Well Whiskey coming fame by Paine's Brains Don't let Me Go. 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 Powerlines International Woman of Mystery
Lucretia's gotta give me and let that whiskey blow where you're being in love down
and Lowell. Welcome everybody to another episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
I'm joined by I'm John You, and I'm joined by my partners in crime,
which has new meaning with the Trump indictment, which we will talk about
shortly. And I'm joined by Steve Hayward Word and Lucretia, the International Woman
of Mystery. Say Hi everybody, and my John. Hi John, It's
wonderful to see you. And as usual, so one old tradition we're going
to keep up and then we have a new tradition for everybody today. So
the old tradition is what are you guys drinking today? Ah? Well,
you know I've got a nasty bug again. It's kept me in. I
don't know, I keep getting you know, I had I didn't get sick
at all for during the whole COVID two and a half years, and now
I'm getting one bug after another, and so I'm just having Lefroig because it's
going to help me get through all this. However, the keys will anything
you have will die die under the rivers of Lefroig going down your throat.
Well true, but because it's not only Easter weekend but also passover. Right,
I do have a bit of whiskey news. The twenty twenty three World
Whiskey Awards were just handed out here recently, and the number one single malt
was called Let's see if I got the title right, it's it is rarely
whiskey no by some company called M and H. Used to stand for Milton
Honey, but and and they aged and sherry casts kosher sherry casts from Spain.
And anyway, it's uh sixty five dollars a bottle if you can find
it. I'm still trying to find the name here. It made us be
M and H. I'm not sure that's got to be a first. Yeah,
M and H elements, that's the name of it. And yeah,
and it's who knew that? The so Lakhan to our Jewish friends observing passover
with the best of whiskey in the world. So wow, that's cool,
Lucretia. I in honor of my friend Lances Zumi who Steve and I know,
yeah, okay everybody specific research institute. Yeah, yes, he was
here on my turf this past week, and so uh, in honor of
Lance, I'm drinking sun Tory hippie Japanese harmony whiskey. I've had that.
That's very good, very good. Although our friend Lance doesn't drink it.
He finds the stuff vile, even though he's an expert on the subject.
Vile. It's character less usually in too smooth. No, no, all
whiskey, in fact, all whiskey. Yeah, no, he doesn't drink
and I mean, but he is an expert, I mean, a renowned
expert in whiskey. I don't even know how that works. But including Johnny
tells a fabulous story about how when World War two broke out, there was,
as it often is, an ours some nativism, a nativist sentiments in
Japan to end the drinking of whiskey because he knows the British and horrible people,
and it was the Japanese Admiralty that said, no, actually, we
want to keep whiskey available for our sailors was very sensible of them. So
well, they didn't need to have very much for very long given how World
War two went. They're the Japanese name, so I'm having I'm still working
now on my one and a half Leader Kirkland brand bottle of Kentucky Straite Bourbon
whiskey, which is made by Barton Distilleries. Barton says it goes back to
seventeen ninety two, but God's going to take me weeks and weeks to get
through this amount of bourbon. But I'm doing my best these days. It's
not as hard as you think. And now listeners also just to let you
know what the new tradition is going to be, which we'll say for the
end of the show, which is we're going to have a semi permanent philosophy
corner segment where we are going to ask our resident to philosophers to what political
theory question is on their mind these days, and devote a little bit of
time to make sure we don't forget the origins of this podcast, which was
Lucretia's schooling Steve on the finer points of Strauss and Jaffa and Western philosophical tradition,
so that's guaranteed to drive a But in the meantime, John, in
the meantime, to start us off on the right foot, I am going
to brag once again about being not only a Tesla solar system for the house
and a Tesla charger, but a Tesla charger that serves my Tesla model s
The reason I'm so proud of it is not because I'm a greeny, not
because I give a damn about the environment or the climate change. But I
am so proud to have supported Elon Musk. Did you hear what he did?
He called he designated for Twitter, He designated NPR, a state affiliated
media. They are having true an infantile temper tantrum breakdown over there, but
over the whole thing real, which is just wonderful. Oh yeah, oh
yeah. They're doing by the government. Well, they're doing the usual above
talking point. We only get one percent of our funding from the federal from
it, which it don't take any If it's exactly the problem, You're to
give it up, will you? Although I mean the NPR story I followed
this week or last week was they just laid off one hundred people because contributions
are way down. All they talk about is the stupidest things. Well,
yes, but I understand something that that for NPR, CNN, CBS News,
they all desperately want Trump to be president again because it's good for business.
They won't admit that to you, but it's true. Anyway, they
laid off a hundred people. They had a Zoom meeting with this funneled employees
being laid off were yelling and screaming, and the CEO said, can we
please keep this conversation civil? And then someone gave the typical college talking point,
which is civility is a tool of white supremacy and oppression by the man.
Anyway, my first toast is to Elon Musk because whatever else you know,
the whole story is, it's just great anyway you look at it,
right, right, right, right. What do you got for us this
week? John? Okay? Well, anything going on this week? It
seemed like a quiet newsweek. But of course we've got to start the podcast
episode off by talking about the Trump indictment. Just briefly, for those of
you who have been living in a cave in Antarctica, there was an indictment
of President Trump for the first time not of President Trump, but first time
in American history a former president was charged with a crime. And in this
case, the District Attorney for New York City, Alvin Bragg, elected by
the residents of New York City to about a year and a half ago,
and he charged President Trump with a misdemeanor thirty four misdemeanors for misrepresenting his effort
to pay Stormy Daniels one hundred and thirty thousand dollars for a non disclosure agreement.
But he turned it into a felony by claiming that this book keeping miss
representation was an aid to cover up some other crime. Problem is if you
read the indictment, and I did, Unfortunately every thirty four times brag make
this made this charge. He did not tell anyone what this other crime was
and refused at the press conference this week to say what it was. So,
guys, what do you make of this? What do you think about
the legality of Oh, go ahead, I'm just gonna say I live.
I really listened to I listened to our podcast today as I was driving somewhere
from last week, and both of you said, I'm not I'm not trying,
I'm not trying. This isn't a got you, but it really isn't.
But both of you said that you believed if if Brag actually brought an
indictment on what we're at the time believed to be probably spurious charges with all
of the political, constitutional traditional issues that are brought to bear in this,
that a higher court would step in and do the responsible thing. And I
didn't challenge you. I shouldn't say it like that. I didn't even ask
you, guys at the time, how would that work? What would be
I mean? Would Trump have to appeal immediately the indictment. There isn't even
a legal mechanism to appeal an indictment, is there? Well? Can I
to ask for the case to be dismissed? Sorry, go ahead, Steve,
that's the question. Let me give you my theory, John, on
this peculiar business. And since you actually know the law, you can tell
me if I'm on the right track or not, which is, if Bragg
had specified a federal crime, you know, the campaign finance violation or what
was thought, you'd have an instant appeal to a federal courts to throw it
out. By not specifying, I'm not sure if I'm narrowly speaking or broadly
speaking, right about this in either level. But if you don't specify federal
crime, what are you appeeling the federal There's no federal question yet, is
there. I mean, it's it's very cynical, but very clever. It's
not a certain way I think. In other words, seems can find at
all the state claims and he's trying to seal off an immediate appeal to the
federal courts. Although you can drive why it might still work. So what
do you think, Well, Steve, you've failed the bar. That's why
I said. People right, it's actually really there's actually I think actually goes
back to the founding and federalism is that, um, the founding fathers did
not want people to be able to start a case in state court and then
to have it dragged immediately over to federal court on appeal. So it's very
interesting. This is actually called the Madisonian compromise because there were states rights people
who didn't want to have any federal courts at all, and then there were
kind of nationalists like Madison and Hamilton who wanted to have a federal court system.
So they basically left it up to the first Congress to decide, and
so the first Congress and then we've lived under this rule ever since. Basically,
once you pick whether it's state court or federal court where you start,
for most cases you have to go all the way up that system because they
didn't want federal judges sort of watching everything state judges were doing all the time.
So Trump does have an avenue, but he can't jump right over to
the federal court system. In fact, the main way he does it is
he has to go from he has to make a motion we call a motion,
you know, when you make a claim that the law doesn't provide for
his prosecution. He said he could say, even if everything you say is
true, factually there's no law of which I'm guilty, and then he can
ask the judge here, the child judge, to make a rulling on that
right away, and then he could. He didn't not yet, He's going
to do it by the end of the summer. I think he has the
right. You know, the judge and the lawyers come up with what we
call briefing schedule, you know, the timing of when you're allowed to make
certain objections and claims. Then that could go to the up through the New
York Court of Appeals, the sprint New York what they called the Court of
a strangely they don't call the Supreme Court. Could go up to what is
there, right, Yeah, that's like the a Court of Errors or something.
As they got to court these quarter appeals, and then from there you
could go to the US Supreme Court. Now that might be the New York
to our Supreme to the US Supreme Court. That's the only time you can
jump from the state system to the federal system to the federal review right away,
aside from a criminal case. So Lucretia's right that what's really vitally important
is when does Trump get his hearing in court where he gets to say these
are these charges are a flimsy the facts don't bear it out in some one
The other thing, actually, Steve's point does actually bear on a different constitutional
issue Trump has at his disposal, which is prosecutors. You're right, you
could say, oh, Bragg's being tricky here, not you know, showing
his hand too early. But that's unconstitutional because a sixth Amendments says you have
to be fully informed of the charges against you. And actually there are some
cases going all the way back to this case called Crukshank right after this yeah
or yeah, where the courts said you can't just say someone violated the statute.
You've got to actually have more description in your indictment of what the person
actually did. And because you have to be put on notice to be able
to put on a defense, otherwise how to keep it on a real defense?
So actually Bragg, I don't think Bragg's trying to be tricky. I
think they can't figure out what to charge him with, and so it's terribly
embarrassing. It may well be that Trump even wins just on that that the
indictment doesn't tell him enough about the crime. But they how far up.
I don't know anything about the New York a Pellet judicial system or who's in
it, or how biased it is. It's obvious that this judge is very
biased. But above that, I don't have any idea how far if you
guys have any notion of what the rest of the appellate system in New York
looks like? Are there any decent judges? Are there any? So it
is an elected judiciary And you might have remembered we didn't talk about, but
there was a story I think about two months ago where if you remember the
governor, Governor Hokel tried to nominate someone to the state highest court and he
was rejected for being too moderate by the state Assembly. So it probably gives
you an idea what the tenor of the judiciaries. But the other pointing,
it's an elected judiciary, and oh goody, So when did that has always
been? I mean that seems to be more of a progressive it is,
it is a progressive well actually, but I mean New York's one of the
original. Did they change the system? I think, I believe now it's
almost three quarters of the states now have some combination of elected judiciary. I
think I got a double check. I thought. What happened is most of
the states did not until Jackson, and this was very much a product of
Andrew Jackson. And after Jackson, a lot of western states added it,
and then it just kind of swept the country. Yeah, I mean California
system, of course, is you're appointed by the governor, confirmed for a
term, and then face confirmation elections. And that's how Rose Bird was tossed
out in nineteen eighty six. It's very rare that that's exercise, but it
has happened sometimes and three others, two others, two others. Right,
Yes, that was fun, that was great fun. Yeah. So I'm
just I'm just looked it up. I correct myself. So the judge of
the Supreme Court New York is called the Court of Appeals. Those are done
and then those are not elected. Those are done by the but the what
they call the Supreme Court of the State, which is the trial that's I
don't know why that's those are elected, those are those are those are run
by elections. So that that so you know, that's blue. Yeah,
right, what's like California, We elect a lot of our judges at the
lower levels, right than you know what the superior courts and the rest.
Okay are you so anyway, so before you what do you go, Lucisia,
Let's start with you. What do you think about the law or maybe
even more part of the politics of this prosecution Trump. I'm going to go
back to what I said last time, um a little bit here, because
I think it bears repeating. The politics are obviously obvious and in your face
and and abysmal. But I'm I'm I'm much more concerned about the the bigger
picture. Which is, we have with this destroyed any notion that the United
States cares about equality before the law, about the rule of law, I
mean. And the worst part of it is is the smarmy, sort of
hypocritical comments by people on the left, No one is above the law.
Well, of course we know that's not true. Hundred Biden's above the law.
Nancy Pelosi's above the law, her husband's above the law. You know,
you go on and on and on and on and on about the left
being above the law, and I fuzz above the law. But the real
point is is that how much across the across the globe others are making fun
of us. Others are looking at us and saying, yeah, the United
States has now descended into Chiquita Banana Republic, and there are you know,
I saw something that we have joined seven other corrupt nations that have indicted a
political opponent, that the opposition, that the ruling party has indicted the someone
from the opposition. You know, that's the stuff they do in places like
Venezuela and now Brazil, and you know, and the Soviet Union, and
you could go on and on. That's the problem. And there were some
really interesting comments actually last time, John, because you might remember, I
pose the question what's the right thing to do here? Steve suggested that that
DA's across the country should go after Hunter, and I didn't disagree with it,
and I don't know that I do, But that means that we have
given up on our constitutional system. We have given up on what I think,
in many ways is a legal constitutional principle that set us above the rest
of the world and made us the great country that we are. That's equality
before the law. The law is not a respector of persons that you know,
the whole idea of the fourteenth Amendment, the whole idea of juries of
your peers, all of those things that were built into our constitutional system and
our judicial systems to assure that you know, it's never been perfect. But
this is just such an egregious violation of those principles that I don't know that
there's any coming back from it, especially because we haven't seen the Nancy Pelosi's
of the world. And I mean one Williams. One Williams got kicked off
of NPR and just shows you how bad MPR is because he is such a
vile human being. Oh, it's not the Democrats fault. Trump's the one
who had an affair with Stormy Daniels. So it's baseball stuff like that.
I'll be quiet, Steve, go ahead. Yeah, So I actually wasn't
going to anything, John, except lucretia has provoked me. I think the
shorter lucretia is America no longer exceptional if we accept this. I actually think
that, in an ironic way, maybe the left has done us a favor
by making it so explicit, because I don't think this is brand new.
Some of my data points go all the way back to the way Franklin Roosevelt
persecuted Samuel Imsol, a name entirely forgotten in the world. He was the
head of what became con Edison, and Roosevelt hounded that guy, put him
on trial, and he was acquitted by a jury. By the way,
that's a great story, but that was entirely political. Also Andrew Mellon too,
right, Andrew mellen that's right, and investigating Black, Oh yes,
comrade Black. And then Michael Milcomb people have forgotten from the eighties. I
got to meet him once and talked to him at some length. He was
a boy, what a smart guy, obviously, but He was very candid
about how you know, he coughed up what a six hundred million dollars fine.
That was real money even in the eighties, not anymore. And you
know what he told me. Anybody also said this publicly. It's not secret
knowledge. He said, I was the only person ever charged with some of
the crimes the federal government charged me with. And I might have been able
to prevail a trial, but it would have taken me forever, cost a
lot of money. He was easier to cut a deal and go to jail
for eighteen months. Okay, that was a political prosecution because he's a rich
guy. Watch for the Biden administration to go after Elon Musk when may come
back to this. We talk about the Clarence Thomas story at the end here.
I you know. So the point is is that more and more Americans
say, oh, yeah, this really stinks, which some survey days suggests
they do. Maybe now we can raise some of the points Lucretia raises about
what's happened to our justice system. Okay, that's end of my spiel about
the matter. Let me ask you, I think this is interesting. We're
not alone. A lot of people, even on the Trump hating left or
even on the Trump painting right criticized this. Right. Yeah, I saw
comments by Mitt Romney and Jeff Bush saying that this was outrageous. No,
friends, I'm sorry. Even Ian Millheiser Center for American Progress, even he
said this is a defective prosecution. And when a lot of media on the
left but not a lot of left politicians, well no, because but just
the tiniest bit of courage on their part would have made all the difference in
the world. And how do you not have that courage? Oh? Sorry
to laugh at no, but I'm serious. Do we just assume that every
politician on the left and many of them on the right, are just such
despicable excuses for human beings. They have no character, they have no integrity,
they have nothing to recommend themselves. I mean, that's a horrible position
that we're in. If that's the case, we have lost. I Mean,
I'm the way who argues that's the case all the time. I get
it, But every now and then I think maybe there's got to be a
little hope, and there's just not. Well I miss Pat moynahan speaking of
whiskey drinkers. Okay, sorry, And what happens if they do go the
other way like Tulsea Gabbard, or you know, they become exiled, and
you know, all of that kind of stuff. But this seems to be
a pretty pivotal moment to me, where this is where there should be some
courage on the part of the left to stand up and say enough is enough
and this can be turned against us. They probably just all think that Republicans
are the pussies that they are and never will do. So. Let me
ask you about the political impact of the indictment. I've seen people speculate on
in various places that this actually has the effect of helping Trump. I got
tweets from people in the media when the indictment came out saying Trump has just
won the Republican primary for twenty twenty four and lost the general election and lost
the general election. Do you think it actually has that effect? Well,
it will depend how this plays out, because it seems like it's too early
for that. You what do you want to do? It would be in
the summer, when Republican presidential debates presumably will start, or in the fall,
or when the primaries start next winter. Now maybe, but that's when
all of this is going to come to a head. Well maybe, I
mean we'll see. That's that's that's that's when the all of the trial proceedings
are in is in January. Well that could be right, I mean,
maybe it works out. It is, right, Steve, I'm giving you
facts, not a period. Yeah, I love you have facts about the
future. Okay, I'll just file that. Well that's I mean, that's
what they planned. Well okay, right, we'll see how it goes.
Either the first hearing I think is planned in December, and you know,
I think they you know, if that's the normal, then they might try
to start courtroom activity and mark about a year from now. Yeah, a
year from now. But what do you but do you think about that?
Do you think that this will have a positive effect for Trump by the time
of the primaries or I think by the primaries there's no doubt. The real
question is, and this is what Democrats are hoping for obviously, is the
but this will because here's here's the issue right now. Biden is such a
disaster. You know, Joe Kennedy, I get it, We're not what's
his not joking? Yeah? Right? They all they're all the same to
me. But anyway, except he doesn't like vaccines. What I was gonna
say, he's got some lucretia like views. Oh that's a more complicated anyway.
Um, but here it's it's the suburban soccer moms and you know the
middle, it's the middle. What are they going to think about this?
Are they going to take you know CNN's uh version of this story that you
know, this is just one more evidence of Trump that corrupt whatever and refused
to vote for him or you know, that's what that's what the Democrats,
that's what political came out and said, Um, that's what they're counting on.
I'm not entirely convinced because you know, what we're not talking about right
now are all of Trump's what shall we say, um, Trump's faults,
I guess is the best way to put it. His his weaknesses, his
his liabilities. We're talking about the fact that he personifies the little man against
the state as a big man. Well that but that may okay, but
that backfire. You're right, Well, here's where I think Democrats may have
miscalculated, which is, I mean, we know about Trump's self regard and
in discipline. Look, what are what are Americans upset about right now.
They don't like inflation, they don't like, you know, go down.
The last prices are going to go through the right now. But if Trump
is making the campaign about himself and how he's been shabily treated and how the
twenty twenty election was stolen, I think that doesn't we're I mean, the
faithfood will go along with that, because I say, damn right. But
I think that what a lot of your swing voters want to hear, and
a lot of Republican primary vers want to hear, is what's the problem.
What are you going to do to fix it and change it? And that's
where a clever opposition to him, whether it's de Santis or someone else,
can exploit that that's not automatic. But it seems to me that Democrats may
have been too clever by three halves. I would give Trump more credit though
here for the fact that he didn't necessarily address those things directly in his speech
at Marilaga the other day is not indicative of what he might do on the
campaign trail. He had to. He had to outline the corruption of the
government cases against him in that speech. He had no choice. But I
do think he'll have a positive message going forward, and I think that's where
they really have screwed up. I think he did. I think he did
play it right in New York City. You know. I think that Democrats
were hoping he would come out on the courthouse steps say something crazy and spark
another riot. But actually he acted somber and dignified, and he was kind
of like he was the martyr. And so I think he did well for
himself in New York City. Don't know about his speech and mar Lago,
but to be continued, this is actually go Our next topic actually picks up
on Lucretia's comment about soccer moms, because we've got we had Otherwise these would
beat top stories if it weren't for the Trump indictment. We had two elections
this week, and in both I don't know, it looks like the soccer
moms are slipping away from the Republican Party. In Chicago, Brandon Johnson,
the favorite of the Chicago Teachers Union, in fact, a former official of
the Chicago Teachers Union, defeated Paul Vallas. Both are Democrats, but Vallis
had run and had been head in the polling, but had run on a
pro public safety platform, increasing spending on the police, and trying to take
I think a tougher line with the teacher union, whereas Brandon Johnson has said
the problem is we have too many police and that we need to fund more
social programs. That's the first data point, the second data point. And
I apologize in advance. I am sure I am going to miss pols this
name Wisconsin that we had, Yes, we had an election for Supreme Court
seat in Wisconsin on a court that is split three to three, and the
winner, Judge Jennett Protests which one significantly yes over the Republican candidate Dan Kelly.
I was significantly what was the percent? Why? Ten points? How
many of those were purchased with the two hundred and fifty dollars worth of gift
cards? Hold that for a moment. Was she made the election about abortion
basic, about abortion, about overturning Scott Walkers public union reforms essentially, and
about over turning the last district map that was drawn up by the Republican legislature
and Wisconsin. She won a resounding victory, and normally no one would care
right about a state Supreme Court race in a single state, but both Republicans
and Democrats really focused on this election, poured a lot of money into it.
So let's start lucretia this time. Does this actually show that liberals are
back on the upswing, that maybe the twenty twenty two mid terms we're not
disappointing because of Trump's intervention, but actually the electorate is actually becoming more liberal
or more democrat. I don't think there's any doubt that in Wisconsin and Chicago
that's probably the case. I don't think it's indicative of what's happening across the
whole country. I you know, I don't understand. I have no comment
on how pey book can be so damn stupid. I really don't. Can
we do Chicago first, John, Yeah, go oud to Chicago first.
So first of all, and Brandon Johnson is to the left of Lori Lightfoot.
That is shocking. Second, Brandy, oh god is he's an articulate
moron. He can't get a sins out? Sorry, okay, But the
other thing is Brandon Johnson. What part of Let's go Brandon? The Chicago
voters not understand. But here's the third thing. So you know, you
mentioned I think John that vallis Paul Vallas was a hand in the polls by
yes, solid five points. Yes, I actually think those polls were correct,
except it was a low turnout election. The turnout model from the posters
was wrong. It was a thirty five percent turnout, which isn't very good.
But but like school board elections, why do we have these? By
the way, what does the left talk about elections voters suppression? Why do
we elect school boards in New York and Los Angeles in like January and February
of off years. Why are we electing the mayor of Chicago here in April
of an off year Because you won't get if you In other words, if
you'd have this mayor's election attached to a general election, I'm pretty sure Vallis
would have won. That's not gonna say that this isn't a disaster. M
No, I think it is correct. I think no. I don't disagree
with you. At the same time, that's the I'd like to think that
the stupid voters are the ones showing up at the polls, right if they're
voting for those people. Remember also that in the case of the Wisconsin judicial
election, eighteen percent of that woman's money came from inside of Wisconsin. And
the rustin outside, and nineteen percent of the what's his name, Vallas's money
came from outside. So you had huge amounts of money targeting the stupidest voters
in Wisconsin and getting them to the polls with the stupidest kinds of incentives.
But the point when you have a low I mean, school board elections in
LA and New York often get less than fifteen percent turnout of eligible voters.
Those fifteen percent, I'll bet fourteen percent or fourteen or that fifteen percent our
teachers union members. That's on purpose. Where is everybody else? Why are
they so dumb? Why aren't they voting? Well? Because you know here,
No, we don't. Well, actually they don't. They don't.
I mean, they don't well, I don't know. You know, John
and I were in conversation here three weeks ago, You'll know who I'm talking
about, John, with someone who is a significant real estate investor, developer,
office space person in Chicago and other cities, and he was saying,
I don't know that Chicago can survive the mayorship of Brandon Johnson. I'm gonna
want to check in with him and see if he's leaving, like so many
people are now Wisconsin similar story. Although one of these interesting things about Wisconsin
is um there were several other ballot measures on One of them was an advisory
vote. Should there pretty advisory there no law attached to it. Should there
be work requirements for people who were on welfare? It got eighty percent eight
zero yes vote. There are a couple of others. There was there a
couple of soft on crime measures that voters rejected handily, you know, you
know, no bail and some of those sorts of things. So the point
is this is a little bit like California, where conservative ballot measures have often
done much better than the Republican Party has done going back forty years. Now,
this is junction between opinion and how people vote for individuals and certain other
things is you know, annoying and frustrating and hard to understand, and but
we still see that. But then the final data point, though, is
is that a very solid Republican district had a special election. The Republican won,
but just barely in a district that ought to be a layup. And
so Wisconsin's very worrying. This is a state, This is a state that
seven years ago voted for Donald Trump. Yes, and the years before that
put Scott Walker right. So in Lucretia's explanation, there's some truth to these
already liberal places Wisconsin and Cargo. Their population doesn't care they or they agree
with these policies. But Wisconsin at least wasn't so liberal so long ago.
Well it was and it wasn't. Yeah, And I think John at when
you write your book that you mentioned last week that why are Asians so stupid?
I'm going to follow on with the sequel, which is why our voters
so damn stupid. I think someone's written that one. Someone's got to have
written that one several people, and you know, I hate no actually,
I mean, look, I know the rational choice people who oh god,
well yeah, I just liked them intensely and at that. But their fundamental
point is that, you know, for a person's personal life, doesn't make
a lot of sense to vote. It just takes too much time, too
expensive. I don't know what the weather is like in Chicago this week,
but for somebody, I'm sorry, well, but it doesn't take that because
you know what the problem is that we don't have Civics education. We don't
understand a direct influence that those politicians, those elected officials have on our lives.
And it's all incremental as they take more and more of our liberty away,
as they take more and more of our security away, et cetera,
et cetera, and we are I mean, you know, I like to
think the three Whiskey Happy Hour does its small part in educating the problem is,
you know what, most of our listeners are already just as smart on
these things as we are, and so we do end up a lot.
That would be an interesting question for the comments would be what is the voter
turnout of the three Whiskey Happy Hours? And last our somebody was just so
disgusted with the whole thing they refuse now to vote. There's not a single
listener amongst the three Whiskey Happy Hour. I'd be willing to bet who doesn't
vote because it is too hard. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard
in my life. It's it's I'll skip the raffle. I've never missed it.
It's one voting in person to single election. So there's two is opportunity
costs of going to vote and it is not worth And then two their argument
is any single individual if their acting rationally knows their vote doesn't matter. Yeah.
So you know here in my county in the last election there was a
very left wing supervisor. He got re elected by twelve votes. Oh wow,
and I've been beating up my kids to see if they voted for the
right person. Anyway. Okay, well, you know what, We've got
so many other great topics, Like I just say, John is one sentence
that having said, I missed Pat moynihan when it comes to Chicago. I
missed the old Richard Daily. Yeah. By the way, the first time
Jesse Jackson went to see Richard Daly and sometime of the sixties, daidly threw
him out of his office. That's one reason I like him. So I
just a small anecdote I am was that this one of these Washington dinners and
I got sat next to ex mayor Daily, the recent one, oh the
Richard Daily Junior. Yeah. Yeah, this was almost ten years ago.
Maybe yeah, and uh, but you know there is the typical Washington dinners.
There's like a head table up on some station. Then there's you know,
like thousand people having an intimate dinner in the audience. And it was
he was such an uninteresting humorless, characterless guy, and he spent most of
the dinner that I could overhear complaining about why he wasn't at the head table.
Of course anyway, So moving on to our next topic, There's just
so many different things going on on the issue of transgender and diversity. I
know we talked a little bit about it before in the last episode, but
since then to big developments so far. One, the Supreme Court today actually
refused to intervene in lower court decisions handling West Virginia's transgender in sports law.
This is a law passed recently where West Virginia says you can only play in
boys sports if you were born genetically a boy, and you can only play
in women's sports if you born genetically a woman. This was challenged by a
young boy who wants to who is transgender and wants to participate I believe in
women's track in a girl's track in field. The trial judge upheld the West
Virginia law, and then the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal circuit
that includes West Virginia, without opinion, stayed that so that his the childish's
initial decision does not go into effect, and then the Supreme Court decided not
to get involved at this point, which means that you might very well have
a trial actually about this whole question. So that's one development. Sorry one,
Okay, go ahead. The CREATI I'm just going to say, if
you read them, it's actually quite interesting to read the Child judge is Um
opinion in that case, because you will get a very nice, succinct explanation
of how the equal Protection of clause applies to laws that discriminate on the basis
of a whole bunch of different things, and how they fit into you know,
racial classifications and compelling state interests in all of that. And it was
actually quite well done. I was a little bit surprised that nobody on the
Supreme Court decided to step down and say, yeah, I mean, could
they have done that? Could they have just overturned the stay and put into
effect? Actually Justice yeah, Actually, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented without
very very much in terms of writing, but said that they should the Sprint
Courts should have intervened and let West Virginia's law go into effect and then have
And that's really the question. Do you let West Virginia laws go into effect
while you're having this trial or and this is the way it will turn out.
Because the sprin court didn't get involved, the law stopped. Yeah,
the effect, so West Virginia and wall has been blocked from going into effect,
and the uh the young plaintiff can actually start participating in sports. And
all I can say is that person's mother must be the most odious, awful
human being on the planet. It talks about how at the age of three,
Oh, I saw that that was took purity blockers and all that I
was just google good good word for it. Boy, do I have a
lot of team. I won't say a lot about this. And I know
you want to get to uh as I'm calling a bud light and the loafers.
Well, that's the third development I have. That was you killed my
joke going to that one. Well, I had two developments and I was
going to spring the third one, Steve, but go ahead, West Virginia
case. You know, just a couple of things. And I won't go
on too long, but you know, so when I'm in the high school
way back around the time of the Boer War, and I went to high
school with a really premier cross country program, and then if I think my
junior year, four or five girls said we want to run cross country.
Well, there wasn't a girls team. There was no girls cross country.
They ran with the boys. Howple of them were really good. They were
able to beat about a third of the boys and the two Steve probably no,
No, I was one of the you know, I was one of
the top ten guys. One of them. By the way, John later
went on to be an All American and the ten thousand meters at UC Berkeley.
In the early age, we dated for a while and she always kicked
my ass and anything longer than two miles um. And that probably wasn't the
way time she was kicking ass, But go ahead, no, that was
okay. I will say no more about all of that anyway. UM.
But the point is this that there's no demand that you know, we have
a But they were on the boys team. They did fine. And by
the way, it was while I was in high school they started saying,
okay, let's have a girls team, let's have girls cross country races,
and that one fine, and a lot of our summer races that we do
it. Because the program went year round. We were all just in it
together, and you know there were, like I say, some of the
girls competed very well. Up guys, maybe we're coming to a point where
we just abolish the general differences entirely for some sports, and that won't work
out very well for a lot of these folks. Steve, can I throw
that actually directly leads it to the second development? No, no, let
me just throw it out and then no, no, let me throw it
out there, because I think this continues your point, and then Lucretia should
comment. Which is another development in this whole transgender thing, is that the
Biden administration just put out notice today that it's going to issue new Title nine
regulations about transgender and sports, and it says that schools will not be able
to have the kind of blanket bands on transgender participation sports of the kind of
West Virginia's trying. But they did say, and this goes to your point,
Steve, that states and schools could actually keep transgender transgender athletes out of
certain sports on a sport by sport basis. So it sounds like, I
don't know, nobody's sure what this means. Maybe Steve's solution is right that
you will not be allowed to keep transgender sport athletes out in places where you
could compete together, like a cross country running I would think maybe tennis,
non yeah, whereas but the Biden administration does seem to conceive that women transgender
are going to be playing football anytime soon or wrestling. But nobody's sure exactly
how you would go about proving this, what kind of evidence you would need.
But that happened today too, at the same on the same day that
the Supreme Court made this announcement about bless virgin Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Lucretia, what are your thoughts about the Biden I'm almost afraid to ask this
question. What are your thoughts about the Biden administration and it's transgender policies.
I don't understand this other than it is an absolute attempt to go one step
further and destroying nature's nature's guidance about what human beings are and how they ought
to how they ought to act, how they ought to behave, how they
ought to conduct themselves to find true human happiness. I think that the thing
that bothers me absolutely the most about this celebration of transgenderism is the celebration of
what is seriously a found set of mental illnesses that are cumulative and build upon
each other. I you know, I understand there are people and have been
since the beginning of time or a transgender I'm not, but why why is
it necessary in such a short amount of time to go from Oh, all
we want is four days to be able to marry too. If you do
not allow your three rolled to explore his or her gender and choose his or
her identity and then get surgery and take puberty blockers, and if that child
wants to do it and you don't want to tell the parents, if you
object to any of that, you are a profound bigot. How did someone
like Biden? I mean, is he just so brain dead that he will
spout that bs because he's told to do so? Well? Where did this
come from? How did we get here? It's violent, disgusting and the
fact that we're even discussing it as if it's serious is it's mind blowing to
me. I will see and raise Lucretia on this. If you always come
back with something, oh yeah, there's always said I was gone. I
said I was gone, and raise Okay, let's here, let's hear this
at some future point, and it might not be longer than twenty years.
It might be sooner. We're going to look back on this whole period right
now as a kin to the enthu sasm for eugenics seventy five years ago.
And by the way, Lucretia, I've never stopped our enthusiasm for eugenics.
Correct. You can draw a straight line between the thinking that went behind that
and to this moment that actually should be written about more. What is that
connection? What is that connection? Well, it's the idea that there,
you know, a human nature is doesn't exist, it's malleable. Well that's
actually that's two second point, which is on title nine directly title nine.
Let's do a little history. This Title nine was put in place under Nixon.
He was for all this, so he shouldn't discriminated against women in education
and okay, and universities, by the way, you know the guy who
worked us out and you know, of course, as Chef Melnick. Well,
by the way, John, do you know what Chef Melnick's doctoral dissertation
was on? No, what the Clean Air Act? Oh? How did
that? Did I answer my question? Steve, I don't give a damn
about Cheff melnick Ers who nobody that's coming to it. I just had to
do it, John, because he walked into that, right, I did.
Well. The chef points out better than anybody that what colleges did was
say, how do we comply with this? We don't know? Oh,
I know, let's do sports. That's somebody we can measure football teams and
basketball teams to get all the money we got to spend equal amounts of money
on women's sports. Okay, fine, let's promote women's sports. It did
mean that a lot of low revenue men's sports, like wrestling in particular,
where the US used to be very strong and act has been completely decimated by
all this. Okay. The point is now, Lucresia, and you should
be happy with this conclusion, is that this new interpretation put out by BIDING
today essentially says, yeah, Title nine is protect women, but we no
longer know what a woman is. That's really what it says. It's I
know, I don't want to make jokes about it anymore. I want to
say it's not a joke. I mean, that's serious, right, I
mean, I mean, Lucretia, I think rightly pointed out. This opinion
is quite good. It's worth reading. Um opinion. Yes, yeah,
judge by, Yeah, obvious, but under the circumstances no, I get
you guys, you know, make fun of me for how sometimes lawyers obfuscate
things with all our standards and tests and balancing and all the intermediate scrutiny.
But you know, this opinion was pretty good by explaining, you know,
he he starts out with what Lucretia says, like, there's a difference between
men and women, and it's a chromosome there. It's just like you don't
So he said, there that is unchangeable, and he said, what does
change can be how society treats gender. But then he said that how's their
discrimination going on here? Right? It's that no one's being prevented from playing
sports. And he said the society has an important interest in saying there's going
to be women's sports and there's gonna be men's sports. And he almost thinks
it's so obvious it doesn't really need proof. And I thought he actually did
a pretty good job explaining it in a way that should make sense to most
recent And he didn't engage in any kind of dictum about you know, we
really shouldn't as a society be celebrating this ridiculous idea of transgenderism, which I
don't know how I could have avoided it, but he didn't, and he
stuck to the legal arguments, and he did a very good job of it.
You're right. What I want to say about it is is that we've
got to stop acting. Is this as if this is something legitimate. Yeah,
we have to stop at the very basic level and say done. No,
no more drag Queen story hour, No more celebrating, no more putting
your damn pronouns in your email or on your Zoom persona. No more,
do not force me into playing you in your ridiculously mentally unstable world. I'm
not doing it, and I'm not going to allow you to do it to
other children. I'm not going to allow you to do it to my children.
I'm not going to allow it to happen in schools, and I'm not
going to allow it to happen anywhere. Well, part of what's going on
is the Biden proposal is attempting to pre empt all the states that are I
think Tennessee just voted this week to say no more drag Queen Story hours in
public schools and other sorts of things. It does raise something that should have
been brought up in the last election campaign, but now can be brought up
in very direct and acute form, which is in a debate, somebody needs
to ask President Biden that fees the nominee, how many genders are there?
That's the free part question. That is the free part question of time.
Remember the free part question from Lincoln and Douglas, right, how many genders
are there? And watch Democrats be completely incoherent because I think that, well,
I don't need to say more about that. But here's here's what I
think is really interesting. You know, I've told you before that I support
gays against groomers. I think you know that the stance they take, but
it's becoming. The funny thing is is that people most willing to speak out
against transgenderism and all of that are in fact traditional gays. Yes, And
why because they recognize that this is not about openness, intolerance and all those
other things. This is about destroying society from the bottom up. And and
and they want to remove the T and the Q from the LGBTQ and the
plus you know, and say, okay, we had a fight. You
know, there was a long time where um, you know, until very
recently, it was socially unacceptable to be openly gay. That's not true anymore,
not to any of us, and most of us don't even consider it
problematic in any way, shape or form. We all have gay friends.
It means nothing to us. Right. There is a difference, however,
between acceptance for gay marriage and gay lifestyle and all of that, and accepting
of the name the man boy love us, the band may love whatever it
is, nambla. They've been around for so you mentioned lucretia a little while
ago. How do we go from Burger? How do we go from Burger
felt a change genderism By the way, it only took about five weeks.
And the irony here is is that the people before Burger felt we're saying,
you know, if we pass this, then polygamy is going to be next,
and in fact we leap frogged over that to this whole business. Right,
But somebody has also pointed out and this want to be you know what
did LGBT originally stand for? It so lesbian, gay, bi sexual,
and then t for transitioning. You're you're you're changing teams as our switching teams,
as I put it, But what does B imply a binary? Yeah,
so, by the way, eventually the B is gonna have to be
eliminated by all these folks. But be community is saying, no, it's
it's true, you know, because as a matter of fact, gay men
are being told, yeah, you have to accept this transgender man. You
know, they're not attracted to a woman anyway. It's it's I have to
intervene. And just so, I've lost track of all the different words and
their meanings, right, I don't think I ever knew them before. But
but let me just like throw up this third example of how this issue has
hit our news this week, and to show you the hidden, hidden,
hidden similarities between Lucretia and a singer known as kid Rock, because what also
came out this week was that bud Light released a series of commercials starring a
man who masquerades as a woman, if I if I have that correctly,
and who cuts videos, apparently well known videos where he dresses like Biden interviewed
her. Yeah, yeah, sorry, I did not know that. So
oh yeah, so apparently bud Light even released hands of Beer with his because
he's a gay man dressing as a woman. I had to do some research
on this too. As a woman. That's that's what I would know.
That's what I was described in the mainstream press. So apparently this has caused
great outrage amongst the usual community that drinks bud Light. And wait a minute
before you go on, John Ahead, I saw a T shirt I could
have. I didn't actually see her. Good buy it, but the T
shirt said we now have a final definition of a woman. And it was
some you know, some some biological thing was the first thing. In the
second was anyone who's willing to drink like bud Light. Well that's a battle
on bee headline says fake beer finally finds fake woman to endorse it. But
then the last, the last, the last example of you know, the
average Americans attitude or response to all this was yes. Kid Rock then released
a video of himself, I believe, with an AAR fifteen shooting up cases
of bud Light out in the field, which, given Lucretia's brandishing of weapons
on the last episode of the podcast, I made me think. I made
me think she must have been doing the same thing this week now, Because
first of all, in my lifetime, I have never ever once drunk or
purchased what bud Light And you've never had bud light? God about just straight
budget. I think I've taken a taste of it. It tastes like piss.
Sorry, excuse me language, sorry, family show. It's last thing
on the planet. And a light beer in the in and of itself is
that's you know, that whole thing to convince men to drink light beer.
That what a major disinformation operation that was. But anyway us men do,
but bud Light has anyway, But I've never I can't boycott it because I've
never purchased it. I never would, and that only makes me upset.
A couple of stray observations. I can't resist this just because we all know
him. Someone who used to be able to recite the Budweiser, not bud
Light, but the Budweiser labeled it was like this paragraph a bus quality yet
history. And someone who used to be able to recite that from memory it
would do someone very dramatic fashion at parties. Was our pal John Eastman really
was back in the eighties. But still we can humiliate him with That's where
he found the extra words for the twelfth Amendment. The well Budweiser is now
using cows identifying as quisdales. Know, I have tried not to give oxygen
to this person who has been you know, celebrated and as you know,
has got millions of views, because if you don't see John and really you're
quite But never mind. I mean, I think I think our listeners understand
where we stand Luke creation in the moral, political, and philosophical and psychological
aspects of it. It does seem like every week the news does produce something
you could not have made up but just a year ago. But what bud
Light? What is Budweiser thinking and doing this? That makes no sense?
I mean the people that you got to imagine that, the people who are
the main consumers of bud Light are aghast at this. I expect we're going
to see huge. I've got to think some adults in the ruin but at
Annaheuser Busch are saying, who did this? What the hell? You know?
Some marketing person has already been fired. Yeah, somebody's already been fir.
You're gonna get Yeah, I don't know. Nike got as much.
Nike did the same thing they did. They offered some big contract to that
thing. Yeah, and this person I don't know. I mean, are
you look at his videos? You look at someone who's really I don't know,
reached out and celebrated its birthday. And I mean that this is the
most popular thing in America right now. Is that I have often pointed to
the example from the eighties. I don't remember this Lucretia John's too young.
Maybe remember that young ten year old girl named Samantha Smith who wrote to Gorvichov,
I'm all for abolishing nuclear weapons. They made a big pr stunt of
inviting her to the Soviet Union. Well, you know, she and maybe
even his big celebrity. They made a movie about her end up dying in
a plane crash. Now let's not directly connected, but the point is as
they made her and I think, by the way, Gretath Thundberger is going
to end up the same way. She's been exploited for marketing purposes by the
Climatistas as I call them, and this Dylan mulvaney person I predict, And
by the way, I think there's a decent chance that this unfortunate person is
going to come to, you know, trouble in life, and at that
point the Left will abandon her. Oh yeah, of course some time.
Yeah, and you know that will just do you mean like they did Sam
Brittain, Yes, right, who I met several times, but I don't
know who that is. Thank you. Let me oh, yes, I
I try to block clears out of my memory, but Lucretia won't let me
forget them because I'm worried about this. John. You know. Let's let's
um we only have it from this left in the podcast. Um, let's
wrap up with I hope our new feature to the podcast, which is going
to be I think of it as the philosopher's corner. Although as I said
to both of you in the in the but as I said to you when
I was suggesting this to you in your little philosophy world, I bet there
are no corners because everything seems to circle around endlessly to me when you guys
talk. Okay, so I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Let me starts.
So let me just started to listen to The idea is hopefully every podcast so
often we can talk about at the end some kind of political philosophy of political
theory, issue of the day, either the contemporary relevance or something that Steve
and Lucretia have come across I want to discuss, and so Lucretia is volunteered
to go first in our inaugural Philosopher's Corner on the Three Whiskey Happy Hour podcast.
And I chose my subject today because this is Easter weekend, it's passover
also. But what I what I want to put out there just for your
consideration, and believe it or not, it's not entirely unrelated to what we've
just been talking about. I'll make that connection momentarily. But one of the
things I find the mist fascinating about the United States of America and its commitment
to equality is where that notion of equality actually comes from. And if you
look at history, where you find it is not an Aristotle he didn't think
people were right. No, mostly, but it's it's a little more complicated.
But but where you actually see equality. This is my simplest example of
it is in the Samaritan Woman at the Well, when Jesus walks up to
the Samaritan woman at the well and asks her for a drink of water.
That seems to us this is a proof of of of the success of that
idea. To us, it seems okay, he asked a woman for water,
except that Jewish men did not speak to women, unaccompanied women, unaccompanied
women who are obviously women of um discredited women, shall we say, And
they certainly didn't speak to women who were not Jewish and all of those other
things. As a Samaritan woman was not. But Jesus speaks to her as
if she is an equal in the conversation in the Gospel. That idea that
we are all made in the image of God, and it's also you know,
it's part of Hebrew lore. We are all made in the image of
God took a long time to we might say, become politically feasible or viable.
But that is what makes that is what makes the United States of America,
or did at least, so extraordinary. Is this idea that all of
us, whether we look at it as being equal in the sight of God,
made in God's image, or just from a purely more secular political point
of view, you know, the Creator didn't make us, or we weren't
created, or we didn't evolve in such a way that there were natural rulers
among us. We have so much to be thankful for in the sense that
we were the inheritors of that great traditions as it sort of played itself out
over two thousand years to the point where today we are. We live in
a society, we live in a constitutional system where we can still look at
the things that are wrong with it and have a place from which to a
point of departure to say, what's wrong with what happened to Trump? What's
wrong with this commitment by the leftist Biden regime to promoting transgenderism, is that
we are denying what is good and beautiful about human nature, which starts,
in my opinion, with the fundamental equality of all human beings. And on
Easter weekend, that's something I'm going to choose to celebrate. Steve, do
you think that human equality is really the result of Christianity and not political philosophy?
Yes, I was going to say, Hobbes my soft box plain.
Well, you know, for me, you should mention that I'm going to
pond for this week, because the great thing about political philosophy is it has
a long shelf life, and I've got something to but I can say,
we'll keep. On the other hand, I do think John that we haven't.
I haven't. I'm I'm showing listeners that awesome. I'm showing a little
sort of tent cardever you call it, for the program John did on Hobbes
Leviathan with Michael Knowles for Preger University and have a chance to listen to yet.
But I'm going to and then of course correct all your mistakes and the
rest of that till next week. So you no comment on mine, Steve,
Yeah, comment on crime and he did. Agreement. I can't.
I hate that. I don't hate to say that, of course, but
I hate and I understand when I say that there's nothing exclusive about it in
the sense that it doesn't exclude people who are not believers, doesn't exclude people
who believe in a different religious tradition like Judaism or Muslim or whatever. That's
not the point. Well, but what go ahead, Steve, Well and
let me kild it this way, and this is you know, five volumes
to follow, John. But the point as when you have a teaching that
is a universal b that your relationship or your religious piety religious obligation is disconnected
from your political obligation to the regime you live in. That's dynamite stuff.
It points to liberalism rightly understood, and it took more than fifteen hundred years
for people to start to figure that out. Like I said, my big
story, that's my two questions. Then maybe these will be teasers for our
discussion of Hobbes for next week. It sounds like we're going to have one
is if that's true, why did it take them seventeen hundred and seventy six
years to figure it out? You now, why did it have to come
along for America? What about all the countries in the Middle Ages and there
early in the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, they didn't put these principles into practice?
Why did they overlook the central teaching of Christianity? And then second,
I always oh, I'm not finished. My second point is I always thought
it was Hobbes that was the person who said, no, all people are
equal, because in the state of nature you can equally harm each other.
And that's why that was taking the just the idea of all equal, all
human beings being equal before God and making it lower and political, so that
that that you know, you don't have to have that high falutint way of
looking at it. That's it's much too simplified. But the first thing you
said. The first thing you said about how did it take all this time?
Peter Paul in the in the in the Gospels, I really if if
you, if you read the New Testament, you very much get the sense
that they expected Jesus to the second coming of the Messiah to happen in their
lifetime soon any day now, you know, And so um, everything that
Paul and Peter say in the Gospels is obey, obey the Emperor, obey
the political authority. Be you know, live as a free and good individual,
but obey the authority. Because every authority that's there was put there by
God. Okay, and it takes much too long, because Steve's going to
kill me if I keep talking in this way. But but that it took
a long time for the idea of that all powerful authority put there by God
to kind of morph into this idea than of the divine right of kings.
What And we know that human beings are evil or they have a capacity for
evil and envy and not virtue and all those things. And for the longest
time Christianity's evolution, along with Roman history and then you know, all of
Western civilization, it took us a long time to get to the idea that
somehow these people in positions of authority, even if they were put there by
God or somehow no better than anybody else. I'm really trunk hating this explanation.
Yes, sorry, Steve, what's right you have? I mean,
can I add one additional layer to Lucretia just said? Which is the question
you raised? John? And how come people didn't figure this out? Sooner
raises the profound question of how human consciousness evolves, and it raises the very
difficult problem of historicism. But I'll just end with this are on this point,
our great teacher Harry Jaffa like to say that the two I think he
put it this way, almost Lucretia, the two greatest breakthroughs in human consciousness
were Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the tablets and announcing that God is
one, the unity of God as opposed to polytheism, the plurality of God's
the unity of God is important and that has all kinds of difficulties itself.
And then the second was okay, so Moses announces the unity of God,
declaration of independency, said, announces the unity of the human family. Right,
that was a br and new idea. It was implied in you know,
two thousand and least years of twenty five hundred years of learned thought,
but it wasn't until it's crystallized in someone's break Both of those were he thought
breakthroughs in human consciousness. They take place at historical moments, but they're rooted
in what's that first sentence, right, the laws of nature and Nature's God,
the reason we're supposed to obey our rulers, and because they're placed there
by God, not that they're just rulers. That that that was not part
of the syllogism. It was not a syllogism. You know that, you
know that the no one thought that those rulers were just rulers. But because
God is the author of nature and the creator, they have to be there,
because they're part of God's order of the universe. And it's up to
us to figure out how to sort that out now. And then going back
just quickly to us, you ask Jod about the evolution of consciousness. Jefferson
tells us that it is monkish ignorance and superstition that has kept us from recognizing,
as he puts it, that all mankind is not that some of mankind
has not been born with saddles on their backs and the others booted and spurred,
ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God. So, according
to Jefferson, this is an absolute truth that has been true since the beginning
of human history. But monkish ignorance and superstition he blames for that lack of
consciousness to the truth of the matter. And I will find that I may
go on forever, but I will add John that you can't Hobbs can't do
what he did without Machiavelli, whose approach to this, it's very indirect,
is paves the way for it, because Christianity created a lot of problems along
the way. Let me leave it at that. Yeah, Christianity created a
lot of problems. Belly first addressed, You're I was what I was hoping
for. I had the idea for them. We've done such a poor job
that nobody will ever listen again. Yeah, it's what you do. Have
you've been drinking with you? Yeah? All right, we want to say
a little bit about the Clarence Thomas story. I think we've run out of
time. We're gonna have to defer that the facts are still developing on that
right now. Okay, So okay, my stupid person of the week,
I hate to say it, since you're not gonna let me have a Briden
Biden administration person has to be that new mayor of Chicago who is by all
accounts not a racist. His entire his entire campaign was run on an anti
white platform, and um, the result of that is going to make,
as we talked about earlier, the city of Chicago just a horrific place to
live, even more than under Lorie Lightfoot. So he's my moron of the
week. By the way, he says, this is about black labor versus
white wealth. That's what this battle is about. I mean, how does
he get away with that? Anyway? Steve provided a pretty good log post
on that on Power Line that everybody should take in. That's my idiot of
the week. And you have a camelism. Yeah, let me close with
our usual goodbye and so always drink your whiskey, kneat, Let's go Brandon.
And as many of you know, our vice president was on a tour
of Africa where apparently she felt free and liberated from the prying eyes of Washington
and really let her hair down and enjoyed herself. So we're still getting quotes
that we didn't know of from her trip. Here's a little tidbit. She
was speaking at a joint conference with the President of Ghana. Well, there
are a number of things on the issue of the economy as a whole that
we must do, and a lot of that work is the work that I'm
here to do on the continent. So there you have it. Next week,
everybody, Ricochet joined the conversation.