So a special note to listeners, we had some internet difficulties recording this episode
and it proved difficult to try to edit them out and smooth them over,
so you'll just have to bear with us with our periodic glitches along the way.
But in return, we're making this an ad free episode for this week.
Thanks for listening, and please keep tuning into The Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
Whiskey Coming, Fake pay Molly, Oh Whiskey, don't you be?
From Powerline blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot Com. This is the
Three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and power Lines
International Woman of Mystery Lucretia Got gotta giving let that whiskey clone where you're being
in love down in the well. Hi, everybody, It's the three Whiskey
Happy Hour, although it could be the three Martini Happy Hour to change things
up because we have a twist tonight. The twist tonight is John Hugh is
away in his place. We are delighted to welcome Handley Arcus, who we
whose name we took in Vain a week ago and we thought, you know
what, we better make it up to him on purpose, not on purpose.
No, we were just going fast and as we too often do,
and scooped it all up. So anyway, welcome Handley, and uh,
what are even bibing tonight? Bourbon? What for bourbon? Bourbon? Creaty?
Have you got something at the elbow? Or so? I'm drinking red
wine too, only because I've been moving the last couple of days, which
means lifting heavy boxes and throwing my back out. I heard one of you
was drinking blanc last time I got Yeah, it was not me that I
promised you. But now but by the way, it wasn't just any It
wasn't the grass clipping sauvignon belong from New Zealand. It was one that's in
the Wine Spectator's top twenty winds up the year, I'll have, you know.
But I couldn't get that in last week because I wasn't. I've always
been working with Uh oh, that's George George Gobel principal, which is I
know my I know my limit. I just peck up. I just passed
out before I get there. So one martini tonight. I stopped at one
martini. Okay, yeah, that's the old rule I have is one martine
is not enough, but three is too many? Yeah, which is many
times. There's a Dorothy Parker line like that. I don't think we could
use on the air. Well, I don't know. Last week those guys
got a little carried away. Yes, there's one. One is enough too
is three? I'm under the table. Four, I'm under the host.
So that's right. Yeah. I thought it was one of the all right
listeners and had they do what we're gonna do here is well three parts.
First, I let me finish this. I want to ask you what you're
doing literally today, because I think it's interesting. Specond, a little bit
of origin stories I called, which is very popular listeners. And then third,
the bulk of the show, we'll be getting into the noddy problem of
what should pro life people. It's actually Republican politicians be saying about abortion aside
from nothing, which is what they've been saying for two years now, right
yeah, right, So actually, so you've been in an advantise. I
gathered we're catching you in San Antonio and you've been at some observance for Gerard
Bradley, who is what retiring from Notre Dame Law school. He's phasing out
of this at ten yed position at the Law School notre To day to join
me in the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding, which
we began about eleven years ago, first with a supporter of Tom Klingenstein,
but then it was taken over by my devoted to former students from Cameras and
now we got more funding from outside supporters and now Jerry is going to come
on to you know, there was a whole problem. I remember Walter Burns
and Alan Bloom at Cornell all days that they formed. Because there were two
of them, they formed the kind of magnetic field. If when I was
at amatest people say, oh that's Arcus, it's Arcus' stick. If there's
only one of them there, they would have said, oh that's Burns stick,
that's that's true. But when there were two of them, it was
a school and they it was kind of a magnetic field. They drew some
of the most gifted students to them, and if one of them went on
on leave, it didn't go away. So it was important to get the
second man here to secure this project and give our donors the assurance it's going
to continue. One of my Doughntors wants me to be left one hundred and
six keep a single But it is Jerry Bradley. I was telling uh Steve
before the christ join this. He has a remark. He's he's been one
of the real critics of conservative Jewist proofs, one of those lone voices among
the professt. Saurian arguing that the people of doing Conservati Jewish proofs have spent
their careers steering around the questions of world substances that are at the heart of
their cases, and so we're trying to to go over celebrate Jerry's work on
the main issues of the defensive marriage, for example, and which is argument
that it's that Skulia never offered a quick, real defense of marriage for the
moral defensive marriages. His concern was that it was that three hundred and twenty
million Americans are being ruled by a majority of nine judges. He said,
I don't care what the substance of the laws are. These legislature can establish
anything it wants about marriage. And what he affirmed was the right of majority,
really majority to shape the moral care of the community, whether on marriage
or loot entertainments anyway. But the curious part, the erotic part, is
that he didn't really think that there were any more truths underlying those judgments does
no matter what the majority willed, So he never he never really offered a
moral defense of marriage. So what we're doing this weekend was celebrating the works
of Jerry Bradley, and I was trying to draw upon circumstances going back to
twenty five years ago when he and I were testifying for Lindsay's bill, Lindsey
Graham when he was in the House on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of
the peopleless sergeant in the Air Force who could beat his wife, rupture her
uterus, killed the child in the womb, but there was no recognition of
the unborn child as victim, and Lindsay was coming forth with that. Jerry
and I were there to testifize. I began with that, but along the
way we had to consider his argument what was intrinsically right about marriage, about
the marital relation and consummation, and the consummation of a marriage as central to
the point. And I'm telling Steve I was recalling that matchless play by Tom
Stoppert Jumpers, which my late wife Judy and I saw in London, were
there in nineteen seventy three, and an investigating detective says to the character lead
character, Professor Moore, your wife, before she retired from the stage,
was a summit actress. And he said, yes, but regrettably she retired
from consummation around the same time she retired from the state. So it was
it was a centrality and what really what marriage was really about. So that's
where that's those are the kinds of things we're doing. Jerry Jerry Is,
he says he needs my joke book, but you don't know, you don't
know what's going to be relevant. He's a very funny guy. He was
he is a devoted fan of the Honeymooners and Ralph Cromdon, right, And
there's one point he was close with Jim Buckley and visiting Jim Buckley. Turned
out Jim Buckley up the Connecticut had these dancing lessons with the family nearby which
was which included Audrey Meadows, and he said, well, can you tell
me you had your dancing lessons with Alice Bramdon. Really but anyway, that's
that's the kind of life that and he's what he went to Cornell Law school
and instead of he dropped it, graduated at the top of his class,
and instead of going on to become a clerk for a notable judge, he
decided to plunge into the ready work of being a prosecutor in Manhattan, working
for that amous class of the Ammers class of nineteen forty two, Robert Margavel
the da there, he quite a lot of experience before he went out down
to the academy, to the Universus Illinois. I met him thirty some years
ago, and then to Notre Dame where he's He's got two or three kids
now who are working at the Supreme Court. He's produced eight children, three
or four lawyers, and his wife Pam was second great second in the class,
was behind Jerry Bronell. She decided to raised children with him. It's
a remarkable family, you told me. Jerry's object along was reversed roe versus
way. At eighteen years old, he applied the law school, saying he
wanted so he was ten years old when Brizold was inside on contraception, So
he was eighteen years old when Rovers his way to start. He wrote to
say, why fied the law school. I want to go to law school
because I want to over versus way. Of course, that was not a
winning message in getting into the best law schools. But he managed to get
into Cornell where he had gone to college, and moved moved out from there.
But he's but at the same time, his writing has been so precise
and penetrating and so clear. He's the perfect successor for me in this project.
We're both focusing on the fact that the Conservators is persistently steering around those
questions are more subtant are the heart of the cases? Can I ask you
this is somewhat delicate question. Oh, has Jerry ever said to you anything
about his Notre Dame faculty colleague, Amy Cony Barrett that you can share with
us? And the reason I asked that is Lucretian and I have a young
friend, a recent Notre Dame law school graduate, very solid guy. He
really love this guy. But I think he might have been through your program.
I won't mention this, but I will say this. He said she's
good but could be better. And I'll just want to pause there, and
if you wish to make a comment, that's from everybody, Thomas right,
I'll just leave it there. If you want to say something, and we
asked over discreetly, that's fine too know this, and that she's starting to
be told. We had she and her husband were students of Jerry's and when
we had our students in for our seminar summer seminar for the James Institute,
and we took them over to visit it with any art. But what I
remember is that I shared a platform with her several years ago at the Lion's
Defending Freedom, and she was an accolade of scholias, remember, for the
positive law. And some student, picking up on what I was doing,
asked her, why do you this is telling story? She said, why
do you have such a reference for the positive law? The lot simply in
that, okay, And she was a little thrown back by then. But
the key came in those three questions from John Locke, where it was,
what is the source of the law, the legislature that makes the law?
Well, what is the source of the legislature? How do you know you
have one? It's in the constitution. Ah, But then what is the
source of the constitution It must be he said, something wholly antecedent to the
positive law involving the terms of principle a which of people will be governed no
man as by nature, the rule of other men the way that men are
by the nature rules or horses and cows. Now, Scalia said, that's
a lovely settlement, but it's never been enacted, and the response was,
of course, it couldn't be enacted. It was the point of principle that
has to be in place before we knew who had the authority to announce anything.
Now, I think avending moment that she really she really was a really
close to Scalia. I had some story today that she was really not keen
on taking the Dobs case an over ruling row. Something was holding her back.
She is cautious. She is cautious, and I think there is that
lingering effect of school with her. Well, we're going to get more deeply
into this before I do a little bit of biography. Lucretia, did you
want to particular question come in on what we've done so far. I'm just
in awe. I'm just listening. I had questions along the way, but
there we'll move on and I'll come back to them. Okay, I have
to understand something you're having. This is very unusual for Lucretia to sit so
quietly and politely for this lot of time. Sorry, Lucretia, I have
to say that, but I just don't sit quietly and politely for you,
Steve. So she beats up on me for my weaknesses and beats up on
John for being a positivist. But see tonight we've got three total positivests here.
See, so she has a work to do, and when see,
we rotate the host duties, and so when she's the host, we interrupt
her just shamelessly, just because to get bad anything. So before we go
on, I do have to just mention briefly John's not here. I'm gonna
I can't. I can't help myself, you can ask Steve. He and
I went back and forth how many times on hugely long text messages where I
argued I sent him Victor Davis Hansen's argument about the you know, basically,
the the fact that our justice is no longer blind and it's you know,
it's entirely partisan in one direction, and John came back with, I don't
even accept the premises that as in that there's somehow has been a difference of
a difference in kind of prosecuting the left versus the right out of the DOJ
is. It just went on from there, and I'm very The only reason
that I'm disappointed that it's you that I agree with who's here and not John,
who is just so wrong about so many things, is I was in
a little bit of a fighting mood, but you've taken all the fight out
of me. I'm just listening. Will leave it that he's often so solid,
he's often so slwet. Tell me now there's a really great positivist there
that well can't break out of it. Yeah, Oh no, he'll admit
it, by the way, I mean, when you press him on it,
it's that's pretty funny. Remember, he likes to say things like,
well, the natural law of seventeen eighty seven is not the natural law of
today. Oh, it's all conventional, it's all conventional. Well, but
I mean he actually thinks that, he thinks that the appeal to natural law
that the Founders made is not relevant today because that existed then, but it
doesn't exist anymore, betraying a complete lack of understanding about what natural law is.
Well, you know, I'm not well, you know, he's not
here to defend himself. He'll probably listen to this. I don't care,
but I sometimes I wonder if it's partially a pose of his because he does
say this once in a while. You know, you guys are starting to
you know, persuade me about this and that. Wait on, look,
let's tell his argument. I'm going to do this and that. I'll stop
with John. But his argument about abortion is, well, that wasn't the
natural law in place at the time of the fourteenth Amendment. Certainly it was
the understanding of place at the time of the Fourteoplement. But let's say,
let's say, let's take that anchoring principle of moral and legal judgment understood by
Thomas Reed as well as compt and Quitas, that we don't impose judgment of
blame and praise our people for acts they were powerless to do. There,
Thomas Reed said that as true as any acts in you, we don't know
people blame worthy for acts they are powerless to do. Is that as relevant
today as it was in seventeen eighty nine? Of course it is. These
are necessary truths, and people like James Wilson, the founders thought this is
where things were anchor what was it around that life. I hammeled in the
Federals thirty one, the discosis of every time there are certain primary truths,
are first principles upon which all subsequate these things must depend. Okay, And
they went wrong. From there there was an anchor. These people understood these
were anchoring truths. We can draw a system of jurispruce. It's not a
theory. It's not a theory that two contradicting probations both cannot be true.
And it's not really a theory that you don't hold somebody blameworthy for acts they
were prowdless to affect. And the pitch was, if I can indeed put
a system of jurisprudence together by just drawing out the implications of those premises.
It's not a theory of natural it's not a theory. It's the real thing.
You know, it's in the book I You know, it's the creation
that I'm going. But I'm depending on Thomas Reid, cited by James Wilson,
one of our great founders. Incited by James Wilson in the very opening
lines of the very first case report in Supreme Court Reports Chisel versus Georgia,
and where Wilson says, at the beginning of the law, we have no
precedence. We have to go back to the principles of generals. Before that,
we have to go back to Thomas Reed and the principles of mind of
how we know anything. And so this reroutinaling with that's a question of those
those precepts of common sense that the ordering man just has to know before he
starts trafficking and theories. Before the arbage man would start bantering with David Yume
about the meaning of causation. He knew his own active powers to cause his
own accident happened. Now, I can't believe. I can't believe John would
not be with me on this. I don't for a minute, Hadley,
I thought you were going to say that we don't hold someone, we don't
blame someone who it was powerless to don't you put it? What's the house
that line go? I keep swringing up. I thought you were saying that
we don't hold John accountable because he's powerless to proceed. Didn't in the first
place. Okay, well, let me just tell you this. I want
to move on, but I'll just mentioned this for you, Haley, and
for our listeners. John is currently at work on a constitutional biography of Alexander
Hamilton, and I've not only said that, oh, you have to review
it if he gets it wrong. I've been saying you better get Federals thirty
one right. And I mentioned I hope you're going to treat that famous case
of Rutgers be Wantington of You know, you probably know that case from New
York City in seventeen eighty four, whatever it was, And that's where Hamilton
had to rely on the natural law to make his arguments on behalf of the
I forget how that it was the just a little revolutionary war leftover case of
claims proper. Anyway, it was a natural argument he repaired to for the
same reasons of Chisholm versus Georgia. You didn't have precedence to go on.
You had to go to first principles. Genius. He was a genius.
Yeah, okay, but he now I remember seeing that that memo he wrote
for Washington on the National Bank, the Constitution of National Bank, right along
the lines that John Marshallill later moved in mccauch versus Maryland. But he takes
a turn that big field a mind in another register. It's clear that Jimmy
Madison could not have written that line. No, yeah, you know it's
only you know. No, it's kind of we're doing in the project here
is trying to restore the furnishings of mind of these men, the way the
Hamilton used to think about these things. And look, he did it.
He left us a record, He showed us how he reasoned through the stuff,
which we're doing. But you want to talk about Chicago when I did
in Chicago or something. Yeah, But before we get there, let's answer.
I want I do want you to talk about Chicago. But I want
to go back to Steve's original question and ask a couple of tangential questions to
that. So Steve's original question was, what the what? What in the
hell is wrong with Republicans? Why is this so hard for them? Abortion
is a winning issue? Third? But okay, I'm sorry. I thought
that was a question that stuck with me. But thinking about what you just
said about we don't hold someone blameworthy for acts that they were powerless to control.
I'm jumping, but I'm going to get back to where I was.
You probably heard this past week that a father was held guilty. He was
found guilty for involuntary manslaughter because he didn't properly control his son's access to guns.
I actually didn't follow the case really super carefully, and something like up
on us here it looks like, but yeah, it froze up on us
from that, Lucretia, you know, an internet hiccup. That's all right,
It wasn't you. It was the It was you know, Apple or
something to us. Uh, yeah, are you following what she's talking about,
Hadley or go ahead, Lucretia. I was just gonna say, because
the only reason I bring that up is it actually brought forth something of a
debate about exactly what you're talking about. What does it mean to be responsible
for a criminal act? What does it mean to be held responsible for a
criminal act? And does it make any sense to hold someone responsible for a
criminal act committed by someone else. So I think that here's the point I
wanted to make, and that is, if we get back to that very
basic, simple idea that you have in mind of those anchoring truths, abortion
becomes a simple, simple matter to me. Certainly, there's tragedy involved in
many cases, a young woman who's raped or you know, she's the victim
of you know, rape by a family member, and it's incest, you
know, those those tragedies that happen. But it's not that complicated, right,
It's just not that complicated. But we can't think anymore. We have
to feel everything. I mean, I get drives me crazy. Even No,
it's no longer students. It's people almost my age who say I feel
like this when they actually mean I think because they're incapable of thinking anymore,
and they're capable of thinking really about those anchoring simple truths that if you would
just start there and build very carefully, rationally from those simple truths, a
lot of things become a little a lot more clear, That's all. And
I wonder what you thought about that. I'm curious. The Conservatives and Tris
Brunson said we will kick this out of the courts, return it to the
political areada. And when they do that, they're turning into a political class
that has lost any capacity for talking about this. It's evident these people have
not spent ten minutes in any serious conversation. Now, Steve knows, and
you know, to THEIA we've taken as the model of the argument here that
natural law argumented once. The link gave is that that abstract he wrote for
himself discussing with slaver Older about the meaning of why is he justin in the
owning slaves? And in my own experience when people hear this argument, they
understand it at once, And you don't need a college education. He'd say,
why you justify? Is it because you are smarter than he is?
Well, so beware the next white matter is the law smarter than humane slave
is? Because he was talking to you, what next white matter comes along
with a complexion lighter the news mean slave? Here the op shot, there's
nothing you could side in a principal way that would put the black men in
slavery. It would not apply to many whites as well. So he simply
true on the same mode of principled armament, Why is that offspring in the
world anything less than union? Didn't speak it well, neither of the deaf
mutes doesn't have arms and legs. Other people lose arms to the course of
their lives without losing anything necessary to gout standing as human beings to receive the
protection the law. You don't need a college education to understand this, and
in fact you don't have to be Catholic. In fact, that's the position
of the Catholic Church. That's no, it's no appeal to believe. It's
a matter of the facts of embryology combined with principal reasoning. And some of
our politicians talk about so they don't know this. So you have this,
this decision on IVS, and it throws them into a panic. All they
said is, look, it's it's it's a it's a It's The reason you're
having this is because you can you can make this into a pregnancy. It's
it's a child. But if it is human being, you just can't destroy
it. It will. Of course you can use iv But anyway, it
is curious that I find my pitch's bien for Trump to forget about fifteen weeks
and six weeks. You know, I want to go back to my old
bill to test the argument in the most modesty. Can we protect the child
who survived the abortion? Because no one's arguing over the wather child is human.
It's the women interests. The women are discomfort But of course we have
judges who are telling us we can't do that. Well, we brought fourth
that bill in two thousand and two it was supported in that it was passed
to a Democratic Senate with the Democrats and controlled Senate Harry Reid boarded the floor.
Now we did they We stripped the penalties. Penalties were stripped from the
bill for the sake of a burning of veto from bill click, which I
didn't think we had to do. But the years later we had this experience
of doctor Gosnell in Philadelphia snippings a baby who survived the wars. So we
decided to bring back to restore the penalties. But we did that. The
striking difference now is that the parties were now cohesively in opposition Virch. The
every Democrat in the House voted against the bill to protect the child one online.
I've done that. They've done that three times since twenty fifty. And
my pitch doctor Trump now is, don't argue about fifteen weeks or sixty.
You couldn't get sixty votes in the Senate to bring the fifteen week build to
the floor. Let's put the focus on the place that is most embarrassing and
most radical for the Democrats. Let them defend that it's the simplest thing for
you to use. No, oh, you're trying to propose an action white
bent on abortion, something that saying, look, you people already voted for
the bill. You told us it was wrong to kill a child born alive.
How serious about are you about it? What should be the penalty for
that? Put the focus on that, To use a technical term, My
pitch to Trump has been, you'd be a schmuck not to do this.
That leads me to ask you one thing about something you said, which was
you don't have to have a college education to know this. And I would
actually argue, I would argue two points from that. The first one is
you are probably less likely to know that or anything else if you do education.
And secondly, I would argue not to get off because no Steve does
and I say, do I want to hear some interesting biographical details here.
But I would argue too that the reason Trump is popular goes all the way
back to that fundamental truth, which is he appeals to a common sense and
and to those basic anchoring truths that the the the flyover states the uneducated,
non college educated, working people. I don't know what you want to call
it, and it's not white people. It's obviously not white people. It's
people of a certain socioeconomic class and level of sophistication. Shall we say,
who can understand common sense? Who can understand those basic truths? And he
appeals to that, and that's the reason the elites hate him so much.
On this issue. He simply talks like a marketer. He says, it
was it was a terrible thing for Ron Desanta's to make it at six weeks
in the time that starts being, we'd had better than fifteen weeks. Dah,
We're talking about the same entity. It's the same human thing. Does
he not understand that? I mean, if you're told, look, remember
the people arguing, some people are arguing that he should be allowed five or
six days to decide whether you want to keep the baby who's born. So
let's say we came back to Trump and said, gee, these laws are
in fantaside. Should they be extended all the way to five weeks? Is
it a terrible thing to make a child? At that point it'll make no
sense. But then he gets to this thing. He's just thinking, as
a marketer, what can I sell? I can sell fifteen weeks? He
forgets what the subject is about. But you're absolutely right, people, but
not that great old joke of red skeletons, a joke from a culture that's
fled. When he said they had a military wedding, I think they had
a military wedding. That's what at this one. There were guns there.
Yeah, definitely that was that was a joke from a culture that's flitting.
But the people, even the pat us A didn't think they had to write
the throat away. Well, sorry, yeah, I'm gonna say so,
so had Lucretian I have been you don't know this, Lucretian, I think
I've we've been doing this together now for five years. I think, wow,
a week and one of the one of our early themes. Had they
actually Lucretia is the one who said this first. I give her a full
credit for this. Democrats have gone from saying, like Bill Clinton did,
abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. That was his concession to
understanding not only public opinion broadly, but I think even in his old goofy
Southern Baptist mind that he was raised and he knew that there was something helpful
about abortion. And now, LUCREATI you want to finish the sentence. Democrats
like abortion is like the positive good right, So they won't say Hillary rare
right, They're celebrated, promoted, promoted, removed, remove any inhibition of
the laws right way. So I'm going to see if I can offend both
of you with this analogy here for a moment. So had they brought up,
you know, the famous, uh, the Lincoln's famous fragment about slavery,
could we argue that Trump, being being the marketer that he is,
is recognizing that there's not going to be any any progress on the issue of
abortion in this environment with Democrats thinking it is their number one mission winning issue
without a kind of marketing that would be similar to say something like I I'm
no more than any other man in favor of bringing about the social and political
equality of blacks, or something along those lines. Understanding the moment and the
audience. Oh no, no, I have to jump in here, Sorry,
Haley, I have to jump here to say what I was gonna do
with In Trump's case, I've got to go back and find her correspondence on
this, Hapley. But I remember vaguely back in the year two thousand,
I'd read a little article. You might the context is this for you and
listeners, I think Gary Bower and some other social conservatives said, we're not
too sure about George W. Bush. He's not speaking very clearly on abortion.
And I wrote this little dialogue that used Lincoln's language along the lines of
the creature, just suggested, how do you have, on the one hand,
the back of your mind that that hierarchy you just mentioned of Lincoln's,
that fragment of Lincoln's on the metaphysical wrongness of slavery? And then how do
you maneuver with prudence in the political world as we have it? And I
wrote this little dialogue and you called me up because I'd forgotten this until just
this morning. You called me up and said, why the heck isn't Bush
talking like that? And I don't know, He's a busk. The Bushes
don't know how to talk. But the point, my point of bringing that
up is this is a long standing problem. And I guess we should not
have been surprised that after Dobbs came down, all of a sudden, all
the people said their pro life were suddenly mute. And anyway, so Trump,
I mean, I mean, what Trump, for all his uh thinking
as a marketer, his instincts on this turned out to be perhaps kind of
linc cony, and that's what apprecia. Let me offer another it's a little
strong, but yeah, okay, off another approach, and he could do
just disease. I want to bring both sides together. Wherever we are,
we could certainly agree that we can protect the child who's born no law.
He would get many pro people of pro choice. I think there are some
restrictions to be there, and so I think it is okay, why don't
we begin? I could say, let's make both people have size head.
Why don't we begin at the point where we certainly can agree both sides,
and then we'll start there, and then we'll come back to the fifteen weeks.
And what we'll tell you is we'll tell you, look, if you
can see that point, tell us what is the difference between that child and
the same child five minutes earlier, five weeks, five months? I ask
you, why not fifteen weeks? But here's the point. We have to
persuade you. If we don't persuade you, that's it. We'll have to
come back another time. There's no danger for you here. But why don't
we start with the beginning to stay We recognize that is a child with the
grant production, start there and work away. I don't know why if that
would not be as easy for him to use as anything, he could use
it definitely. But now I hear that Kelly ab is saying, oh no,
it's back, and what the the conceptus in the ivy IV the frozen
embryo is not a real being. And I think her direction, I fear
her talk has been the the her advice will be the callous advice of these
Republicans that don't want to think through, do not want to talk about it,
saying us don't talk about it. It makes people uncomfortable. But he's
going to lose on this one because look, mister and missus Obama have told
us they're in regardless as central and it's precisely because they know the Republicans are
firse to talking about it, that they're going to make them talk about it.
So I think there's some evidence that Trump declaring himself pro life and the
debates with Hillary was a non trivial factor in him. It's the most natural
follow he said, you're tearing that child away at a point of birth.
Okay, pick it up a very point say okay, Now the child is
born a lot. You tell me we cannot protect that child. Yeah,
but don't don't misunderestimate, because you said it yourself, don't misunderestimate the left's
response to that, which is, they will refuse to tolerate any limitations whatsoever,
and they will fight him on that point. I agree with you that
the majority of people in the middle and to either side of the middle will
agree on that point. But but the left will. The left will make
that which they've shown to do before. I mean, that guy in in
Virginia is still considered a viable human being after remarking, well, that's up
to her doctor and and her to decide if the baby's going to get to
live after it's born alive in a botched abortion. And you know he wasn't.
I mean, he wasn't shot for you know, just being such a
violu and being he didn't deserve to live. So I guess what I'm saying
is, even though too reasonable people, that seems like such a reasonable thing,
such such an easy thing we could all agree on, but they won't
because they're not. Only you're right, I thought only it came forth with
this twenty years ago. We thought we'd shock most of the public to discover
that you could have an abortion kill the child. And I was, what
did I know? It's just a PhD in political science? Could I imagine
that the media would actually black it out so people would never hear it?
That it's not even mentioned on Fox News that breat Bear would be on offering
questions to presidential candidates in twenty sixteen and never raised this. But it's clear
now there is a fix. Even Fox News will not talk about it,
and Refect hearing evidence recently saying no, More and more Democrats that come into
view that no, no, the decisions for BOS is that a child cannot
be there. Yes, it's better that the child be dead. That I
did, I give it away? What is what is mine? And uh,
yeah it could be. When we had these votes in the House,
virtually every Democrat except five lingering pro life Democrats for in our last time only
one lingering pro life Democrats. The Democrats utterly cohesive in the assisting that the
right abortion does not and does not finance limit even at birth. And I'm
afraid now if they probably are reflected of a of opinion suadenly and I heard
I just saw the figure today and I think it was Kim straussl appoint or
something like that, that that most Americans do not want to give up their
cars for those electric vehicles. Again, Democrats about fifty a lot of this
and the other those people are touch You think it's badness, and the Republicans
are again we think, my goodness, Democrats are floating wrong with this,
with this left food drift, that this remarkable vote in the House refusing protect
the child at the point of birth, that may in fact be reflective of
what's taking hold. I mean, I think the creation they have it right,
that this is going to be not an oddity but something that we can
expect them to do. But at least let's have it out. Let's let's
let's make sure people understand what the alternative is here to restate Lucretia's point,
isn't uh is it the idea of of working the declension back down from partial
worth abortune. Isn't that the rough equivalent of Lincoln saying, let's prohibit slavery
in the territories we have the constitutional right to do that right. Isn't that?
Okay? That's I thought we would agree on this, But but but
remember one of the things that was precipitated that the real crisis before the Civil
War was Harriet beecher Stowe's uncle Tom's cabin. Why because it I think it
did. It did for many people who were just as happy to kind of
say, that's Southerner's problems and we don't have to It humanized the whole issue
of slavery. It made them see the the abject cruelty and evil of it.
And it didn't Lincoln walk up to Harriet beecher Stowe and says, so
you're you're the little lady who started the war or something like that. But
I see parallels here again. I have friends I'm Catholic, Hadley, and
I have friends who now they're retired, and they they go around and do
these little demonstrations at at schools with with resin fetuses at different stages of development,
and they don't preach about it. They just kind of talk, did
you know, oh, this is this is and it's you know, this
this big, but it's a fully formed baby. And I'm sorry it's any
inch because we're on uh we're not on on camera. And they will tell
you that about ninety five percent of the time. They change, they change
minds, they change hearts and minds. Just letting people know what really happens
in abortion. Yeah, I'll just give people the ultrasound images of what what
that bossing the worm looks like. When people decide, oh, doesn't look
more like your family than my family? Sure? Oh yes, it makes
absolutely. People have not had much serious conversation about about the something that what's
done here. My hunch is especially against Joe Biden. Oh. By the
way, Hadley at some point agate to do your Joe Biden imitation, which
used to be fellowless at that. Yeah, it used to be. Yeah,
maybe you don't. Maybe you've lost it because I mean it was thirty
years ago, and who thought this guy would still be around. Sorry.
I got to think that if the Trump got his got his hands around this
in the way you suggest, it would terrify Democrats like he terrifies it on
so many other issues, right, the immigration and the rest. Yeah,
all right, let's switch gears here, And can you guys still hear me.
I'm having a little I'm having some internet trouble. Is your internet sunstable
there, Steve? I was just going to type and tell you, but
Okay, we'll keep disappearing, and that may be. This may be on
my end. I'm not sure is a paper clip affecting to be you?
Okay? Right, so Handley, I have this sort of uh, not
ridiculous question, but it will sound ridiculous. I want to know how a
Jewish boy from Chicago ends up at the University of Chicago studying with Leo Strauss
and ends up deciding after writing about the Marshall Plan for a doctoral dissertation,
how you ended up as the natural law law as the chief focus of your
work in your maturity. But so let's start a simple thing. How did
you decide? Where did you go to college? Resion of all and what
attract You're going to Chicago and studying with Leo Strauss. I had a great
professor in Illinois, Milton Raycove, the father of Jack ray Cove, most
loved man, a great teacher. He studied at Chicago with Hans margan Felt,
great teacher on international politics. And as an undergraduate, I was trying
to read market and so I was drawn to the University of Chicago, which
was the greatest school of politics in the country. And this is the nineteen
fifties, right, so mid nineteen fifties. Yeah, I'd say so.
I was graduating in sixty two, but I decided I really want to go
to Chicago fifties. Sorry, Okay, I heard about Leo Strauss. I
did some reading about him, but I'm sure it was all over my head,
and I audited. I ordered Strauss's course first time I landed there,
and when I came there from Morganton and international relations and the defensive national interest.
But my book in the Martial Art was a good bye letter to Marbletone,
because the point was that it's not in international relations. You're not simply
defending the territory. You're defending the regime, a way of life that you're
trying to preserve. That was the point, of course, Chris Strauss.
That was the core of it, you know, and natural right and history
that another way, due to page one thirty seven, I think the center
of the book saying, when when the classics were concerned about the nature of
the best regime, they applied they're the most important data of social life,
Even more fundamental than the biological phenomena, was the nature of the regime on
which we live. The critical difference changing the regime, from the regime of
I'm in Germany to the regime of Hitler, from Batista in Cuba to the
regime of Castro. These are the most consequential decisions of publical life. So
my book on the Marshall Plann was trying to say what it was, What
was the Marshall Plan? It was how did they assimilate the market plan,
how did they fit into the American regime? What ants were higher and lower
within the Marshall Plan. So it was kind of my goodbye letter to this
to Margantown, and it drew me back into political philosophy, and it got
me writing into into constitutional law and urban politics. They did a book called
The Philosopher in the City, and one one, one thing after another.
I was just drawn into these moral questions as they manifested themselves, and those
practical decisions about right and wrong that have to be made in the in the
course of the city. You know. I take remember having those students in
the sixties and Amas saying that war in Vietnam is not really a venture plagued
by bad luck and court management. It was thoroughly a moral and no more
should else be ruled by some logic of its own, cut off from moral
considerations. You take the same students through the cases that arise in urban politics
and drugs, prostitution, abortion, and they turned around one hundred and eighty
degrees. Now the reality is something really subjective feeling. You cannot let's stay
reality. And if you talk that I've been back into the indictment of the
war in Vietnam, it renders it trivial. It's not my kind of thing.
But I would want to interfere with you if you fout pleasure in well
and so on. Well, anyway, so that got me into this and
one thing run after another, and soon I up to hear heavy for a
second about that particular book and then actually least to a question. I'm going
to come to some way or another. But this is a good opportunity for
it. But I remember, it's funny, I remember these crazy things.
I remember that you got a very harsh review for that book from of old
people and Bedfield. It was stupid. It was stupid. Yeah, And
one of the persons who came to your defense I was an American spectator,
I think in nineteen eighty one or eighty was Harry Jaffa and now Harry.
Jaffa and Bedfield were great friends. They admired each other, liked each other,
and and Jaffa came to your defense in a letter saying, boy,
Banfield, you've got this all wrong. I think you're probably already familiar with
Jaffa by then. I don't know if you knew him yet. But what
coming to is it's evident that Jaffa was an influence at you at some point.
So what do you remember about coming across his work and in what ways
it influenced you? Well, just as they said Socrates brought philosophy down out
of the heavens, there I have questions of the matters of right and wrong
that arise in our practical judgments day by day. It was Harry who brought
stroused on the clouds from me to show in the most elegant, that most
elegant book, The Price of the House Divided, and writing as he did
with a man you know who had his interest in Elizabeth the literature when he's
student, you know, Harry, showing how the whole tradition of moral clinical
philocity came to bear on this the gravest crisis in the American regime, the
crisis that took things all the way back to first things, first principles,
the terms on which we were constituted as a regime or country in the first
place. No I became that that came up for us At Chicago. I
was an a friend of mine in a seminar of Fark seminar of Chicago,
Charles Imnahaower gave me that book, and that book made it profound difference for
me. Of course, later it is I come to know Harry very well.
And there's some talk about me going to Claremont years later. But you
know it doesn't it. But Harry, Harry used to walk and philosophy and
the city came out. He walked around with that book under his arm,
stopping people on the street to tell him about the book, and that Anne
Banfield came out and said, but stupid to think that you can give these
principal judgments about matter as a public policy. And Harry said, what you're
saying is that political philosophy is not, you know, plausible or comprehensible.
He was at Bamfield, was a very practical math. He'd say, mister
Strous would say. The sign there says do not smoking, mister Banford,
what should I do? And Benford say, mister Strouds, you may smoke.
Okay, So I endorre at Banfield, and all of a sudden him
turning on me in that way was just just kind of unbelievable. But Harry
did come to my rescue. Yeah, and along with Dan Robinson writing in
a wonderful response. And I think of The Spectator when it came out.
That's right, it's still a good book. Oh no, it's I love
the book. I remember seeing the time and well, right, but then
of course you you you really turned I mean in the urban issue is that
there's no book like The Philosopher and City. I have to say that still
after all these years. But then you're starting with First Things in what nineteen
eighty seven, you're really right in the heart of the matter. Then,
yeah, yeah, And I'm not sure what to ask you at this point.
I mean, that was just a great fun stuff. So, I
mean, of course a lot of that in First Things, that great chapter
on ro Versus Way and Blackman and how crazy that opinion was. When did
you first become either a pro life or alert to the fact that this was
the key to our portal to understanding how badly things have slipped off the rail,
generally in a grasp of the first principles of law. Yeah, I
was innocent about these things. And my dear friend Dan Robinson, you may
note it was of the few h psycholagists flowed to Latin Greek who it was
important figure in neurosciences. But I remember saying to them, it looks at
the conceptist, it looks like a tabpole. He said, it's not a
tadpole. Even when it looks like a tabpole, I can take pressure from
one side to the other and you'd have an arm growing in a strange place.
I started doing reading at it. I would read John Noonan and others,
and Paul Ramsey on reference points and deciding about abortion. And the most
rhyveting moment came as he was tracing back to you know, twelve weeks when
the finger prints are discernible, eight weeks when maybe started swallowing or squinting,
tracing it all the way back to the point when the the zygoed. The
conceptis no that that already that pygoed no larger than the period at the end
of the sentence. Has everything we have. There's nothing we have now genetically
that defines us. Were there are a tendency to height our allergies that was
not already there when we were that Zygote a larger period at the matter.
It's just now it's growing. And we realized if any one of us was
removed when we weren't that Zygote, we would not have been. The next
pregnancy that ssygot alone was your Well, I had a riveting, riveting effect
and it's just a matter. Yet they look like clusters. It's not really
a clusters of self, it's what you looked like at that point. So
yes, that had a certain effect on me, and I began to write
on the question and wrote something for Bill Buckley and then from Momont Horrits a
commentary. But at the same time that Row versus Great came out, and
so he said, we're overturned, we're overrun by events. But it kind
of won me a place for commentary to write for commentary. But that that
launched me. We've just lost Hadley for a minute. Here you're back.
I know you lost me too. Oh shoot you we didn't lose Hadley.
Okay, oh well maybe you lost me. Sorry, about that. Sorry
you I shouldn't say were you finished, because you're never quite finished. Well,
I actually wanted to introduce another area where you have some heterodoxyuse I'll put
it that way that I agree with, and it's on the free speech business.
And as early as I think it was the Skuche case in nineteen seventy
eight, you were saying, wait a minute, I mean, I think
the ruling dogma on most areas of the right these days and well should just
be for free speech. That's the answer to all these problems of political correctness
and wocism on campus. Yeah. Wait, go ahead and go on that,
because I'm with you on this. I think that's quite Yeah, go
ahead, well, he said. Sam Alito said, one of the recent
peaks that we now know it's a bedrock principle, is that we that we
cannot restrict speech when it was offensive. Well, this was the line we
heard from the ACLU defending the Nazis and Skokie in nineteen siventy. But Dave
they Hamlin, the SUO says we protect every all kinds of speech, the
speech even that peaches was it popular or despicable? And the translation was obvious,
but unpopular. By undespicable, we mean unpopular. They were ruling out
the notion that there can become some kind of speech that may be offensive and
principle now it really is the undoing of that marvelous classic case, the Chapunsky
case to put rhode on where that was so simple and so in a part
with common sense reasons. It recognized first that strictly speaking, in the law,
you did not meet material touching to have an assault. You can hold
a gun near somebody's head and click the trigger. You can shoot a delivery
at me, miss. You can send make assaulting and statistic phone calls in
the middle of the night. That's an assault. And the recognition was that
there's certain terms understood in the language, certain terms and gestures as recognized as
assaulting and provocative and the meaning, and you can restrain those things without interfering
with the substance of political freedom of political speech. So mister who's standing up
at this uh his name has case me now at a PTA meeting in the
Jersey and every other word was mother effing. And the point was by Rosenthalt,
by asking him to refrain from using that word, You're not iustraining him
from giving the most searing attack on the school board. What's chief Justice Berger
would say, you have a you have a couple having blacking a sexual embrace
on the steps of city Hall, acting out a metaphor of what they think
the administration was doing for the city. Look at you can bar them from
that gesture to assault the sensibilities of people in the public place without interfering with
their freedom to make the most substance of attack on the administration. So there
were clear guidelines here, and our people are just There was Seth Waxman who
was arguing for the Supreme Court on the Fox Fox Fox network to defend the
right to use what the what the FCC regard as as as distasteful language not
fit for public the F word in the s H word. In the course
of his armments of the court, Seth Waxman never used those words. He
wanted and my late my colleague George k speaking before a commencement audience at Amast
with parents and children and something, wanted to defend Cone versus California, with
Cone having a jacket at the courthouse in La saying F F the draft,
F the draft. We never used the F word right now. So then
the Supreme Court at the Ayanco case of the refusing a trademark to somebody wearing
a product named f u c T f u c T and it's clear what
they were doing. And John Roberts, well, you can you can just
facilitate pulgarrity with this. Oh what does the statute say? What does it
mean to be a moral This is needless. How did George Katam and Seth
Waxman know the words they should be avoiding using in these public settings? That's
all a truck driver would know. It did not It did not take college
degree in the old the old case was was redependent on what ordinary people would
understand about the meaning. The ordinary person can know the difference between a burning
shoe box and a burning cross. We know that one is established as an
attack, as a signal of attack, and and uh on a race.
There's there's nothing here overly clever. But our people have now, the conservatives
that's not the best way to protect slaves is freedom of speech is to become
relativistic on this one. And they can't mean it, they can't mean it,
and they can't defend it because if on the premises are relatively we lose
every time. By the way, yeah, we lose. If we've defended
on the principles of relativism, we lose every time because the left is smarter
than we are there, right, But what we're saying is, if they're
on the personal relative isn't we cannot even give an account of the rightness of
freedom speech and the only righteous stan Evans when we get into these things with
the conservatives making us some clever move I think of stan Evans' line that the
problem with pragmatism is that it never works. My point with that is that
the left, the left, we won't do that. We won't say we
won't stand on the principle that some things are truly offensive, that that from
the river to the sea is truly offensive, and it can, in fact
be in a decent society something that is not acceptable. But the left,
again, like I say that they use our relative is against them, against
us. If I don't put my pronouns in my bio and on my email,
on my zoom profile and in my email, I am offending those whose
gender identity is fluid or who knows what, and I am being I am
being told I am offensive by my refusal to use their preferred pronouns. Why
why did I'm saying, why does that? Why does that affect them?
Why does that offend them? They could if they're fluid. Why do you
have to be fluid? I understand it, because you have to. You
have to validate them in the modern language. You have to validate them or
not they're not validated, Well, let validate themselves. You're saying, I
am a woman. My problem is it okay referred to me as your excellency?
I mean, how does it endangered Sam that you refuse to to get
your pronouns? It's a knee and will to power, I believe, yeah,
right right, we can force you to do it. Now. You
mentioned a few minutes ago about the electric car madness and this pronoun madness.
I, in my optimistic moments, I think this is true of electric cars.
I'm hoping it's true for pronouns. This is going to be like when
they've tried to make us adopt the metric system in the nineteen seventies and it
just didn't take. And like I say, I think that's going to be
true of electric cars and hopefully the pronouns. Let's do one last thing here
before we run out of time. That's just been a couple of minutes saying
a few words about Mike Yulman. We talked about him a lot on the
show and mentioned Electrical College. But I'm actually I'm actually interested in some personal
reflections. I mean, when did you meet him? And you know,
I know he was a pro life warrior in the Reagan administration or other places,
and so I don't tell us a little bit about your friendship with Mike
Huleman if you will. For a couple of minutes, I kept hearing that's
what counsels Mike, and he was in the White House, but he's always
he was always having a meeting. Can never get together with him? Is
the years was it? Or yeah? Yeah, we were trying to get
us together. We didn't get together until after the Bush administration he left the
White House. But I remember I was on the shortlist to be a writer
for Reagan when he came in. I worked with Tony Dolan in the campaign.
I used to say I wrote some of the best things that Reagan never
said. Ah right, And I was on the shortlist and Ken Kachicken Gate.
I don't know if he's just being sweet. He gave me a nice
cop He said, the problem is you couldn't fold yourself into this. Uh,
people read you. They know they know your voice. You couldn't.
You couldn't change your voice. They recognize you right away. I don't know
if he meant that, but no, people tell me that they recognize my
voice. So I was on the I got Mike on the phone. I
was on the running for this, and he said, look, you gotta
understand, it's not always an occasion to write her chilliant things. What you
may have to do is strike off a paragraph because the neurologists are coming to
the top. I believe it. It's not all romantic, you know,
right. So, so Mike was terrific. He was. He was a
great original pro life I said. He was on television nineteen sixty seven in
a program with Mike Decatas as the moderator. I was a little trial on
abortion. And then you had Mildred Jefferson, the black, wonderful black doctor
right and Reagan. Governor Reagan wrote in to say he was off by this,
And Michael told Meldred, you come up with an excuse for going to
California. Well, write to Reagan and have you invited him? And that's
what they did. But Mike was just a marvel when Mike, Mike was
just a marvel's figure on the White House Council. He was he was,
he was so literate, he was so witty, and he really believed that
it was more important is to get the job done, to draw attention to
the argument, than to take credit for it. And you know, it
was like, what was it Harry joffas friend who wrote that book on e
English professor and a great figure. I forgot And Harry said he'd break his
arm if he wrote another sent sign another document for the Communist Party, you
know, And so so Mike, I break your arm if you write another
one of these things and not put your name on it, and so be
content to slide into obscurity and let other people take credit. Well, well,
I mean, I think he was the principal drafter of Reagan's nineteen eighty
four book Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, which of course Nancy and
then Robins and all the political people did not wanted to put out. And
I think, you know, Mike never talked talked about his role in doing
that and in the infighting to right never came. And the whole electoral call,
I mean, you know, our our miltual power. Christa. Music
did that wonderful article a year or two ago on the man who saved the
Electoral College, which I think was a great account of all that. And
Mike would never boast about that. And you know, yeah, there you
are. And Harry, Harry Jeff wanted Mike to write that book on the
electrocology, could get Mike like to do it. But who's that center?
It was a proxmire, No, no, it was it was the one
who ran against Johnson, the Senator McCarthy, right, Ye, McCarthy read
Mike's report on the electric and that turned him. He was ready to vote
until he read Mike, Mike Euleman's Mike Euleman's line on this. Yeah.
I dedicated my book Natural Rights to the Right to Choose to Michael Human because
he would never he never tout himself. He would never do it. You
never taught himself. So this was the moment to sort of singing his praises
and try to give him some kind of recognition. Ah, he's the dearest
man and face he's the one who talked Clarence Thomas into thinking of the judiciary.
Oh, and he told Bill Barr. He wanted Bill Barr to go
to the Office of Legal Counsel and he wanted h and he and Thornberg made
the decision that they're going to put Bill in as legal console. And they
just they just put it. They just they decided they put on Bush's desk
and they decided they're going to put him there. Mike ordered him to be
there, and there he came on to to Attorney General. And then a
vacancy occurred on the d C circuit the judge hip, and Bill offered it
to Mike. But Mike, Mike, I mean one of the one of
the children was their five children for four daughters, and the youngest one was
run away from home. It was a real strain, and Mike just didn't
think he could take this the judgeship on at this time. We just think
he didn't really, he didn't give himself enough credit. And he's two humbles.
We're not going to take take the spots the position that would do him.
So he passed it up. And I think it was actually Clarence who
took that up. And I remember we're asking Clarence, what did he say
to you to doce you to do it? He called me. He said,
it's a matter of obligation. There's certain things to which you are called,
and this is something to what you're called. You have to think of
it this way. And I remember, thanks to Mike told me about him
and Clarence and I went to sit in a seminar. He and I are
both speaking at the Harton's Foundation. I stopped and to see Clarence when he
was at the just on DC Circuit and some gallant introducing him, Laura Scalia,
no relation to Nino, said well, we're going to come back here
one day. You're going to be in the Supreme Court. And Clarence says,
that is not going to happen. Huh, this is three weeks before
he was. And Laura said, when you say that, is that a
thrown or do you know something we don't know? And Clarence said no.
He said, I have colleagues on the DC Circuit who hear that they're on
the shortlist, and that can effect the way they look at cases. Look
at this case, how is it likely to play in a confirmation here?
And people like Bett Cavanaugh and John Roberts. I'm sure Sor. And Clarence
said, I find you could just bend yourself out of your mind. Not
historic that way. He said. What I decided is these are beautiful chambers.
This is an important vocation, and what I should now do is just
learn how to do this well and make my life here. I got back.
I saw my wife June. I said, wow, this guy is
found his center of gravity and you could just throw a wrap on him and
still be there. And three weeks later they were throwing that. Parents said,
he told Jimmy, they want to kill me. He said that.
He said that I thought I was being metaphorical. They really didn't want to
kill it. But anyway, it was Mutt. It was Mutt sort of
diminishing himself, putting Clarence Clarence in that. Mike with this remarkable generosity and
this remarkable wit. It was a fine writer. He was persuasive and engaging.
And you know, he drove Harry crazy because he wouldn't do that critical
book at college. But Mike, somebody wanted to offer. Terry O'Rourke was
pressing Mike to be run put himself running to be president of Claire. Ah.
And the thing is you couldn't press Mike and to do anything he didn't
want to do. Yeah, well I think he knew a college president's job
is pretty miserable actually, as we know. But it would that it could
have been a vocation. He could have made a profest difference judgment, you
know, because he was at the Bradley Foundation and making a profound difference there.
But you know, you're amazing. I mean you you know, you've
done so much and you were you were called the philosopher the city and so
many you know, Lucretia. I don't know how he does it. He
just is nothing is low as you. He remembers what happened twenty five years
ago and not what he said five minutes ago. Yeah, I was told.
I was told last night by Robbie Joins. There's some line I got
off thirty years ago at a meeting of Saint Louis University when the Jesuits trying
to sandbag us and trying to Luis away from the opposition to abortion. They
had the Scottish moderator Russ Hidger makes a good point. He said, okay,
question, oh tink. A number of questions and they remind me.
I got up and said something like, well, the the moderator have a
style that is affably himilarium. Well, Hadly, it's been delightful to spend
an hour with you to honor Mike but also honor you and draw out some
additional thoughts. I had a whole bunch more questions, but we have run
long, and we do have a peculiar way of ending the show. We'll
do a little brief for tonight, but we so bear with us as we
punch a couple of or took off a couple of boxes that we do.
And so Lucretia, you have some Babylon beef heading you for first. That's
first. We also have a we have a new practice of bringing up an
article or two that we might want to discuss, and I did have one.
It was very short and I don't need to discuss the article. But
this this is timely and won't be next week. Yesterday was the beginning of
four years ago to the day of fifteen weeks to end the seing days.
Fifteen days, yeah, fifteen days sorry, fifteen days to end the spread.
This week was the beginning the or your anniversary of fifteen days to end
the spread, and I wish we had a lot of time to discuss your
thoughts on on the incredible success by our elites of the whole COVID debacle.
But I'll leave that first sight. I just thought i'd mentioned that maybe we
pick it up a little bit next time, Steven talk about some of you
could. I just wanted to get that out there, So, Bablanbee,
one thing I simply do not understand, and probably never will is what kind
of legal framework supports this whole idea of squatting and why any such laws laws
anywhere? Well? WHOA, that's fascinating. Hey. By the way,
I'll have an important piece coming out in public discourse next week about what we
can seriously do to deal with those demonstrations on the campuses that would sing that
yes, it's legitimate to get out on the campus, and you for making
Palestine uten free. That yeah, that that kind of that kind of assault,
killing parents in front of their children, The heading babies is defended by
people on the campus is somehow justified in fringing the Palestinians. That is such
a corrupt argument. I think we can say something more emphatic about the freedom
understand the powers of the of the and the campus to make some serious moral
put that the serious maral framework. Let me remind you what we said earlier
quickly, which was that it's the elites who do not have any serious moral
framework from which too. But but okay, so I still don't understand squatters.
I don't understand what the laws are that that that somehow support this.
I don't understand how someone who's the homeowner goes to the house and are and
they are arrested for doing something to exercise their property. As I'll leave that
aside. I'll just bring in the Babylon be here for moment because it's very
funny. Checkmate, Trump sneaks back into White House, invokes squatter's rights,
and you said, I have to keep it short, Steve, So so
there. You know how the Babylon Bee likes to do lists, and it's
who is the Antichrist? And they have a whole list of candidates. You
know, the increasing unrest around the globe as many people thinking the end of
the world is eminent, which means the Antichrist is getting ready to take the
stage. But who will it be? The list? I won't give them
all Oprah Winfrey. She can shift shifts shafe, I can't even say it,
shape shifts sizes and seems to be ageless coincidence. And you like this
when you geek, Steve Kathleen Kennedy, she has already overseen the destruction of
the Star Wars galaxy. Ours will be next the guy with the leaf blow
or two houses down Satan for sure, and then the next one. Steve,
what were making that up the most like? No, I'm not,
I'm really not, Steve Michaly, The most likely suspect is always the most
obvious one. Oh, I saw that last week and I just didn't have
time to send it to you. I my goodness, I am slaved here.
Know I actually don't think of you as Antichrist, Steve, but I
figured you'd get to shake out of knowing. Okay, well, I will
do John's in my part together tonight. So we actually had my saying always
drink your whiskey, need let's go Brandon and quoting Joe Biden, God save
the Queen man. That's it. Yeah, it was great to see you.
Great to have you with us. Great. It was just great to
be with you, to see you again. Ricochet join the conversation,