again, as I mentioned, you wrote a book called Pagan America. I know we have some stuff to talk about in that genre in just one second, but first I want to play this clip. Let's talk about this Joe Kent, Tucker Carlson interview. You have been writing, I think, very helpful analyses over at the Federalist. I know you have another analysis coming out tomorrow over at the Federalist about the first couple of weeks of this war with Iran. Joe Kent, who was formerly the head until yesterday of the National Counterterrorism Center. He is a gold star husband. He is a decorated combat veteran. He's a close ally of Tulsi Gabbard when he resigned yesterday because he said in a resignation letter that he no longer could go along with the War. We were not under imminent threat from Iran. He argued that Israel dragged the United States into the war, which topic that we can get into in just one moment, John. But he goes on literally like 24 hours after live with Tucker Carlson this evening. And here's a little bit of what he said. I'm going to put it up on the screen. This is maybe the biggest, biggest part of it.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

Verge of getting a nuclear weapon.

[Joe Kent]

No, they weren't, you know, three weeks ago when this, this started. And they weren't in June either. I mean, the, the Iranians have had a religious ruling of fatwa against actually developing a nuclear weapon since 2004. That's been in place since 2004. That's available in the public sphere. But then also we had no intelligence to indicate that that fatwa was being disobeyed or it was on the cusp of being lifted. The Iranian strategy, it's actually pretty pragmatic. The Iranians are obviously aware of what's taking place in their region and their strategy was to not completely abandon their nuclear program because they saw what happened to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya when he said, hey, I've got no more nukes. I'll do what you say. I'll give up my nukes.

[John Daniel Davidson]

And we gave them the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Joe Kent]

Yeah, we, we regime changed him. And he was, you know, executed by his own people in the most horrific.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Oh, sodomized by a bayonet.

[Joe Kent]

Right.

[Emily]

Okay.

[John Daniel Davidson]

So that's what, that's the lesson, I think, that the entire region took from that when Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, that is

[Joe Kent]

what the neocon, neoliberal warmongers. That's the lesson that they showed everyone in the region. And then conversely, the Iranians also knew that if they came out and said, okay, we've got a nuke, whether they were bluffing or not, Saddam Hussein, Iraq right next door.

[John Daniel Davidson]

So they kind of hung, I think

[Joe Kent]

he was hung by his own people, you know, after a bloody.

[Emily]

So, so John, I'll just stop it there, because what we have from Joe Kent is him saying we were not the intelligence was not suggesting there was an imminent threat from Iran. He says, I have no love lost for Iran. He spent his military career fighting Iranian proxies. But he says he can't go along with this idea that there was an imminent threat, meaning Iran was preparing to immediately attack the United States. He believes that it was timing dictated by Israel that nobody said, well, what if we don't just go along with the Israeli plan? And again, this is the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center. What did you make of that?

[John Daniel Davidson]

Well, he was echoing something that Marco Rubio said right out of the gate, you know, just a day or two.

[Emily]

But it's a conspiracy theory, John. How dare you.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, you know, and I wrote about that when it happened, you know, Marco Rubio came out, he said we, we went ahead with this war because Israel was going to act unilaterally and we knew that Iran would respond to a unilateral Israeli attack by attacking our bases in the Middle East. And of course, he tried to walk that back, you know, the next day, and they've tried to walk it back since, even though, you know, it wasn't just Marco Rubio. Tom Cotton said the same thing. Speaker Mike Johnson said that. And then Trump has, has alluded to it several times. And so you, you, you know, once you kind of admit that right out of the gate that that was the scenario, it kind of colors everything that comes after this has. Look, I, I'm, I sort of put myself in the, the jokent camp. I'm not opposed in principle to using military force against Iran or anybody else if it's in the American interest. I, I thought the operation last June to take out Fordo and those other nuclear sites was successful. It was a, it was a, a long overdue action that we should have taken in two. If we'd done it in 2006, we wouldn't have had, wouldn't have this problem. Now the, the taking out Soleimani was a great Trump's first term. But the problem, the kind of, the cloud that's hanging over this war is that nobody can articulate in a clear and consistent way why we had to go to war when we did, what was the incepting incident, what was the threat that we were, that we were meeting? And none of the explanations make sense. A couple days before the war started, I wrote something that other people have been talking about for a while in the lead up to this war, which is if we totally obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities last June, which is what the Trump administration, which was what Trump said. He said it last June and then he said something similar to that literally every single month up until February, that we had totally obliterated their capabilities. They'd, we totally destroyed their future of their nuclear program. He said it in a thousand different ways to really drive. And if you, if you disagreed with that or if you doubted it, you were fake news on and on. Well, if that's true and we destroyed their nuclear program. What was the reason for this war? And I understand that they've been clear about saying, oh, we have these four goals, to destroy their Navy, to destroy their missile program. Right. But it just doesn't add up. And for all the explanations that they've given, the American people, I think, are just not buying the explanation. They don't, you know, it's not, it's not sort of credible. What they've offered is not credible. And the fact that they haven't offered any. You know, there was a, there was this, this clip of Glenn Beck the other day when Joe Kent said there's no imminent threat. Glenn Beck was like, well, if you don't think there's no imminent threat, what's your proof? Sorry, that gets it backwards. The burden of proof is on the people who launched the war, not the, you know, it's. If you're the one who decides, yes, we're going to go to war because of an imminent threat. It's not my job to prove there's not an imminent threat or anybody else's job. It's the, it's the job of the person who decides now is the time to go to war. Why? Because of an imminent threat. What's the imminent threat? And then the explanations don't make sense.

[Emily]

Well, and this is what Tucker Carlson was pressing Joe Kent on. He was saying, what is the definition of imminent threat? Because we hear repeatedly, and I think, John, you and I would both agree that of course, there's an imminent threat from Iran, its proxies to US Bases overseas, to potentially people on American soil. If there are. I mean, Kent said there are limited sleeper cells, but that is something that exists, certainly. But obviously there's, there's some threat. But Kent was defining the threat as a, like, actual, quote, imminent threat, meaning an imminent plot to take action against the American people. He said they were not on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Tulsi Gabbard. Actually, let me get your reaction to this, John, because ODNI head Tulsi Gabbard was testifying astride CIA head John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel today in Congress and got some of the same questions that Tucker asked Joe Kent. Let's roll S4 here to get Gabbard.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes.

[Emily]

Yes.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

And the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. End Quote, correct.

[Emily]

That's right.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

And that's the assessment of the intelligence community?

[Emily]

Yes.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

The White house stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. End quote. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?

[Emily]

The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to. To rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?

[Emily]

Yes or no, Senator? The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the President.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

You're false. This is the timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.

[Emily]

Exactly what I'm doing.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

No, you're evading a question. Because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.

[Emily]

So, John, reading between the lines of that testimony from DNI Gabbard, she's not wholeheartedly embracing the war, obviously. She sold, at one point, no war with Iran t shirts. She repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly opposed. She opposed the strike on Soleimani. She's opposed a war with Iran for a very long time. I think, reading between the lines, she. She punts to Trump and says he's the one who can determine the imminent threat. Is that what you got from that?

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, and I think, you know, so a lot.

[Emily]

John may have just froze. I'm sure he'll come back momentarily. Oh, here we go.

[John Daniel Davidson]

If it is the President's job to determine if eminent, why hasn't he told us anything? Why hasn't the President told us what was the imminent threat? And the other thing that really shakes people's confidence, I think, is the shifting justifications. Is it to free the Iranian people and to do regime change and liberate them? Is it that Iran has posed an imminent threat for 47 years? We heard this a lot in the first week of the. Which is a really stupid thing to say because it renders the phrase imminent threat totally malleable, totally meaningless. What was the imminent threat? You know, was it that someday their missile program was going to be so advanced that it would shield them from anyone doing anything about the nuclear program? Well, that doesn't. I mean, we're stretching the definition of the term imminent here, I think, to justify the fact. I think that the reality is that Trump believed, or he was convinced, either way, he came to believe that the Iranian regime was weak and could be toppled with some airstrikes and he went ahead with this without a real clear theory of victory, which is why the administration is having these problems communicating what our war aims are and what our theory of victory is. And they're also not doing anything to prepare the American people for what might be necessary to actually win this war. They're not preparing the American people to accept the kind of escalation that it seems is going to be necessary.

[Emily]

Okay, So I think that's a really important point. I just want to bring in a quote from Mark Levin here, who's been just hammering Joe Kent all day and said he knew for a fact that Mark Levin actually leaked a, an interview or leaked that he had been in the White House to Tucker. I'm trying to find the exact quote here, but Mark Levin also said, this is what I want to get your take on, that the imminent threat. It wasn't an imminent threat. It was an ongoing threat. This is a quote from Levin today. And I ask you that because you just made this point in a very, I think, important way, which is that's semantics. And to the average American, that distinction between imminent and ongoing is enormously significant. And people don't like playing semantics with war.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, yeah, no, I know. Right. And, and I understand that in, like, strategic security studies, like the academics who kind of study this stuff and in the war colleges that there are, you know, some of these things are terms of art that imminent threats and, you know, you know, potential threat, and these things have different kind of meanings, like in. In. In the jargon of academic military security studies. But if you are going to launch a war with Iran of choice, and you're the White House, you need to communicate that in a way that ordinary people can wrap their brains around and not feel like they're being handled. Every time a reporter asks a super straightforward, basic question and not have Trump's team, his top officials, give different answers on different days and get super touchy and defensive when they're given what should be softball questions, like, how does this war end? Are there going to be ground troops? How long is this going to last? I mean, what does victory look like? Is this a regime change war? These should be questions that can be answered in ways that ordinary people can understand. How are we gonna open the Strait of Hormuz? What do we do when gas gets over $200 a gallon and people are paying 5, 6, 7, 8, $10 a gallon at the pump? There was a lack of planning on the part of the Trump administration that is becoming clear as each kind of week ticks. By. In this war. And they're unable to communicate or persuade a lot of people in this country that they have a theory of victory. And as you say, playing semantic games about imminent and ongoing. Man, screw that. That's not what people want to hear. We want to hear, why are we go. Why are we in this war? What is the point? Why did we have to go to war now? And how do we win? What does victory look like? Those should be questions that have, that should have already been answered in a way that is satisfactory to ordinary Americans.

[Emily]

Yeah, it feels like everything from respirators to. It feels like everything from that to weapons of mass destruction. And people are really, people really have their radars on for that right now in a way that happened because of those prior examples. So maybe people weren't as attuned to it then, but I think now people are really. I mean, it's a very low, it's an era of very low institutional trust. So to already have breached that trust with such a poor messaging campaign at best, if not just a muddled. Do you interpret this as. As the president having been pulled in different directions by his own administration, by the president making. Maybe I don't want to use impulsive as a pejorative because I don't think that's appropriate in foreign policy. Sometimes you have to make quick decisions. But I'll say, like the president making an impulsive decision here, why has it been kind of all over the map?

[John Daniel Davidson]

I think because there wasn't. They didn't. There wasn't a planning process that, that kind of. I understand that there's planning processes like the Department of Defense plans for everything. They have rooms full of people. All they do is sit around all day and game out scenarios. But I don't think that planning process filtered up to the, to the top echelons in the White House. And, you know, I don't, I'm just a, you know, I'm just a simple woodcutter. Right. I don't have any special information, but it seems to me that, that Trump was persuaded that this would be an easy. It seems clear, even though they said, I, I realized when they started this war, they said it'll be four to six weeks or four to five weeks that. But I think that Trump thought it would actually be a matter of like 48 to 72 hours, the regime would collapse. And I think he became persuaded, once he became persuaded of that, it was just a matter of moving the carrier groups over there. You know, that. Which took, you know, some weeks to do that. And that was the extent of it. And they didn't plan, by their own admission, they didn't plan for the Strait of Hormuz being closed down and, you know, 1/5 of the world's oil supply being cut off. They didn't plan for all out assault on civilian oil and electrical grid infrastructure among the Gulf states and our allies in the Gulf where our bases are. And we also maybe didn't plan for what Israel's war aims are. This is a situation where there's not a unified chain of command, first conflict in American history where we are fighting a war with allies, where we don't have a unified chain of command and we don't have veto over what Israel does. So today Israel hits this, you know, civilian energy plant. The name is escaping me right now, but there's videos of it all, all over the place today. And Iran responded by hitting this liquefied natural gas facility in Qatar. And we weren't part of that, that strike. Right. That's crazy to me that we don't have a unified chain of command in this war. And that, that to me speaks to a failure of planning along with all the other things that we mentioned.

[Emily]

Super interesting. A couple of other moments from the Tucker Kent interview that just wrapped like an hour or so ago. He said the Israelis, Kent said the Israelis drove the decision to take this action. He said the Israelis felt emboldened, that no matter what they did, basically we, the United States would have to react. He claimed that we could have still back channeled to the Iranians in the negotiation process. He said that if the Ayatollah was killed, the regime would survive, which was an interesting part of the interview, that a good deal of key decision makers. I'm just going through my notes right now, were not allowed to talk to the President. It sounded a lot like he was implying Tulsi Gabbard herself was not allowed to talk to the President with this and communicate this information. But he also said that the Israelis do not care. To the point you were just making, John, that there's no regime change plan because they see, and Netanyahu sees utter chaos in Iran. For some like reasonable, I mean, you could make a reasonable argument that the chaos in Iran weakens the country and therefore weakens their enemy. I don't necessarily agree with that. But where we end up here now is Mark Levin, as I mentioned, saying that he knows for a fact Kent leaked to Tucker Carlson a meeting that the President had with him. And now, interestingly enough, Kent has been derided as a leaker by anonymous leakers for the last 24 hours, which is always amusing. But according to Shelby Talkett over at Semaphore, Joe Kent is under FBI investigation for allegedly leaking classified information, according to three sources. And the investigation, according to Shelby, predates his departure. John, that seems particularly.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Didn't they say the same thing about that guy, Dan Caldwell?

[Emily]

Yeah, and Dan. Yes, and Dan was cleared because he was just rehired.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah. So this seems to be a PR stunt, I think. I don't, I don't think you, you know, you need to have, like, a lot of special knowledge to kind of see that this is a communications kind of scheme to limit the damage from Joe Kent's resignation. I, yeah, I will, I will paraphrase what my boss and your former boss, Shawn Davis posted on X, that I'm sure glad that all the Russia collusion hoaxers are all in jail and all of the people who broke the law and undermined our government and spied on us and tried to undermine Trump's first administration.

[Joe Kent]

That.

[John Daniel Davidson]

That's all been taken care of. I'm really glad that that's all been taken care of and now we can move on to this. It's just crazy. Yeah, it's just crazy. It's crazy to me that, that the administration is going to start scapegoating the Iran war dissenters in this way when they have problems enough of their own, and the least of their problems at this point is Joe Kent resigning under protest, which, by the way, is what you should do if you don't feel that you can in good conscience carry out the president's agenda, you should resign. And that's what he did. So rather than, you know, remaining in the administration, as a lot of people have done, in both of Trump's terms, and try to undermine the president from within. So, yeah, I think, I think it's a very bad sign. And it, and it communicates, I think, and suggests a kind of fragility and insecurity and a kind of ad hoc decision making in the White House right now. That, again, I think all stems from a lack of contingency planning about what was actually going to happen when they decided to sort of tip over, you know, and start this war with Iran. This, that, that's apparently, as you said, there were plenty of people inside the administration who were dissenting voices and they were sidelined. And, and that's, you know, kind of how Trump came to be convinced that this was the right thing to do. You know, it doesn't Inspire confidence.

[Emily]

Well, before we leave, this question of, or this conversation about Joe Kent's comments this evening, I did want to get your take on this moment was more than a moment. It was actually, it turned into a fairly substantial chunk of the interview. They talked about how Joe Kent was stopped from his perch. I had the National Counterterrorism center from investigating, according to his take. This is Joe Kent saying it, further investigating whether Charlie Kirk's death had any connections to foreign government, state actors and the like. This is S1.

[Joe Kent]

And the last time I saw Charlie Kirk on this earth was in, in June in, in the, in the West Wing, in the stairway. And I said hi to him and he looked me in the eye and he said very loudly, and it's a small. You've been in the West Wing. It's small, it's a tight space. And he said, joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran. Very loudly.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

He was single minded.

[Joe Kent]

And he walked off and he went, I believe, into the Oval. So when one of President Trump's closest advisors, who is vocally advocating for us to not go to war with Iran and for us to rethink at least our relationship with the Israelis, and then he suddenly, publicly assassinated, and we're not allowed to ask any questions about that. It's a data point. It's a data point that we need to look into.

[John Daniel Davidson]

What do you mean when you say

[Tulsi Gabbard]

we're not allowed to ask any questions about that?

[Joe Kent]

We've been told that this individual Robinson is a lone gunman and maybe he is, but the investigation that I was a part of, the National Counterterrorism center was a part of, we were stopped from continuing to investigate. And the FBI will say that they stopped that because they wanted to have every turn everything over to the Utah state authorities. Everything's going to trial. It's very, very sensitive. But there was still a lot for us to look into that I can't really get into. But there was still linkage for us to investigate that we needed to run down. I'm not making any conclusions. I'm not saying. No, I don't think you are. Because, you know, because of this, this happened. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying there's unanswered questions. We know the pressure because of the text messages, text messages that have been made public that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from a lot of pro Israel donors. And again, we know Charlie was advocating to President Trump against this war with Iran.

[Emily]

That's really explosive, John, because again, just 24 hours ago, he was the head of the National Counterterrorism Center. He's confirming what was reported back in October in the Daily Mail, that Patel had shut down the foreign intelligence probe in an explosive feud with Trump's counterterror chief. That's in the Daily Mail's words. They talk a little bit about Butler in addition to some of the unanswered questions about what happened at Utah Valley University. And it gets into almost Kennedy territory. I thought the conversation went there. I'm just curious what you make of this.

[John Daniel Davidson]

So many lone gunmen. There's so many lone gunmen. We. I think we.

[Emily]

But it's not a pattern. It's not a trend.

[John Daniel Davidson]

It's just. It's just a lot of just disturbed young men acting totally alone. We essentially don't have an FBI. I mean, unfortunately, when Trump won the election, came in with high hopes. We're going to get in here. And after the insane abuses of the FBI and the intelligence community during the Biden administration and even during Trump's first term, we're finally going to. And, you know, and I and others were advocating hard, like, you got to clean out these institutions, you dismantle them, end them if necessary, and reconstitute something in their place. But actually, it just turns out we essentially don't have an FBI. We, you know, the, the. And people can call me a conspiracy theorist that they want. I don't think that the explanation of Charlie Kirk's assassination makes sense. I don't think the assassination attempts of crooks against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, makes sense. I don't think a lot of these things, the official stories, like what we know, none of it makes sense. It certainly doesn't make sense that we don't know anything, for example, about crooks. And we know, you know, and with. But with other similar crimes, we know everything within, like, five minutes, you know, about these other mass shootings. I think it's crazy. And I just saw that, that clip up right before I came on with you. I think that it's just insane that, that this is what, this is what they came down to with, with the Charlie Kirk assassination that was, that was in September of last year, you know, and, and the fact that he was so vocally against our involvement in this war, the fact that he was facing enormous pressure from donors, the fact that he was not going to back down. It's become very clear it didn't matter what the donor said. He, he had completely changed his views on some of these things from, you know, going Back, you know, from five or six, seven years earlier. And, and then he's assassinated, you know, you know, in the way that he was assassinated. I, I agree with what Joe Kent said. It's not conclusive. I'm not making any claims, but these are questions that we need answers to. Why wasn't the National Counterterrorism center allowed to investigate this? Why didn't the FBI investigate it? Why won't anyone talk about it? These are the kinds of things that destroy ordinary people's confidence in the people at the top of this administration.

[Emily]

Yes. And the big picture implication is that potentially that sort of sword of Damocles is hanging over Donald Trump's head whenever he makes a decision that might be out of step. This is the implication that they get to in the conversation. I'm not necessarily validating it, but the, the broader kind of conspiracy theory is that there's a sort of Damocles that's hung over every American president's head since as, as Tucker would say, and frankly, I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest this. The CIA coup took out John F. Kennedy. We don't know exactly why. We have some indications of maybe why that was. Oliver Stone, it would say, would say he was trying to have peace with the Soviets. Some people would say it was. He was pressuring Israel over its nuclear program, but that every American president has since had that threat hanging over their heads. And that's the kind of big picture reason that they got into that conversation, John.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, And I haven't seen that, the whole, the whole exchange between Kent and Tucker there. But I think, you know, in, in the, in the kind of information environment that we're in, you know, it behooves the administration to be as clear as they can be.

[Emily]

Exactly.

[John Daniel Davidson]

You know, we are the most propagandized people in history, and we're aware, like many of us are aware of it now, having, like, lived through Covid, having lived just through the past 10 years, like, we're aware that we're being propagandized all the time. So when you come out and you play games, semantic games, with something as serious as a war with Iran, when you try to kind of, you know, do flashing hands and wave shiny objects and get us to stop talking about Charlie Kirk's assassination or try to smear anyone as an anti Semite or conspiracy theorist kook who asks, you know, good faith questions about it, boy, that does so much more damage that it doesn't solve any problems. You know, they're not solving any problems. The only thing that's going to solve any problems here is sunlight and the truth.

[Emily]

John, I hope you can stick around because I went long on that segment and would love to keep talking. I'm gonna take a quick break if that's all right.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Sure.

[Emily]

Perfect. All right. Well, this spring, if you're ready to finally see glowing skin, stronger hair and steady energy, you need to add colostrum to your daily routine. Because it all starts in the gut. And once your gut health is right, everything else follows. That's where colostrum comes in. Cowboy Colostrum provides the highest quality first day whole bovine colostrum available in the US sourced exclusively from 100American grass fed cows. American cows only. Unlike other brands, Cowboy colostrum is never stripped down or over processed. It's whole, full fat and rich in bioactives and growth factors for maximum nutrient density and their ethical practices only collect surplus colostrum after calves have had their fill. It's easy to use. Just mix a scoop of your favorite flavor chocolate, Madagascar vanilla matcha or my favorite strawberry into your coffee or morning smoothie for a daily boost. For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order. Just head to cowboycolostrum.com afterparty and use code AFTERPARTY at checkout. That's 25 off when you use code [e-mail] afterparty After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please report our show and tell them we sent you.

[Rosetta Stone Advertiser]

There are countless reasons to learn a new language. Whether you have an upcoming trip planned or you simply want to learn a new skill. Rosetta Stone breaks down your new language into bite sized pieces and focuses on speaking practice for real conversations. Rosetta Stone's True Accent feature even helps you perfect your pronunciation. I mean pronunciation. Visit RosettaStone.com today. Rosetta Stone How Languages Learned if you're

[John Daniel Davidson]

a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up [e-mail] 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.

[Emily]

All right, back now with John Daniel Davidson, Senior Editor over at the Federalist and also the author of a wonderful book called Pagan America, which is very timely John, because Literally just today, just today, the news broke. This is from defense scoops. The news broke that the White House registered two new government domains this week, quote alien.gov and aliens.gov. they didn't want to leave the plural off. According to publicly available federal records, their appearance comes about one month after president Donald Trump announced plans to direct the long anticipated release of U. S. Government records about unidentified anomalous phenomena. So UAP and extraterrestrial beings. Meanwhile, we should also mention there's a big CNN report that pops today. Renewed attention is falling on the base. This is the Wright Patterson base, the infamous Wright Patterson base, Quote, after the disappearance of retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William M. Neil McCasland, a former commander of the air force research laboratory at Wright Patterson whose career placed him at the center of some of the Pentagon's most advanced aerospace research. Authorities say there's no evidence linking McCaslin's disappearance from this, his Albuquerque home, to UFO research. But the case has revived curiosity about the base. McCaslin reported experiencing mental fog before he disappeared. The base, we also know, hosts several key organizations which include the air force research laboratory. And McCasland, who retired about 13 years ago, once commanded that laboratory, which, as CNN reports, is where scientists and engineers develop technologies ranging from advanced aircraft materials to cutting edge propulsion systems. John, we have absolutely no idea whether any of the McCasland story is connected with the recent push for UAP disclosure. It's interesting and overall, I'm curious what you make because in pagan America you spend a lot of time thinking about actually, like supernatural, why we might be approaching this age of disclosure, to quote the name of the documentary right now in Trump 2.0.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, so

[Emily]

it's an easy question. It was a short question. You have 20 seconds.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Just to be clear, Pagan America isn't about aliens.

[Emily]

No, it's not. It's not.

[John Daniel Davidson]

It's. We don't, I don't talk about that. But I will say, here's what I'll say.

[Emily]

But you do talk about demons. And. Yeah, and John, John, tell me if I'm wrong. I'm gonna guess you believe that aliens might be demons.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Well, I told Tucker Carlson that when I was on his show ahead of my book launch. So he asked me point blank, you know, what do you think they are? And I said, yeah, I think aliens are demons. Okay, you know, look, look, the people in the UAP world and in, in the UFO world often talk about extra interdimensional beings and discarnate intelligences. And I think any other society in human History and every other culture in human history would recognize that, that a discarnate intelligence or a multi dimensional being is demon. It's a spirit, it's a spiritual being. And I think that we need to keep our heads about us, but I think that this, we're not going to, but we need to. I think that this push for disclosure, it may be part of a way to just control information.

[Emily]

Thank you.

[John Daniel Davidson]

And it's not actually disclosure. There are people. And I would recommend, if your listeners are interested in this, my book is not the book to read on this subject, but there's a book by a scholar named Diana Pasulka and she wrote a book called Encounters, which was a follow on to an earlier book she had wrote called American Cosmic. And she's a scholar of religion and her, her work does touch a lot on the UAP UFO stuff, but her contention is that the, this stuff constitutes a kind of new kind of religion that's emerging. And she interviews a lot of anonymous sources in very high places that have a lot of interesting things to say about what UAPs and UFO phenomena are. And some of these people are in Silicon Valley and they seek out, they have sought out on purpose and used AI in some cases to do it, these discarnate intelligences because they feel like they, they believe that they're receiving information, advanced information and technology from these entities. So, you know, without going too far afield here, I, I will just, I will suggest, and this is in my book, book, this in the first part of my book, and there's a part in AI in the book as well. It is a, been a pattern throughout human history and especially in antiquity that seeking divine knowledge from spiritual beings is something that has been part of every human, every pagan culture in, in all human history, across geography, across cultures. This is a pattern. Right? And the link between spiritual beings, if people are uncomfortable with demons, I'll call them spiritual beings. And technology is maybe not intuitive for us as modern kind of people, but it is nevertheless a very close connection, a very close connection between technology and spiritual beings giving knowledge to kings, princes, emperors, religious leaders. And I think that if I, you know, if, if, if demons or these, these malign spiritual entities were going to try to communicate or interact or cooperate with People in the 21st century, technology is absolutely the way that they would do it. And, and a convenient story for how we got some of this technology would be, oh, it's from aliens. They crashed and we recovered their, their craft and we reverse engineered it. And don't worry, you know, we have evidence of it. So I guess just cards on the table. I don't think there are any aliens. I think that the alien story is a cover for something else.

[Emily]

So interesting, because I also wanted to ask about Peter Thiel going to Rome, taking his show on the road to Rome about the Antichrist. And John, I imagine as a faithful Catholic, you have consumed some of Teal's lectures. He did a couple of interviews with Peter Robinson over the course of the last year. He sat down with Ross Doutha, and Doutha kind of probed him from a Catholic perspective. He's a Gerardian, so that's all wrapped up in this. But he's basically been talking about the catacomb and how it's possible the de accelerationists, the Greta Thunbergs, are actually the Antichrist and they will manifest. This is going way far afield. But we're going to talk about it because you wrote the book literally that, that kind of points us in towards some of these important questions. Chad Ripperger, Father Chad Ripperger was on Sean Ryan recently talking about the sort of Catholic perspective on end times as a counterweight to the dispensationalist perspective on end times that has pushed a lot of people into support for the Iran war. And what I'm trying to get at here, John, what kind of show is this? Yeah, I know, right? I was like, john, you gotta come on. But, but actually, what kind of book is Pagan?

[John Daniel Davidson]

Let's go back to talking about Iran.

[Emily]

I know. Well, we kind of are, but. But all I'm saying is that AI, you have AI happening in the space. You have uap, what looks a lot like planned disclosures or strategic disclosures or limited hangouts happening in that space. And at the same time now you have this, I think, serious conversation about how in the end times are described as a. It's a global phenomenon. People have the mark of the beast, which is something that everyone has and sort of brings. There's a shrinking of the globe that you can pretty easily read into that. I'm not asking you if we're in the end times, but I'm asking you why right now so many people are contemplating whether we're in the end. Like, is there something in the water right now that makes us feel like humanity is ending?

[John Daniel Davidson]

I think there's a deep anxiety and deep reservations about technology. We have seen. We have, we've seen kind of what the technological, the digital, the online revolution has done in our lifetimes. Right? A brilliant writer who I think you, you know, and maybe have interviewed Mary Harrington.

[Emily]

Yes.

[John Daniel Davidson]

You know, says that the. The singularity already happened. Right. And it was the iPhone and social media, and we're. And we're actually in it, you know, And I think that's. Has caused an intense kind of anxiety that is justified. Right? It's justified anxiety. And now the pace of our technological, you know, our merging with technology, which, you know, these. These phones and our social media is merging with us in. In, like, psychological and emotional and intellectual ways, in our habits and our habits of thought, in how we interact, in how we see the world and think about the world, in our relationships. And it's incredibly anxiety inducing. I think people feel on an intuitive level that there's something wrong with it, that there's something malign about it, that there's something sinister about this technology and the way that we've incorporated and grafted it into our lives and our consciousness. I think that's why people are talking about these things, and they should be talking about these things. One of the things you mentioned, the Antichrist and Peter Thiel's lectures and these different theories about the Antichrist.

[Emily]

He's in Rome now, and a lot of Catholics are upset. A lot of the Catholics in Rome are actually, like, denouncing what's happening.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, I heard from people today in Rome about this.

[Emily]

Really.

[John Daniel Davidson]

I think if you want to talk about the Catholic perspective, the Church Fathers were unanimous on this idea that the Antichrist, when the Antichrist appeared, it would deceive many and deceive many of the faithful, and it would seemingly offer answers and powers to. Answers to our questions and powers and capabilities that were beyond human power, and it would draw people in on that basis, and many would be deceived. And I think that there's a danger here. And this is why people like. Like Peter Thiel make me uneasy to the extent that he's a transhumanist, like Elon Musk and some of these other guys who. Who see technology as this. Who see our future as merging with technology to achieve these great superhuman things and to sort of create our own kind of deities and then become those deities. I think that there is. First of all, that's totally antithetical to my Catholic and Christian cosmology, to my understanding of what man is and the human person is. And I'm totally against it. And so I understand maybe thinking that from Peter Thiel's perspective, that decelerationists like Greta Thunberg or whatever are an Antichrist. I'm much more concerned that his vision for the future and his ideas will lead to a form of Antichrist. For. For those reasons, because of what they're. What they would like to do and what they think that now maybe they're starting to glimpse they could do with the technology that's coming online. And so these are things, I think, that, you know, we need to talk about and people are talking about, I think, because there's. There's an intense anxiety about it.

[Emily]

It. That's.

[John Daniel Davidson]

That's totally justified.

[Emily]

Okay, that's so interesting. I'm gonna keep you for one more if that's okay, Javi, because you're a former Texan, and we're gonna talk about James Talarico not eating meat, and then maybe eating meat. A little bit of a drawing transition, but why not? We're gonna go from the Antichrist to James Talarico. I feel like. Okay, I was gonna say it's perfectly appropriate. That would be inappropriate. I'm not gonna say that. But we do have this clip of James Talarico. This isn't meat related. We'll get to that in just one moment. This is him talking about how he's not into progressive Christianity. It's just biblical Christianity.

[James Talarico]

Go back and read Matthew 20:south by southwest. Read the parable of the sheep and the goats. It's a fascinating story. At the end of the world, Jesus gathers all the people and all the nations. So it's us as individuals, but it's also us as. As communities, as societies. And the story says that Jesus is going to tell. Some of us depart from me because I was hungry and you didn't feed me. I was sick and you didn't heal me. I was a stranger and you didn't welcome me. And then we're going to respond and say, christ, when did we see you hungry or sick or a stranger and not help you? And then, then he replies, what you do for the least of these is what you do for me. People are always finding Jesus in a piece of toast or a stain on the wall. But we're not finding him where he told us we would find him. In the poor, in the sick, in the needy, in the bombed, in the starved, in the oppressed. And so I'm not. I'm not preaching a progressive Christianity. I'm preaching a biblical Christianity.

[Emily]

Okay, so amen to Matthew 25. But that's freshman dorm level analysis. Yes, the.

[John Daniel Davidson]

The interesting thing about leftists is that they hate Christianity. And so somebody on their side decides to deploy a false, heretical form of Christianity and They hate politicizing it. Oh, then they love. Yeah, yeah. You can't be political about Christianity unless you do it from the left. Then you can be as political as you want and it's just heartwarming and you get the polite applause and affirmations, but if you deploy it from the right, then it's literally fascism.

[Emily]

Christian nationalism.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Christian nationalism is white supremacy. You're basically a Nazi. Yeah, it's so, it's so stupid. It's hard to respond to it, like in a, in good faith, you know, to engage this, this kind of performative, kind of David Frenchian version. Yeah. Which I think David French actually praised this guy saying, like, oh, finally he's, you know, he's, he's a, he's a decent. I think that was the thing. His decency is. He's decent because of what he says. No, but, but, but ultimately this, this guy is a, is a diabolical creep and a heretic who's, who's peddling a false version of Christianity. He's not. Yeah, I mean, that's what I think.

[Emily]

So. Well, I mean, on this show we call him James. God is non binary Talariko because that's his favorite thing to say about the Lord.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Look, he's peddling something that is no different. His version of Christianity is actually an old sclerotic, worn out version of mainline Protestant Christianity that decided in the middle of the last century that it was going to accommodate political liberalism in exchange that it was, that it would change its doctrines and its beliefs and its teachings for the sake of political power and influence. And here I'm talking about the Episcopal Church usa, the Methodists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterians, the mainline Protestant churches, that they would essentially turn their back and renounce the traditional Christian teachings and doctrines that those churches had maintained for a very long time and accommodate sort of liberalism. And, and what happened to those churches is they collapsed and you know, some of them within our lifetimes will cease to be anything but a bank account. Right. The Episcopal Church will be a bank account. There won't be actually any Episcopalians left before long. The only thing that Talarico is doing is taking that worn out, totally discredited version of liberal pseudo Christianity of the mainline Protestant denominations and putting it kind of wrapping it in TikTok and Instagram. That's all he's doing. There's no substance there because we, we can see what has happened to the, the teachings, the doctrine, the theology of the Protestant mainline has, bears no resemblance to historical Christianity. It bears no resemblance to any kind of reasonable or historically accurate interpretation of biblical scriptures. It is simply a veneer, a Christian veneer put over progressive liberal politics. And James Talarico's only contribution is to break it down into little social media sound bites for TikTok.

[Emily]

And you will find few more charitable organizations than conservative Christian denominations.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, exactly right.

[Emily]

So deeply offensive to say that if you don't support a bigger welfare state, you're not in support of Matthew 25. I mean, it's just right.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Jesus wasn't talking about the welfare state there. He was talking about individual people, individual Christians and what their obligations are to the poor. And when you look at the data on philanthropy, who actually helps the poor, who actually puts their money where their mouth is, it is overwhelmingly conservative Christians, like conservative Bible believing, you know, Christians, the kind of people that Talarico and those who applaud him at south by Southwest would call fascists and white supremacists. Those are the people who actually give to charity and support the poor and volunteer and do corporeal works of mercy. That's who does it.

[Emily]

No, it's a fact. And they pay their taxes too, so. But John, this is Talarico in 2022 declaring that his campaign at the time had gone meatless again. As a former Texan and a meat eater, we got to ask you about this one. S6.

[James Talarico]

We have, I think, heard more and more.

[Emily]

Oh, he's in a mass 2022, I

[James Talarico]

think, not just because it's the right thing to do and the moral thing to do, but also it's, as all of you know, necessary to fight climate change. It is now existential that we try to reduce our meat consumption and that we try to respect animals in all aspects of society. And so I, I am proud to say that our campaign has officially become a non meat campaign. So we have, we are, we are only buying vegan products from our local vegan businesses.

[Emily]

So then his campaign, this is this type of person that chant John Daniel Davidson out of Austin, by the way, during COVID This is F7. This is Talarico's campaign. Put out a picture of him chowing down on what looks like a turkey leg and says official statement from James Talarico on vegan accusations. John, this is so annoyingly bad. Just on a political level.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah.

[Emily]

That he's out there lecturing people on how going vegan, going meatless for his campaign is the right thing to do in the sanctum. I mean, he was dripping with sanctum and contempt for people who disagree with him in that statement. And then there he. Now that he's running for major Senate office as the decent man, as the civil man, he's like, oh, no, no, no, I love meat. How dare you accuse me of anything else. Haha. It's all a joke.

[John Daniel Davidson]

It reminds me of when Beto O' Rourke said was asked about AR15s. This is, I think this is either when he was running for Senate in Texas or running for governor. He's lost everything. He ran for Senate and governor and president and he lost all three. So I can't remember which one. There's either Senate or governor. And he was asked about gun control.

[Emily]

It was for Ayatollah. He was running for Ayatollah.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Yeah, right. And he was asked about AR15s and

[Emily]

he's like, you're effing right.

[John Daniel Davidson]

We're going to take your AR15s. Like, that's the wrong thing to say. In Texas, even if you do plan to take their AR15, what do you

[Emily]

do about the hogs?

[John Daniel Davidson]

You're not campaigning in Massachusetts, right? It's Texas, you know, so you don't say, yeah, we're gonna, we're f. Yeah, we're gonna take your AR15s. And you don't go out there and say, you know, we're gonna go meatless for our campaign because we gotta respect all animals. You know, Texas is oil and cattle and AR15.

[Emily]

So just people's livelihoods. It's not just their diets.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Right, Right. Yeah, it's. It's not, it's not just a pose. Right, right. It's a huge industry in Texas. You might as well say, like, we're going to shut down oil production in Texas. Literally. You might as well say that. So it's, this is, you know, this is part of a long tradition of progressive leftists thinking that in Texas it's just, it's, you know, this time we, you know, this time will be different. You know, we just have to go harder to the left and we have to go harder in getting out the vote and we have to be more outrageous in our leftism. And this time we'll win. And it's never worked. I mean, maybe I don't want to. I'm not into political predictions. Maybe it'll work this time, but it hasn't ever worked yet. And I don't think that Talarico is the man to sell this particular message because who does his kind of demeanor and his kind of sort of weak on the one hand, weak, you know, presence and carriage and Tone and his insane neo pagan Christian, you know, heretical Christian istic beliefs. Who does that appeal to outside, you know, libs in Austin and you know, and, and people, you know who are already committed. It's not going to persuade anybody. It's certainly not going to persuade any of the, the Hispanics in South Texas who have been Democrats for generations, who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and 2024. It's not going to persuade them. And you need those people to win statewide elections in Texas selfishly.

[Emily]

John Daniel Davidson, I feel like I kept you this long just to catch up because it's been too long and we used to work together every day and also John's on like a weird time zone. So it's, it's just been so good to have you on the show. John. Please, people, go buy Pagan America America.

[John Daniel Davidson]

It's been my pleasure talking with you, Emily. I hope that I didn't freak everybody out with my answers to your sidewinder questions.

[Emily]

If you did, it's because I invited it. And happily so. John Daniel Davidson, senior editor at the Federalist, he's going to have a story up about Iran tomorrow. So make sure to check that out over@the federalist.com and pagan America you can get on Amazon wherever books are sold. Thanks, John.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Thanks, Emily.

[Emily]

All right, we're going to close out the show this evening with new ratings from CBS Evening News. This is brutal. This is brutal. And one of the reasons we've been covering this story, one of the reasons these numbers I surmise, are so brutal, several months now into Tony decouple's high profile run as the anchor of CBS Evening News, is that journalists are supposed to challenge power. It's a, an era of very low institutional trust, very low institutional trust like, like across the board. And that's what people are going to see when they tune in to the news, even to the evening news, which is a much more staid format. They want to trust that you're holding people to account across the board without fear or favor. Which is why, by the way, journalists should always be protective of their own privacy because you should be challenging power. That's, that's the job. And actually all of us should be protective of our own privacy, which is why as a journalist, yes, I have some tricks that probably other people would employ on their own as well. One of them is our great sponsors Unplugged with the UPPhOne you've heard about before. I have it here on in my hand. It has amazing features. You can actually pulling up right now, how many people have tracked like how many trackers I've had today, how many tracking attempts have been blocked in the last 24 hours? You can turn the VPN on and off super easily. And you can also, it's amazing, basically just make your data inacceptable in inaccessible with the flip of a switch. So if you are concerned about your privacy on the same level as journalists, which honestly I feel like we all should be because powerful people are coming no matter what. If you are, you should go check out the Upphone from [e-mail] Emily that's unplugged.com Emily but if you're Tony decouple, you might not even have to worry about this because what threat do you pose to the powers that there are

[Rosetta Stone Advertiser]

countless reasons to learn a new language, whether you have an upcoming trip planned or you simply want to learn a new skill. Rosetta Stone breaks down your new language into bite sized pieces and focuses on speaking practice or real conversations. Rosetta Stone's True accent feature even helps you perfect your pronunciation. I mean pronunciation. Visit Rosetta Stone.com today. Rosetta Stone, how Languages Learned B.

[Emily]

That's a little mean, but it's serious because obviously the public isn't picking up on it. I mean, we have this Variety headline, quote, suddenly CBS Evening News is back where executives at the news division behind the show hoped never to to return. Lest you think that's dramatic, listen to the numbers. Variety goes on to say viewership for the program has once again dropped below 4 million, a critical demarcation point that previously spurred alarm at the Paramount Skydance news division. They actually scrapped, as Variety points out, the prior iteration of CBS Evening News, which was anchored by Maurice dubois and John Dickerson. They got rid of those guys because they were dipping below the level that de Cope was has now dipped below 4 million. The threshold is 4 million. Why? Well, the overall audience for the program, Variety says for the five days that ended at March 13 stood at nearly 3.83 million. This is in the middle of a war. One of the biggest news events in a generation. Plus it's the Trump administration, which every network television executive will tell you is generally good for getting butts in seats at the right time. So they're in the demo. So that's between 25 and 54. They were at 468,000. The numbers from ABC World News Tonight. I mean, this is a disaster for CBS. They were averaging 8.48 million. So basically eight and a half million with Over a million in the demo. Decouple is at 468,000 in the demo. Below 4 million total viewers. NBC averaged six and a half million overall viewers with almost a million in the demo. Man, that's rough by prior standards. But they're at about 946,000 in the demo. That amounts to wiping the floor with CBS Evening News. And CBS News has just done this massive revamp where they bring in Barry Weiss. Paramount is under David Ellison, was merged with Skydance under David Ellison, who is of course Larry Ellison's son. Larry Ellison is very friendly with the Trump administration. I wouldn't say that Barry Weiss is friendly with the Trump administration. I actually don't think that's true. But she's certainly very friendly with powerful interests whether they are in the Trump administration or in, on Wall street or in Silicon Valley. She is enormously well connected. And part of the rationale for buying CBS News under Ellison, buying the Free Press for like $250 million is precisely because Barry had built up such a Rolodex. I mean, what happens? And as soon as they hit the ground running, you may remember Barry put together like a town hall with I think it was Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. That's the deep Rolodex. If you're the type of person that is so respected, especially in the foreign policy world that you can pick up the phone and get principals on the show asap, that's gold in the media business. And so I just want to remind everybody that these numbers for decouple and CBS Evening News more broadly after they spent lots of money rebranding the show on a marketing campaign and bet on Tony decouple to be Meghan calls him Topra because he tries to kind of infuse a personal touch, maybe a little heavy handed of a personal touch to the news. He almost tries to explain the news a little bit sometimes on his, his, his send offs. It always feels so ham fisted. I'm not going to pretend I watch it every single night, but every time I do it feels like this ham fisted, heavy handed effort to almost patronize viewers. And so it's no surprise to me that the couple is dipping below 4 million which was previous previously seen by the network as their break in case of emergency number right where they're like, all right Dickerson, you're out. We're bringing the Copeland. This is all happening in the midst of a generational foreign policy conflict. One of the biggest news stories of the 21st century and one that features the Trump administration where Barry and her allies were supposed to use their deep Rolodexes, their many connections. And what I will say is a different and in many ways better approach to the news, which was to be a little bit more honest about perspective to, to feature a little bit more of that, although I don't think it's been enough. That's probably part of the problem. But also just to give people who are sitting down on their chairs at the end of the day in their routine of watching nightly news what they're looking for, which is nuts and bolts. Give us the nuts and bolts. Tell me what the news is, and I will feel more informed when I'm done with my 30 minutes sort of checking in on global affairs. And if anything, this is a news cycle tailor made to exactly what CBS bought when it bought the Free Press and brought it in to CBS News, into the family and brought Barry to the head of the news. And again, it's hilarious to me when journalists that have been at CBS News for a long time as the network failed and dipped below 4mil for their evening news broadcast or gone, got story after story incorrect or stood behind Leslie Stahl like it was, you know, the most important career duty they've ever faced. The people leaking and complaining about Barry are no better than anyone who is coming in and being accused of being pro Trump or whatever. I mean, if you read the Free Press, it's not pro Trump. It's more pro Trump than CBS News was before where Barry walked in. It's more open minded, certainly, and it publishes debates and the like. And I think that's, that's probably should be showing up more in CBS News than it is right now. And I'm sure it's a long battle, but to hear the leaks from inside is amusing and I have no sympathy with those people. And I don't want to act as though I think Barry Weiss and her team are in an easy position right now. I don't think that's the case. But they're caught in this major transition between old media and new media, which has been a payday for Barry and people who are out in front of this and saw what was coming and saw that people were sort of becoming more siloed. They wanted to trust personalities. Decopolo is clearly not a personality that people feel that they can trust on a scale that CBS needs to put him in that position if they want to be competitive again, which clearly they want to be competitive again. Now, is the evening news a dying format? Absolutely. Just like CBS is Also jettisoning Stephen Colbert, not just him, but the Late show itself. The whole franchise gone. Because these are dying formats, but they're formats that can work across multiple platforms if you're really savvy about it. And that's the trick for everyone going forward, is to have a. I mean, is to have a show. It's a little leaner. You can cut the budget a bit, but you can succeed on YouTube. You can succeed with your evening news clips on Tick Tock or wherever else. It's very hard to do. Very hard to do. But the early efforts from CBS News have been like, weird Decouple man on the streets. It was just. It's not working. It's not working. And this is a time in which it should be. So listen, I'm not underestimating all the challenges internally, but there are some headwinds that should be balancing those out, given the news cycle and the connections and the trust that the new team brought in with them. And to dip below 4 million, that has to be. That's the type of news that the Copal has to get that just is sinking. It's like a gut punch. So maybe he could turn around. But it seems like this is a him problem that he is. You know, as people turn to personalities, I mean, that's. That's a great example of how you can have synergy. Worst world in the English, worst word in the English dictionary. But the right word in this case, between TikTok and evening news. People who watch the evening news, they want to trust the person delivering the news. They don't want to hear a lot about it. You know, they just kind of want to know that the entity that is saying the words, that they trust them. TikTok trusts personalities. They're different types of trust. But decouple's clearly not earning a bunch of trust across the board as a. As a personality. And. And this might be the type of thing that actually gets him swapped out. Now we're several months into it. Maybe they cling to him for a year and see if they can change something. But I also wouldn't be shocked if you saw a swap not that far into the future, because these are really competitive shows. And if you've watched the morning show, which obviously I very much enjoy, you get just a taste of how consequential the business side is on the. The morning end of it. It's the same on the evening end of it. These are like, this is real money, real money for these networks. So a lot on the line and that is a very, very bad sign. I'll leave it there for this evening. I want to give one more shout out to John Daniel Davidson who filled in for the great Billy Hallowell tonight. Billy had a family emergency, so we were very glad that John, who wrote almost like a Catholic version of Billy's book Playing with Fire, was able to jump in at the last minute. I'm so thankful and he stayed for the whole hour. Please do check out Pagan America. Read John over at the Federalist where he's senior editor, and make sure to subscribe here. By the way, if you haven't yet. It helps us a lot if you subscribe on YouTube. You can email me at emilyvelmaycare media.com we will be back with a happy hour edition on podcast only format. So just audio on Friday at 5pm right around happy hour time. It will hit the feed so subscribe there. Otherwise we will see you back here on the After Party YouTube channel or On Demand Live Monday at 9pm See you then everyone. Why have I asked my H Vac guy I found on angie.com to change my grandpa's trachea tube? Because I was so amazed by how quickly he replaced our air ducts, I knew I could trust him to change Pop Pop's tube while I was on vacation.

[John Daniel Davidson]

Make it quick young man.

[Emily]

Aw, see, Pop Pop trusts you.

[Dr. Horton Advertiser]

I think we should call a doctor.

[Emily]

Connecting homeowners with skilled pros for over 30 years. Angie the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home [e-mail]

[John Daniel Davidson]

Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last. It can be pretty stressful. Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today at odoo. Com. That's o-o.com.