Well, whiskey coming, fame, my pain, my brain, Oh whiskey,
don't let me go. From Powerline blog dot com and produced by Wicochet
dot com. This is the three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward,
John You and Powerlines International Woman of Mystery Lucresha's gotta give me and let
that whiskey blow where you're being in love down and low. Welcome everybody to
another episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour. I'm your host, John You,
and I'm joined as always by my two co hosts, Steve Hayward,
Hello Steve, Hi John, and Lucresia, the International Woman of History.
Hi Lucretia, Hi John, I miss you already and then you're taking off
for another country, leaving me behind very so but Lucretia. I didn't even
know if Lucretia would fit. Lucretia would fit in so well in Korea,
where I'm headed for a week, because Koreans have Roman virtues of the republic.
They're tough, they're tough people. Everybody a lot of Korean friends.
I do, John, because my town is a military town and soldiers are
are you know, stationed PCs to Korea and then come back with Korean wives.
So this is a very Korean town that I live in. So um
I have and and quite a few Koreans go to my uh my church,
and my church often has special services just for them. And on Corpus Christie
Sunday, a lot of the lovely Korean women dress up in their their what
would you call them native? Not native, that's not the right handbock,
No, their native costume, their native custome to do the Corpus Christie,
you know, Church of Christ, bio Christ and cool and yeah, so
I'm way more Korean, a Korean Korean a file than you might think.
But we're not my only Korean friend, but Lucretia and we're on zoom here.
Of course, do you believe this is really John? You present?
And not a chat gpt AI bought because it starts off so low key.
I mean, I'm used to John showing up on the Fox News on the
Ricochet podcast and it's boom with a wise crack and his high energy guy,
and here he's all low key and you take your host duties too seriously,
John, that's all So yeah, I can't have enough McDonald's products today.
I don't want to say, really, you should take a screenshot, because
if if all of our listeners could see John tonight, not only would they
be shocked and dismayed at how much of a preppy he looks like he's got
on a v nextwetter. Of course, you know, he's got his library
behind him and the sweaters from and of course it's a Brooks Brothers sweater.
And he's trying to get into Harvard ease they already did so even though he
was Asian. That just excuse me. That just tells you how smart John
is that he was able to get into Harvard before the Supreme Court opinion.
Yeah, when it was there was still racial discrimination. I actually think I
should get like a contribution from every Asian parent in the country because of all
the hard work for thirty years I have. I have almost by myself tripled
the chances of every Asian kid of getting into Harvard. That's got to be
worth something. Yeah, And I told, I told you. I told
this terrible joke on the Ricochet Main podcast when Peter Robinson said, oh,
I've seen you on Fox and CNN and all these outlets about the Harvard case,
and I said, you know what that is, Peter, and he
said, well, I said, that's what we call the Asian victory Lap
for the first and only time ever. And then, by the way,
because it was it came out just a little bit after our last week podcast,
but John sent it to me. I had seen it, but I
still laughed. It was the Babylon Bee that said, uh Asian American students
celebrate Harvard decision by taking a five minute steady break, And I said,
the Swimpson, you know, in my day would have been thirty seconds.
So guys, Steve, what do you drink? Steve? What are you
drinking too? Yeah? I am finishing off a bottle of Aaron A A
A R R A M ten year old? Uman? What is that?
It's uh? Where's it from? It's from the Isle of Erin. I
think look it up here. I was gonna say, say it sounds vaguely
old Testament or you know, Game of Throne something. I don't know.
Um, uh, I don't know. I don't even know where I got
it, but I have it. That's very nice. Yeah, I love
Aaron. Yeah, so I have a pron and pardon me, I'm choking.
That is that you know I'm a morning person and John is a nice
night person. We're taping this a little bit late past my drinking hour.
I did have an entire bottle on my own, mostly of a beautiful Italian
wine. But I want to tell you that I was able to order an
entire case. I got the very last bottle of a twenty fifteen Castello Cacciano,
which is of course our good friend Genevra's winery, which is the fourth
oldest family continuously operating family business in the universe, in the world, and
this was an oldest winery, yes, continuously operating, and I was able
to order a case of it. When I do, I'm going to save
a bottle for us to have together next time we're going to get together.
So it's Countess, isn't it. Don't blow our cover. Don't blow a
baroness, right, I won't. I'm not going to say anything more about
her because they don't want to get him in trouble or anything like that.
But but anyway, she was a lovely woman that we all adore from Italy,
and she happens to be married to a baron who lives in a castle.
They both live in a castle, from the eleventh century and his families
and making wind there for eight hundred years or something. You know. Believe
the other the other part of the story is that they're mentioned in Dante's Infernos,
one of the families of Tuscany. Yeah. Really, there's this dream
named after them in Florence. Yeah, oh my goodness. Yea. So
anyway, you know, our listeners probably love the idea of me taking them
to McDonald's, but I didn't get a chance. Next time, next time
they visit, I'm going to introduce them to the joys of American cuisine.
But wait a minute, I have to ask you, John, how was
horseback riding? Ah? So, you know, entertaining Italians is never just
a simple walk down the road or a little hike. My Italian visitors because
Stephen Lucretia took them around a little bit down San Francisco and then they bailed
out on me, and I was responsible responsible for all these Italians for the
next few days. So I said, what would you like to do?
And I thought they might like to see, you know, like the Chance
of America you're amid Yeah, our library. No, they wanted to go
horseback riding along the ocean. So I had to figure out. Oh my
butt still hurts. I had to go to I don't understand. I'm like,
how did mankind survive before the combustion engine? I mean that was painful,
right? And what did you do when you ran out of quarters?
John, I was really riding a real horse. I photographic evidence. I'm
going to send it to you. You could post it. And then I
took them the next day. They wanted to go on the base, so
I took them kayak around San Francisco Bay and you know what, I have
so much fun because I said, they know nothing, So I said,
you know there's we're gonna see seals, and we're there seals. There are
great whites. Yeah, they freaked out. So I said, every seat,
if you see anything under the water, large moving fast, that's probably
a giant sharp Oh it was so much fun. They freaked out. I
didn't tell them until we turned it back that there actually there are great whites
in the bay, but not many as far as we know anyway. So
then and then on July fourth, I took them to a big, good,
old fashioned American barbecue with all you could eat hot dogs and hamburgers and
ice cream sandwiches and apple pie. Oh good with a so and you guys
would like this with a seventies eighties cover band. Oh okay, you know
that's that's America. Yet absolutely that sounds like wonderful. The rest of it,
I'm not so sure about the guyaking would be okay, But it's been
a long time since I've been on a horse to John, and I grew
up in horse country. But uh yeah, that's a that's a thing younger
people do and stupid people when they get older. Anyway, anyway, glad,
I'm glad you had fun. I'm glad we did. And what are
you drink? So I'm having since since it was July fourth this week,
and we're going to talk a little bit about the podcast about the Revolution and
the Declaration of Independence. I thought I would have Jefferson, a rye from
one of the original colonies. So I have whistle Pig here, right,
which if er yeah, but I hate Jefferson. I'm a Hamiltonian, you
know, so I just can't stand. So this is whistle Pig Farm stock
rye eighty six proof made and sure Vermont which I'm sure they pronounced Shaham Vermont
in New England probably, so whistle Pig Eyes is probably my favorite rye these
days. Okay, so let's oh, of course, Actually Lucretia's will like
this. Lucretia got us all three whiskey half hour water for crystal glasses,
and I put it right behind my head when I'm on Fox. Every time
i'm FOM, I swear to God it's right back back here, right behind
my head. So the discerning, discerning watcher, we'll see it and want
and want to buy one messaging. Okay, so let's start on the many
topics we have today. First was all, we're all the conspiracy theories that
conservatives have about social media actually true. And I'm talking about the case that
came out this week Missouri, or as I learned to pronounce it, Missouri
after I worked in the Senate, Missouri versus Biden, a decision that came
out this week from a district judge in Louisiana who found that the United States
government had been in cahoots with the social media companies to engage in censorship of
conservative speech, and having found that then and joined federal agencies essentially from working
with the social media companies going forward So Steve, let's start with you.
What did you think about this decision? Do you think that the judge went
too far or got things right? And finding that the government had so either
coerced or encouraged the social media companies to engage in censorship that it amounted to
a violation the First Amendment. Yeah, so, as you mentioned, well,
what a couple baseline things. The opinion is one hundred and fifty five
pages. Now it's double space, so it's not commensurate with say, two
hundred and thirty seven pages of the Harvard Supreme Court decision. But it's also
a district court case, which means a lot more of it is less about
the law than a finding of the facts. As the judge sees it has
emerged from the trial, and boy, is the narrative of the facts ever
gripping because it's yeah, they censored conservatives, but also some liberals. They
talk about how Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Was censored, And lots of
details and maybe they can be contested, I don't know, but lots of
details of federal government agencies and the Biden White House having these meetings with social
media companies and with YouTube and so forth to take down and otherwise censor claims,
often that they turned out later to be true, like on masks and
other parts of COVID. Let me just insert here that one of the plaintiffs
in the case that's wrapped into the Missouri against Biden, it was Jay Batachar.
Yeah, I think it's been vindicated on every single point and everything anyway,
and so he gave an a junction. And one news item I did
see late Thursday is that the State Department, I think it's at the State
Department, has canceled their regular bi weekly meeting with Facebook to talk about how
they do content a policing. So so we'll seeven holds up on appeal.
There are some suggests exceptions for national security issues, but that would be you
know, genuine foreign espionage and for an interference, but that's different from censoring
American citizens, which they were. And the judge is pretty clear that,
oh, they did this and it has to stop. I know both of
you, but first of John and Steve that I'm going to take a little
bit more strident view of this. I would when I read the opinion.
What I was shocked about wasn't so much the collusion you might find between say
I'll just pick one, because there's several between Facebook and the h and different
agencies of the federal government, but specifically the Biden administration, the COVID Digital
whatever people. It was the the veiled threats and the way that they used
Section to thirty threats and other kinds of things to just turn these these Facebook
I'll keep it at that. It's pretty much true across the board, these
Facebook um censor csars into just these these patsias for the administration. You know.
Oh, well wait a minute, you said you were doing this,
but you're not doing it well enough. Oh, we'll get you back in
answer in twenty four hours. We promise, We promise me, we'll try
to do better. We promise, we'll do whatever you can. And that
whole thing was what really shocked me is how obsequious the social media executives were
to these political hacks in the Biden administration. That shocked me beyond all belief.
I was. I expected, you know, I'd heard, like you
say, there were rumors, but just oh my god, it's the government
and whatever you want, so I will do. I'll get your back.
You want to an answer twenty four hours. I'll get it in twenty four
minutes, you know, all the way through. That's let me let me
just interrupt just briefly. The reason why the opinion is long, why it
is one hundred and fifty five pages, is a judge lists example after example
after example, and I think one thing, it's hard to appreciate. You
don't get the sense from the newspaper stories about this. It's hard to appreciate
how intensive the relationship was between the Biden administration and social media. I mean,
there's it sounds like the Biden White House was emailing Twitter and Facebook every
day and take this down, Facebook, take this person off. Sound like
desperate eighth grade girls. Well, I think it was. That's what I
was saying. That's what I was Steve's what I was trying to suggest opening
up is I thought, oh, it's gonna be a long slog, one
hundred and fifty five pages of a district court judge. You know, But
Dan, it's it's it's actually kind of gripping the further in you go.
And so I'll just give you one quote. I pulled out a page ninety
seven. So, uh, this is a message from the White House to
who Sorry, oh, I don't see what never mind the content the message,
so what's important? Quote? Cannot stress the degree to which this needs
to be resolved immediately? Please remove this account immediately they want? You know,
I Twitter, doesn't matter which social media company, but ordering them to
delete an account and you know, block somebody now The one one worry I
have. Can I say, Steve, you missed her best one on that
list number K where it's as flierty, who's a White House official? To
Facebook? Quote, are you guys effing serious on editing there? I want
an answer on what happened here, and I want it today. Yeah,
right now, they're all like that. No, it's it's a wonderful dossier
of how bad these people were on both sides. The one worry, which
I guess I shouldn't worry about that much, but absently the federal government coercion
and involvement in the matter, might the social media companies on their own be
even worse. I mean, you know, we know what kind of people
work in these places, and they might actually be more aggressive censors without some
minimal involvement in the federal government. I don't know. Let me ask you
Lucretia. Let me ask you that that would be the defense. There'd be
two defenses for the White House. One is and one of them. Actually
one of the defenses works better the worse the social media companies are, because
what one thing the government could say is we weren't coercing anybody. We were
just bringing things to their tension, errors and mistakes. The social media companies,
by themselves are so left wing they would do this anyway. The government
doesn't need to coerce them to be left wing censors, because that's what they
would be on their own. Quite frankly, John, that was the opinion
I had of things before I read this case, and this case actually,
I think just decimates that idea. There is no doubt in my mind that
this is the worst kind of, uh what coercion on the part of the
government. And it's by the way, we've kind of generalized this a little
bit too much. It's not just COVID, although it absolutely is COVID.
It's not just the um, the anything anything about any irregularities in the twenty
twenty election. It's also anything about Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden laptop. It's
also anything about the economy, about gas prices about on and on and on
and on and on that anything that might have presented the Biden administration in the
tiniest bad light or prevented the Biden the hopeful Biden administration call it that from
being able to manipulate COVID to ensure that they could get away with all of
the things they did in order to call I can't, I can't say anything
else after reading us to steal the election? You know, they they censored
reports about states that did away with their signature requires for mail and valids,
their postmark requirements, and anybody who came out with anything about it were censored.
And when Facebook again I'll just leave it at Facebook or Twitter obviously came
back and said, well, this hasn't really come under our censor guidelines.
It was excused the language, but effing do it anyway. We don't care,
right, And so that that that that's my answer to you, John,
I don't think that there was a defense by the Biden administration that they
were just sort of, you know, encouraging what social media was already doing.
They were tyrants, they were they were despicable in all of this,
more than I ever even dreamed as possible. One other thing that doesn't come
through, I think in the newspaper accounts is the involvement of universities. So
if you look at the opinion, it talks about how right, there's the
agencies of the government and the White House, and you know, some of
our most important intelligence agencies monitoring the Internet asking Twitter, Facebook to take these
posts off. But a lot of times these government agencies are taking the information
from something called the Virality Project, being called like the Internet Observatory that's at
Stanford. And it's incredible this he was just this is on page eighty five
the opinion, if you're curious, the Virility Project made up a list of
the primary spreaders of misinformation, as they called it. So on this I
don't even know who some of these are. Jill Hines, I don't know
who that is. One American News, Breitbart News, Alex Barnson, Tucker
Carlson. So this Viralty Project basically kept sending information to the government every time
Tucker Carlson said something about vaccines to get it removed. Number six, all
of Fox News, number seven, Candice Owens, number eight, the Daily
Wire. And to Steve's point that this is a Bipartisan Censorship Operation. Number
nine, all of Robert F. Kennedy Junior was to be removed from the
Internet. Number ten something called doctor Simone gold and America's Frontline Doctors, which
sounds pretty good to me. And number eleven doctor Joyce Mercula. I'm actually
shocked that the lucretia to be identified is not number twelve on the list.
But the one interesting thing is that the universities were involved with this too,
not just social media and not just the Biden administration. What do you think
that, Steve, I don't know why would be surprised to that at all.
I mean, it sounds like their kind of thing. I mean,
I think I told you guys that during COVID, Deborah Burks planned on making
a visit to my university. At the time, we had a former surgeon
General, Richard Carmona as our incident response commander for COVID, and he invited
and she came, Deborah Burks, And at first, you know, people
were up in arms because this was still under the Trump administration, and nobody
in the entire university, of course, wanted to have anything to do with
anyone associated with the Trump administration. But as it turned out she was welcomed
with open arms and you know, parties and whatever she was because you know,
she she wasn't any part of the Bush, the Trump administration. She
was part of this whole incredible attempt to just shut the country down so that
the elites could get what they wanted during COVID. And you know, I
don't see any other way forward on it. I really don't. This is
this isn't just about COVID, but the you know, shutting down any kind
of complaints about children. That the Hinds lady that you mentioned, by the
way, was from Louisiana and she was the one who was trying to get
Louisiana schools reopened. And she had one time had over one point one million
subscribers I think on Facebook, and by the time they were done with her,
she would within a couple of weeks she was down to eighty five thousand
because they, you know, between algorithms and so on, completely censored her.
She was calling for she said, look, there's no evidence that children
should wear masks, there's no evidence that we need to cut schools done.
There's no evidence that children or at any risk whatsoever from COVID and they shut
her down. They completely shut her down. Why why? Yeah, Okay,
let's turn to some the issues still some of the issues still burning from
the Supreme Court term. I want to get your take on this story that's
come up in the wake of the three or three Creative case. You remember,
three or three Creative is the case of the website designer who did not
want to make wedding design wedding websites for gay marriages Colorado, which had earlier
persecuted I think his name is Jack Phillips. The baker who didn't who didn't
want to bake cakes for gay weddings. Colorado has a antidiscrimination law which includes
LGBTQ plus I think I got them all there, and so in a I
think a resounding victory for freedom of speech and freedom of thought. The Court
said that Colorado could not force the website designer, and I think by implication
obviously the baker and the florist and all writers and anybody else whose work involves
free speech or expression from having to bend anee, as it were, to
diversity. But there have been claims now from the left left left in the
media. It's just not a tiny dribble of claims. This is a huge
firestorm of claims that the case was all made up. And the reason why
they say this is because I think there was a report in the New Republic
and they're repeated endlessly, I think, and left wing media suggesting that there
was no real gay couple that actually wanted the website in the first place.
Steve, what do you make of this? Why all the storm and drying
about, Yeah, whether this is true? Well, I mean there's two
or three things to be said about it. One is, I thought the
case represented yet another instance of cleaning up a mass left by Anthony Kennedy,
because you know, they heard the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, which was very
similar or coloraud of statute. And you know, his opinion, as I
recalled, ruled in favor of the baker Jack Phillips, very narrowly. But
it was on kind of as grounds as I recall from that Texas case where
he talked about or No, it was actually Romer v. Evans. That's
the where he wanted to said, where a law that is motivated by animus
against the particular group is unconstitutional. What the textual basis for that is,
I don't know. But the point as he was trying to use the same
logic he'd used in the gay rights case of Romer v. Evans I against
that law. But it should have been a straightforward religious liberty or first amendment
or let me just let me just jump in right, what was so yeah,
let me just jem me what Actually what Kennedy said in that in the
Masterpiece Cake Shop wasn't that the law was at fault, that the this is
so stupid. The state administrative agency that held a hearing about whether the baker
violable was essentially too mean. Yes to the baker, right, yeah,
that's where the animals was essentially what she held. They have a very aggressive
and the logically left state civil Rights commission that made Jack Phillips's life miserable.
It was going to compel re education camps for his employees and him. But
then the deeper problem. I actually wrote an article about this ten years ago
in that case first popped up the law as I understand that attempts to define
the cake baker, a website maker, a photographer whoever, as the equivalent
of public accommodations. And you know, we've always had the exception of public
accommodations open to anyone, hotels, restaurants, going back to the nineteenth century.
One of the few things the this year he got right about civil rights
in nineteenth century, And is that really the same? I mean, the
point about the cake maker is everyone should remember about that case. He Jack
Phillips, a religious guy. He was willing to sell any donuts, any
bread, any standard cakes that he made to anybody. What he would not
do is make a custom cake. And he was very well known for his
fancy cakes. He'd hand custom design that expressed same sex marriage. He did
not make cakes for a couple who were getting divorced. He would not make
cakes for Halloween. So he has a very consistent practice, but only denying
a cake to a same sex couple. By the way, before same sex
weddings were even legal in Colorado. I mean, I think it's worse and
worse the more you go through the facts. And Kennedy just did this crazy
thing about oh they were mean at the Civil Rights Commission. If he ruled
correctly the first time, we wouldn't have had this second case. Okay.
I thought for a long time that the public accommodations rationale civil rights was going
to run sooner or later head on into the First Amendment of rights of freedom
of religion and free expression. This is either compelled speech in either case or
religious liberty right. And you know, we've never had a case. I
don't think we ever good get one that you know, a Baptist hotel won't
allow Catholics in, right, we wouldn't, you know, I think we
wouldn't allow for that. I forget how the reasoning would work. But you
know that makes some sense as well as a racial discrimination. But you know,
as our pal Richard Epstein points out, the rash and now for public
accommodations is there might not be another hotel for fifty miles, so you're really
imposing some hardship. It turns out that you can look up online and find
all the gay wedding web designers and bakers you want with a fifty mile radius
of wherever you are, so there's no constriction from the marketplace on the ability
of people to get the services they want. And by the way, why
do you want a cake from a cake maker? Who? I mean,
they picked on this guy, right, they're obviously going out of the way
to pick on these people. The left is and to make them submit and
compel them to agree. It's the Cooper Union thesis, Lucretia, that you
and I are eventually going to write up, and so it's really offensive in
that respect. So so the thing here is, sorry, I'm rambling too
much. The thing here is that no one had yet asked for a customized
wedding website. But this is one of those cases. And you'll have to
give me the technical term, John of where the court says, ah,
but this is going to happen and let's get onto it now. Which is
I think similar to cases in past I can name. I don't think this
is that unusual or rare. Oh yeah, yeah, in part actually what
and this is I think this is going to happen over and over again.
And Lucretia was talking about this last episode about you know, whether conservatives are
still going to obey all these limits on judicial power like standing and so on.
The ability to hear this case on the part of the court came about
because I think of a famous liberal exception to standing. So usually, right,
you need to if there's a law that's passed, Usually you can't sue
before the laws enforced. You have to wait for the government to come after
you, and then you have speech, and then yeah, you have to
be injured. But long ago liberals on the court made an exception of our
free speech. They said, if a law affects free speech, normal rules
don't apply because the mere presence of the law would have a chilling effect on
you, and you might censor yourself. And so in free speech case,
liberals always love to allow the ACLU to sue against an oppressive, mean conservative
state government here a city there before the law was ever enforced. And that's
the same doctrine here. Right, the website designer is going to say,
look, I have the right to sue first under liberal precedent, because if
I wait for Colorado to come after me, that's going to cost me a
lot of money. I might not even engage in the speech. I might
just to avoid being persecuted. I might start selling websites to gay right to
gay weddings. And this if the liberals want to get rid of this doctrine
that has benefited them all the time, then it actually has the effect Lucretia
was talking about last week that oh, all these procedural rules always seem to
be bent for the benefit of liberals and only has the effect of hurting conservatives.
Yeah, so this is an example maybe of a liberal doctrine turning round
to bite them finally, which we've seen another because they're the ones, which
makes sense because these procedural rules are were created to help sue oppressive governments.
So right, if the oppressive governments of the past were the southern segregation as
governments, right, well, guess who the oppressive governments are today? All
right, Well, let's you know, my pal Mark Perry has made a
cottage industry of filing legal challenges to universities under Title nine when they have special
programs just for women, just for minorities. I follows Title I think Title
seven complaints which you're given standing through the old Civil Rights Act, and bring
these complaints as as a third party, right, I think that's what it
works. And you know he wins these left and right. And you're right,
who's doing all this, well, universities and liberal institutions, And he's
filed several hundreds of these now and winning every single one. Just about Well,
I noticed one of you actually responded to my example. When I first
I was the one who alerted you guys to this going on, And I
said, isn't it interesting that liberals the left is complaining about this suppisitly made
up case that should have meant that it never went to the court in the
first place, when in fact, the most how should we say, the
most egregious example of that in modern history, of course, and it's not
a First Amendment case is Lawrence versus Texas. Lawrence versus Lawrence and whoever that
I forget the other guy's name, never had anything to do with each other.
They were not gay, They weren't gay. They were both married.
As I recall. There's it's all this stuff. So if the left really
wants to push this point and say that somehow three or three creative is illegitimate
because there was in fact no harm done to uh you know, no,
no nobody on the other side, to make a genuine case of controversy,
then maybe we should overturn Lawrence versus Texas as well. That would be mine,
that would be that would be my offer. Okay, guys, but
then let's overturn Laurence versus Texas. And in case anybody doesn't know, Lawrence
versus Texas was a case that I actually talk about this case quite often,
and it really has nothing to do with the fact that I think that one
way or the other, we should be at the federal level regulating, caring
about what people do in the privacy of their own home. I'll just leave
it at that. But the first case was hard Work versus Bowers, which
tried to take the right to privacy, which had been found first of all
in Griswold and then of course in Row versus Way, and extend it to
the right to engage in sodomy. Sorry, that was really what it was,
and I swear to god the case was named hard Work versus Bowers.
You know, the ironies of history. Justice Byron White, As I recall,
wrote the majority opinion of that case, and that, you know,
whatever else, the right to privacy was decided only and exclusively by the Supreme
Court. Uh, it didn't include the right to engage in sodomy, and
then of course that was overturned in Lawrence versus Texas. I forget, but
I think in either case or those statutes enforced but never I mean, no,
of course they were. I mean, god, what a horrible job
that would be as a law enforcement officer, which you know, it's also,
I know this is a distinction, John, from the principal and free
speech you mentioned, But we have a long history of I guess what I
would call contrived cases that I don't mean phony, but where they worked very
hard to get a case that otherwise might not have made of the I was
just about to say that, you know, they what happened for years,
the civil rights lawyers try to get a case the Supreme Court to enforce the
fourteenth Amendment, and it would always either get dismissed or they would find the
rail company. And so they finally had to have a cooperating law enforcement to
arrest Homer, a guy who was one thirty second black was white, right,
yeah, blonde, curly hair. Right. Another another case like that
is the Connecticut case about contraceptives. Yeah law that, yeah, which had
never really been enforced and commonly silly law, I think is what the Justice
called it, right and uncommonly or in the descent, an uncommonly silly law,
but it wasn't being enforced, and yeah, it made no difference.
So yeah, the left, But you know, we I'm tired of saying
it. If the left didn't have standards, we can't expect the left to
put their own rules regarding standing or anything else in play when it disadvantages them,
because they're just not going to do it. But but if you will,
I'm gonna say, I think you'll see the left become the big fans
of procedural bars for the courts hearing things and structor standing. No more exceptions
like the one for free speech, because they don't want the court to decide
anything. Right. They're in. They're in a massive delaying game, right,
delaying game until thy more liberal justices up to the court. If you
would draw back and take a wide angle view, it's uh. I mean
one of the things you've seen as well, the port packing idea came back
in a big way in the last week, and one of the arguments in
favor of it is, well, the court, you know, it's thrashing
democracy. You know, it's thwarting majority. Will and I keep that.
You know, look at all the polls showing that a robust majority of Americans
has consistently said they don't like affirmative action dividing us up by race. What's
the I think they well, the students, right, yeah, yeah,
And so it's like, wait a minute, if you put this to a
vote. Who's so you can see this as a case of Sita. You're
talking about the same people Steve who said that when uh Liz Cheney lost by
sixty percent of the vote in the primary, it was the end of democracy
mark as we know it right now. I mean, they're just morons,
and the and their followers are even bigger morons. So but I have to
say, John, you asked the question. You know what we're takeaways from
this term. One of the things about the Students for Fair Admission OA,
this is the case it's gonna gift that's gonna keep on giving. We're only
a week out, but still it seems to me that uh, it will
finally put an end to the left saying that Citizens United is the worst decision
since dread Scott, which has been safe for over a decade. They're so
bit out of shape about Citizens United. Well that was nothing compared to what
this has done to them. So let me ask you that, guys,
let me ask lucretia. But if you don't mind the Crestia, please,
if you have another point, go ahead. I was gonna ask you to
know, taking a step back now that we've throw a week away now from
the major decisions, we have some chance to reflect. Now we were I
listened to our last episode and we were a little bit giddy. We are
which is amazing, wanted to say, and we were done. So now
that we've had a week to sit back and think about it and reflect and
see all the commentary, Lucretia, what is your view on this term?
What do you think historians will say about this term? What do you think
the political scientists of the few, sure the political theorists of the future will
say about this supreme work term? Honestly, John, what's going to matter?
What's going to that's going to depend upon? How do I This sounds
so trite. I don't mean it to who writes the history. So let
me give you an example of what I mean by that. So a friend
of ours sent us an article from MSNBC by someone I know this is going
to shock you to death. Her name is Keisha whatever I don't order,
her last name was Keisha talking about how Canteeningy is the most brilliant legal mind
of the last you know, millennium, and how she was able to prove
in her historical reflections that the myth of a colorblind society, and she lists
plus e versus ferguson, which, of course, is the case that determined
that separate but equals was a perfectly legitimate way to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment when
it came to discriminating on the basis of race and public accommodations. What she
doesn't do, of course, is make any mention, just like they didn't
in Brown, of course, of the Descent, which in some ways is
probably the most eloquent moving Supreme Court opinion in all of the Supreme Court history.
And you know where where Justice John John Marshall Harland says in Descent that
our constitution is colored blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes amongst citizens. And
he goes on the you know, the the least is the greatest, and
so on. And we've talked before, We've even talked with you about this,
John, and Steve was shocked that you agreed with us. He didn't
think you were that smart, but I knew you were. Uh wait,
wait, wait a second, Well I agree with you guys that education did
not in fact overturned Josie. It upheld plus he in the fundamental principle sense
whereby it found that it was the psychological harm done by segregation that was the
problem. Just like in Plessy, they found that the psychological harm done by
segregation was basically, you know, not their problem. Different different psychology.
They had better psych psychological knowledge by the time Brown came round. But what
Brown never did, of course, was embraced the idea of a colorblind constitution.
And so when Katangi says there is no it's a myth of a colorblind
society, in some ways she's very right. It's never been the opinion of
the Supreme Court that we have a color blind constitution demanding a colorblind society.
Can I interrupt just for one sentence? I think, I think it's Brennan
who has a line in his concurrence or whatever the hell it was in Baki
saying we have never recognized a color blind constitution. And then as footnote,
by the way, is c Korey matsu vi us. Boy, isn't that
a charming precedent for him to involve? But yeah, I mean this has
been what you're right. What Jackson said is not a departure from what has
been the left legal orthodoxy on this. But just to point out one embarrassing
thing. It was in the Wall Street Journal today, But I remember reading
thinking this at the time of when I read Justice Jackson's Descent, where she
makes a big deal about how we're soft blocks are than white's because of structural
racism. And one thing she said was for high risk black newborns, having
a black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live. Then
the Wall Street Journal points out today that's statistically impossible, since the actual survival
rate is ninety nine percent already. So does that mean that actually now they
double to one hundred and ninety eight percent. Yeah, well she doesn't know
what math is, so right, but you made they make the point that
both all these descents in these cases are riddled with factual errors, claims that
aren't true because they were so incensed that they were I mean, I'm embar
est. Actually it just happened. But it's all you know, it's a
tribal thing that you know, supporting her in this, But never forget that
had there not been separate but equal essentially upheld if you ask me, in
Brown versus Board of Education, as long as it does not have that psychological
impact, it's perfectly. Okay, to separate on the basis of race,
you couldn't have affirmative action, and you couldn't have an idiot like Catange as
a Supreme Court justice because a she never would have gotten into an Ivy League
university, she never would have gotten a clerkship. She didn't earn it despite
discrimination like our friend john you did, and she wouldn't be on the damn
United States Supreme Court, never mind if the rest of it was untrue.
We know what Biden said. She's put on the court for one reason,
and one reason only because she's a black woman. And it's not because she
has any great talent. It's not because she's smart, it's not because she's
done anything exceptional in the in the world of law or constitutional law. It's
because she's a black woman, which is exactly what Brown versus Board of Education
did following plus e versus Ferguson. Okay, separate but equal. You know
what if you're if you're a black woman right now, that's who we prefer.
So you get to be on the Supreme Court. And it's not a
question of merit. So what I think, Johnny, you say, what
what's likely to happen down the road is I think it's going to depend not
merely on the legal enforcement and follow ups like you've had after Brown, but
I think there's now going to be a long running political conflict that will play
out in all the branches over uh you know this concept, I mean it
really it could. It could. We could use a Harvey Mansfield's old echotomy
they've had for forty years, which is entitlement versus equality of opportunity. A
lot of our racial politics is simply a version of the entitlement mentality. That's
Chris Caldwell's thesis in his book on the Age of Entitlement. And so we're
going to see, you know, I'll give you one good example. Um,
there's some people saying saying that if Republicans get the White House in Congress,
they should pass a statute that would be enforcement statute like the Civil Rights
Act was that would deny federal funding to any universities that what, I don't
know, trying to evade the Harvard decision through some subterfuges. Right, maybe
the dispred you know, disperate impact might be the screen. I'm not sure,
but I think things like that or what sorry, go ahead. John
gave a really good explanation last time for the ways they get around it.
Yeah, no, understand. But that's why I say this is a political
struggle where other branches are going to have to wait. And I think you
know, the one of the first things Biden did on day one was canceled
the Justice Department's investigation into Yale's admission mission's policies because the suspicion was if you
did discovery of Yale, you'd find all the same things that we found in
the Harvard case. Well, let's reopen that. That's not a dead issue
yet. The latest thing I read in the New York Times here this week
was well, universities are going to look at adversity scores and adversity screens,
do you know philanthropy and that would be on its face race neutral, and
maybe it would be in some ways, but you know, let's I mean,
look, we know the guys. Guys. Let me ask you this
one that comes up. What about getting rid of legacy? I think you've
seen that now, you know, um minority groups are suing Harvard now saying
that legacy preferences and emissions is unconstitutional or illegal. What do you think of
that, Steve, because you have to. You have to Actually, I'm
sorry, just give a little bit more explanation for that. The reason they
are arguing that they need to be ruled to be unconstitutional is because they are
convinced that any legacy admission has to benefit white people. Because a only white
people already went to Harvard and other Ivy League university So if they if their
legacy and rule is because you know, their family went there. But also
because there are no donors to Ivy League universities that are wealthy minorities, They're
all wealthy white people, and so legacy admissions by definition only advantage white people,
which is you know that I'd have to see some data on that.
I guess, well, I think that I think the data does show that
the whites benefit much more than any of it because you're smart. Surprise,
you're too smart to give any money to Harvard drawing, Well, it's part
what about the stigma? What about the stigma and these port legacies everyone is
sees are stupid and rich, which often is true, right, Well that
I've seen conflicting data about this, But I do I think that the getting
Oh, by the way, that's one of the ideas Republicans should sponsor bills
saying no federal aid to universities a practice legacy admissions. So that'd be fun
because the people who are going to defend this, we're going to be the
universities for their fundraising reasons. And the left, the left of the people
are going to draw the line is not going to be a I love the
way the left thinks it's conservatives are behind defending legacy admissions. It's not us
at all. And yeah, and you know that, and it joins,
of course, the issue I think we mentioned last week, which is Harvard
Princeton. Yeah, they're so rich they could they could double the size of
their student bodies and attract the top faculty and still get the top one percent
of students. They won't do it at all. Are they rich enough?
I'm sorry, let me just ask a question, booth you are they rich
enough to say, okay, we'll stop legacy admissions. We'll stop legacy admissions
for big donors. I remember Conan O'Brien years ago. Conan remember a Harvard
graduate. He had been editor of the Harvard Lampoon, and he said that
one of his shows, I remember this twenty five years ago. I said,
Yeah, the Harvard fundraisers. They call you up and their pitch essentially
is, we're Harvard, we want your money. We don't need it,
we just want it. So I think he Actually, here's one point about
what universities could do. The only reason Harvard is subject to the Constitution and
the civil rights is because they take federal money. Right, They're so rich
they could easily go back to discriminating on the basis of race if they wanted
to, just by saying we don't need federal dollars anymore. So here,
let me just give you a sense of the figures we're talking about here.
So Harvard, Harvard's endowment is fifty three billion dollars. Yeah, Yales is
forty two billion dollars. Number three, Stanford thirty seven billion dollars, Princeton
thirty seven billion, MIT twenty seven. So they're richer than some small countries
in Africa. Well, the joke about Harvard, as you know, is
it's a hedge fund that runs a little educational institution on the side. Do
you think I mean, look, I'm all for that, you know,
make Harvard do what Hillsdale did However, one difficulty is, and I've heard
this is they couldn't do that, not so much because of the money,
but because they have so many research contracts connected the federal government that Hillsdale doesn't
do, for example, and that would still expose them to the conforming with
civil rights laws. And I think, I hate to say this about you
guys, but sounds like Lucretia and Steve have volunteered to work in the decantist
Education department starting twenty twenty five. And the first thing they can do,
and this is an easy thing, they could just have the Secretary of Education.
Maybe who would such a secretary? Larry Arne, the president Hounsdale,
just say I find that all these universities are in fact discriminating on the basis
of race. So I cut them all off from federal funding, and they
have to prove to me that they are not discriminating on the basis of race
for this spigot to open again. Yeah. Can I just at a little
bit of a different perspective on this. I think that the more important thing,
honestly than even getting rid of discrimination based upon race, because as from
a principle point of view, it's the very worst kind of thing from the
principal point of view, the idea that this minority who might be let's say
Asian and Maile should have to be denied to make a slot for a black
woman. Let's say as an example that you know, there's something really offensive
about that, and I'm glad the Supreme Court said we're not going to do
that anymore. However, what would really in answer your to your question from
a little while ago, what would really make a difference, what would really
have an impact in the future, would be redefining the whole concept of diversity,
to take race completely out of it and thereby completely undo the diversity inclusion
and equity regime and make all of that illegitimate, make all of it illegitimate
in the sense that we don't need inclusion, because it doesn't mean that we
don't need equity. We need equality of opportunity. And if this opinion simply,
you know, gets Harvard and others to hide their despicable admissions practices in
ways that can't be detected as easily, but they keep the diversity, inclusion
and equity regime and they grow it, then I think that the decision becomes
worthless. Never mind how well it's executed, If that makes sense. I
don't know, what do you guys think? Oh, no, I agree,
I agree with you. I think that I'd like to think that we've
hit the high water mark of the diversity mania and that the Harvard case is
going to now provide a lot of ammunition for people to sue. And I
think the next wave of lawsuits are going to be against institutions that use TEI
in there and going to be an ammunition for the Lucretias of the world to
look at somebody when they start, you know, mouthing blah blah blah blah
diversity saying, tell me why diversity is important again, Yeah, because I'm
not as sure a single person can give you an answer. We know the
court demanded an answer and didn't get one, So I'm sure that the idiots
who work in the die regime can't give an answer. They just assume it
is a good Remember the whole discussion, your friend, that the calling of
the American Yeah, and he and I told you Steve. I was a
little bit disappointed in him because he quit whatever damn organization association he was a
product of, because he refused to say that academic freedom should take first place
in front of diversity. Yeah, all he was willing to say was diversity
is important too, but it shouldn't be more important than academic freedom. And
I guess you know, in today's academia, I shouldn't be so tough on
him. But when we get to the point where nobody argues that diversity is
a goal, an end, a T los above all T los in and
of itself, then I'll be happy about the Harvard completely happy about the Harvard
decision. I'm already happy. But that's just my thought because you guys know
what it's like. How many diversities ares do you know at your university?
How many provos? How many? It's a big place where we're at,
and if they're easy to avoid, that's a happy thing about Berkeley. So
let's turn to the I think the last topic we have, which is we
shouldn't end the show without observing that this week was July fourth, and of
course the holiday where we remember the founding of the country and the issuing of
the Declaration of independence. So I thought i'd ask one or two questions of
our resident scholars of the revolution. End of all things natural, natural,
law, natural rights, and Jefferson's famous quotes and the Declaration of Independence.
So, guys, one question that always strikes me when I teach about the
founding is, we're the revolutionaries nuts. We were ready, ready living in
the freest part maybe place in the world at the time. Right, if
they have the rights of englishmen and englishwomen. They are lightly governed from London.
They've basically been governing themselves for hundred years or more in that with their
assemblies, they're separated by an ocean from all the disorder of Europe. They
have endless quantities of the source of wealth in the old world, which is
land. I would say, what was wrong with them? They were already
the freest, most well off people maybe in the history of the world,
and yet they had a revolution. What was wrong with them? Really?
Good question, John, Actually really is a good question. I just had
a long discussion with students about this yesterday. I believe it or not.
Here's the point, Jefferson, whom you told us at the beginning you do
not like. But Jefferson actually provides, I think, what is the clearest
answer to that question. Prudence indeed will dictate that government's long establish should not
be changed for light and transient causes. What he's trying to say there underneath,
I think is a little bit about it reminds us of your other,
of your favorite Hamilton, what Hamilton says. You know, it's it's frequently
remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to
decide by their conduct. An example, the important question whether societies of men
are really capable or not of establishing good government upon reflection and choice, or
whether they're forever destined to depend for their political constitutions upon accident force the people
of this country. So when we look at the situation that the colonists who
are in with respect to Great Britain, when we read the Bill of Particulars
in the Declaration of Independence, the first thing that comes to mind, and
me when I do so currently, is that we are so much worse off,
so much worse off, at the hands of our government than they were
their list of complaints against King George in Parliament. But the other side of
it, the other side of the prudential question, is do you have the
ability if you decide to revolt, if you decide to separate yourselves, establishing
do you have the ability to make it work, as Hamilton talks about very
specifically in the first Federalist paper. We've seen subsequently places like Iraq. I'll
just use that example, who wanted to have something very much like an American
constitution, but they didn't have the same set of conditions that would make self
government possible and likely to succeed that the colonists did with all of their advantages
that you pointed out back in seventeen seventy six. So even though we wouldn't
call it such a terrible situation, they also had great advantages to take that
situation and turn it into something truly spectacular. That's probably would be my answer
to your question, which does make a lot of sense. You know,
and students ask me today, well, why aren't we revolting? Our situation
is worse? Yeah, So this is what I do agree with, that
provocative thought that actually things are worse now. Yeah, well you were at
the time in seventeen seventy six. Well, see, here's the thing,
John, is that you make the case that I remember William F. Buckley
saying this that the colonists were revolting against what today we would consider mere bureaucratic
inconveniences, and I think he's wrong about that, as you are, and
the way you frame the question, so you know, lucretition. I usually
refer to a sort of the deeper natural law teachings of the first couple of
paragraphs of the Declaration and the Council of Prudence. But here's one case where
you really need to go to the Bill of Particulars against the King, although
they really against Parliament. That's but that's a living aside for the moment.
And you know, he's case canceling legislatures. He's canceling laws. The judges
he makes personally accountable to him. My favorite it's paragraph thirteen, I number
the paragraphs for students. My favorite of all the charges against the British government
is this one. He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither
swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Is a
description of government today, right, And I mean, you go on,
but you know, one of the arguments was he you know, he's trashing
local jurisdictions. He's dragging people to far flung locations to have their cases heard
away from a jury of their peers. You know he's he's producing trial by
jury. Well, boy, that happens all the time these days with bureaucratic
procedures. You know, Hillsdale College day sue the federal government, it was
US forty years ago now against the partner of education. Where's the case heard
in Denver, you know, a Michigan college against the Washington bureaucracy, or
we're going to hear your case in Denver before an administrative law judge. Right,
So no, I think those So leave aside the principles that are so
important at the beginning and actually read the Billow particulars and see if that isn't
a template that's easily updated to modern times today. So no, they were
not radicals at all. But the other side of the question, Steve,
I would ask you for your opinion, which is, are we in the
same position that he thought we were in Federalist number one? Where if we
can't, I mean can if anybody can take that great experiment and make it
work for all the reasons that you know, we know, the tradition of
self government, the virtue of the people, the homogeneity whatever whatever, can
are we in a better position today? Let's say, if we decided to
have an Article five convention, would we come out better be better off?
I do think I stand by my point, John, I guess Steve was
actually confirming that that if you look at the Bill of particulars our situation as
much much worse today in really some fundamental ways. And does that mean,
however, that not only should we exercise our duty to overthrow the government,
but will will we be able to institute new government that will affect our safety
and happiness? And that's of course a real question. Well, I like
I want to grab hold of your question about if we actually had an Article
five convention today, how might that go? I also drop back a little
bit. I have a bit of a sense of foreboding at the moment.
So on the one hand, you know, I have for several years now,
I'm in this you know, sort of rural not semi rural part of
California, still on the coast, and for several I've been going to local
Fourth of July afternoon celebrations for several years, and this year it seemed bigger
and more robust and happier and more people than it has been for several years.
Part of that's coming out of COVID. Although these the areas where I
live, people didn't pay much attention to the COVID restrictions. On the other
hand, I remember, okay, we're three years off from the Quinn what
is it the Quinn Centennial, the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration.
We're three years away from them. I remember the two hundredth anniversary forty seven
years ago. In nineteen seventy six, the big observance in the big spectacular
New York was the tall ships with their rigging, sailing into up the Hudson
there up to Manhattan. And of course that was supposed to symbolize you know,
colonials, you know, the colonists coming to settle and found this new
great country, and maybe a little bit of the marshal virtues of the navy
that defended us the revolution in all those years. And I was reading what
the left was saying about July four this year, and I don't need to
tell you what they were saying. And I've got to thinking, I'm going
to plant this as a marker right here. I predict that three years from
now, if there's a spectacular in New York it will not features tall ships.
It's going to be featuring slave ships. And we're gonna get the sixteen
nineteen project Bison Quinn Centennial. And that to me is one of the big
political fights, you know, as a cultural matter of the next few years.
And that bears on your question of and lucretia, your question of you
know, do we still hold these truths to be self evident, etcetera,
etcetera. Gosh, I think you guys are a little bit out there for
me on this one, this talk of having a revolution or even an Article
five. So I take your point. You guys think that today is worse
than then, But we're not having a revolution now. So that's why it
makes me ask did they go too far having a revolution? Then? Well,
are taking the opposite of what you said they had a revolution? Then
on the you're the angle the Anglo I am an Anglo folk would be would
be English colony still well, actually I always was always You know whatn't the
history of the world been much better if the United States and England had been
combined all these years? They never Germany never would have gotten out of hand,
It would be peaceful. Anglo American had gemony in the world this last
three hundred years. So I actually had a debate back and forth with one
of the commenters on Steve's Midweekend Pictures fourth of July edition, because one of
his memes said something like, you know, happy fourth of July, nothing
of importance happened before this day or something Africa exactly what it was. And
so somebody wrote and said, no, no, no, that's not true.
Magna carta, while they said money twelve fifteen. And so I got
into this discussion. I said, absolutely not. You know, Magna Carta
is nothing, nothing compared to what happened in seventeen seventy six, because Magna
Carta was simply, as Hamilton tells us in Federalist eighty four, a king
John held its sword point and demanded that he relinquished some of his prerogative,
some of his divine right of king's prerogative, that right and only a certain
classes of people, not to certain nobles who held them at dunpoint. That
that is not a precursor to what happens in seventeen seventy six, which is
the first and only time that there is a recognition that all political sovereignty comes
from the people, and it comes from the people because of their fundamental human
equality, because they there is no natural ruler appointed by God or nature over
them, and therefore their their own rulers. That's why they get to choose
their government. And according to Jefferson, they get to choose their government that
will that will be most like to affect their safety and happiness. End the
alpha and omega under Aristotle of political life is what I thought you guys were
going to say, is that that's why the revolution is about ideas. It's
an intellectual revolution almost not a material revolution, because the mcntire you know,
the other revolutions French, Russian, Chinese, they arise because of material deprivation.
Right, there's extremely more countries terribly oppressed. The American Revolution occurs during
a time of relative prosperity and freedom, which makes me think that it has
nothing to do with material conditions. It's about the intellectual ideas. That's what
causes the revolution. I didn't think you guys are going to turn this into
we ought to have a revolution. Now. Well, now I didn't say
that, I mean Lucretia did well. Actually, I've just I would just
argue, don't you ever give up your guns just in case. Well,
now, it was just about to say we ought to, by the way,
to a segment not tonight on an Article five condensed subject, because that's
kind of fun. But yeah, that'll be fun. But look at Balant.
I mean, you could do an extensive balance sheet. On the one
hand, I'll just mentioned two things. On the one hand, thanks to
the recent Supreme Court our gun rights are pretty secure and Americans are well armed.
And I find it amused when the right Americans are well right, you
know, Joe Biden's as well. You couldn't. What's really pretty useless.
It's only an argument if you don't have an F sixteen. And that's where
I had a mean a few weeks ago of a Vietnamese peasant smiling. Right.
But then on the other hand, again, we continue to see the
population in the country sorting itself out between red and blue states, and the
red states are gaining in population economics. But do you realize it, California
right now, it looks like California could lose five congressional seats after the next
census, which is just mind blowing, right, And and so what that
represents is I don't know whether it would lead to an actual formal secession or
splitting up of the country, but it's going to mean culturally that way you're
gonna see. Uh, well, all right, I'll end the red blue
state thing. That's pretty obvious to most people. Um and but I still
think these cultural battles are going to rage on. Uh and the you know,
two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that coloration is going to be a big
moment for how that plays out. Yeah. By the way, just the
weird radio just a few months ago, John, you were saying, Oh,
you guys are really monarchist, aren't you. You love the king and
I know you guys, that's what you guys are. You guys are like
you want to have you want to have a revolution, but yeah, I
want to have you still don't have King Charles around two. Okay, we've
gone way over time, so um we have. We have been off and
on doing our feature at the end about recommending books. So I thought,
in uh honor July fourth, we might um ask each of you, Lucretian
Steve, what is your favorite book about the American Revolution that you would recommend
to listeners to pick up. Yeah, I thought you were gonna ask about
the Declaration Independence and that's okay, or the Declaration or the Declaration Declaration.
So I say, I'm not a fan of We'll do the clear Day.
I'm not a fan of Gordon Woods book, which you list as a book
you're not supposed to read in your politically and correct guide of the Supreme Court,
that we'll come back to in a couple of weeks. I actually think
that the see what the creation thinks I mean here. I think there's three
good books on the Declaration I can recommend. In some respects. The best
one still is Carl Becker's book from nineteen twenty two called The Declaration of Independence.
Although it has a major flaw in it, but it traces out,
you know, the Lockey and roots very well. It's a very competent work
of intellectual history leading up the Declaration. The problem with the book is he
says towards the end, and I can quote him here, Professor Jaffa brought
this to our attention over and over again. He was a modern progressive historicist,
but he said at the end of the book quote him here to ask
whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is
essentially a meaningless question. And he goes on from there to say, essentially
that's because Hegel was right, and progress moves us on to new things.
Now. The funny thing is the books out in nineteen twenty two, sort
of the peak of progressive intellectual life. He published a new edition in the
fall of nineteen forty one. So the war in Europe is going on.
We're not yet in it, but it's close, right, And he takes
it all back, and I'll just quote two sentences from it, and this
new forward to the forty one edition. He says, and maybe thought that
just now, when political freedom is in retreat everywhere, I'll shorteness a little
bit, maybe we need to be interested once again and the political principles of
the Declaration of Independence. And he says, certainly, recent events throughout the
world have aroused an unwanted attention to the immemorial problem of human liberty. And
he says, men everywhere will want to reappraise the validity of half forgotten ideas.
You know my question, why are they half forgotten ideas well? Because
of people in the progressive movement like you. Aside from that very important problem,
it's maybe the best book on the intellectual origins of declaration. And there's
a couple of modern books I like, but you're not so sure, Lucretia,
And I'd rather read Lincoln any day of the week. Well, okay,
I mean a lot more about the Declaration of Independence from reading Lincoln,
who said, I know this is a famous quote, but I'm going to
throw it at you anyway, All honor to Jefferson. I know you don't
like him, John Jefferson, to the man who, in the concrete pressure
of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness forecast
in a capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth applicable to
all men at all times, and so to invom it there that today,
in an all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block
to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression. Yeah, that's the most
important thing you can ever read about the Declaration of Independence, in my opinion.
I'd have to tell you guys something funny really quick. So tomorrow there's
at my parish. They have recently restored a very old and very famous pipe
organ to its original condition at a great expense, and they're having a concert
called Patriotic Pipes, but yours truly Lucretia will be giving a talk about Christianity
and the Declaration of Independence tomorrow at the Patriotic Pipes. Can you record that?
Yeah, we'll have to get a recording. Yeah. See, or
if it's written, you can just began all of you got John and by
the way, you know declaration, but go ahead, Oh yeah, he
doesn't. So I just turned around to my bookshelf and pulled off two books
that I've had for a long time that I like. And I know you
don't like him, but I do like Bernard Balien's ideological origins in the American
Revolution. And I'm opening the copy I have, and I you know,
brings memory to mine because it says it has me. I put the date
I bought the book in here. It says November twenty first, nineteen eighty
seven. And on the front of the book there's a price tag. Can
you see what the price was back in nineteen eighty seven, Yeah, thirteen
dollars and fifty cents where a brand new book, and I have that same
edition, I think probably the same price. Yeah, I think it's the
first edition. Yeah, and then the other book I liked very much.
I mean, so they both come out in the mid nineteen sixties. The
other book I like a lot is Forrest McDonald E Colbos right, Yeah,
it also came out about it. I think it came out in yeah,
nineteen sixty five. Also, although this book I have is the Liberty Fund
edition, which is you know, you get for a cost, and it
says I says, I bought that one in nineteen ninety one. So I
do like both of these books, but again because they make the revolution,
they explain the revolution as being caused by ideas, and in fact, Forrest
McDonald did a great service by destroying Charles Beard's argrect that the Revolution and the
Constitution were just rich plant and slave owners putting one over on the poor.
Isn't that? Doesn't that epitaph do a better? Not that that that Forrest
McDonald doesn't. But you know, if you look at the Declaration of Independence,
for instance, and when they say they uh, they pledged their lives,
their fortune and their sacred honor, and if you look at what actually
happened to the fifty seven people who signed the declaration, of independence is sad.
I mean many of them gave up everything in one way or another,
lost their homes, lost their farms, right yep. One of the great
stories as a Philadelphia and I remember this while is that Benjamin Franklin signed it
and his son was a loyalist and left with the with the British at the
end of the revolution. And they never and never talked to him. Again,
you're not talking. You're not mentioning the fact that I accused you guys
of being more on the side of William Franklin than you were on the side
of a Whiskey rebellion. So untrue. But oh wellions. So I believe
we should be in a revolution right now, John, So let sign it
both of those books for the Constitution class I had with him. Um.
By the way, the thing about Forest McDonald that you may not know,
I knew him a little bit. He was kind of libertarian leaning. He
had a farm in Alabama. He liked to plow his field in the nude.
He was. He was kind of a nudest libertarian guy. This is
really yeah, that's take takes getting back to nature a little too far.
By the way, if you've never read it. John. His intellectual history
of the presidency is very good. Yeah, I'd like that book very much.
Actually, so, uh it's time to end, right, so I
will Lucretia, you have a Babylon Bee headline other than the Asians take a
five minute study break to celebrate winning the Harvard case. It's always so so
difficult. Uh, there was a couple. I'm just I'm not even gonna
try to choose. Zuckerberg unveils exciting new social media platform for government censor for
the beginning, we didn't even bring up this subject. Maybe it doesn't even
make sense to you. But DC police say they may never discover who left
bag of cocaine labeled property of h Biden at White House. Oh yeah,
we didn't talk about that. You're right. Maybe Why do I want to
go watch cocaine bear so badly? Right now? I don't know another one
for us? Uh? The Native Ben and Jerry, you know that was
Ben and Jerry are are giving a bud light run for the money. Ben
and Jerry announced Native Americans may exchange white Men's Scout for free pint of chunky
monkey. All right, I'm done this week. Calmualism of the Week here's
colmalist quote. Culture is it is a reflection of our moment and our time
right and present. Culture is the way we express how we're feeling about the
moment. She would always find times to express how we feel about the moment.
Keep. I wish people could see the clip because she looks so serious
when she's see Oh man quoted her and seriously as brilliant. Yeah, yes,
so we will. Let's close out with always drink your whiskey, neat,
Let's go Brandon and Steve. The closing from our president is, oh
God saved the queen Man. That's right. Keep good night, everybody,
good night, everybody see you next week, next week, Nay, I
don't, but see me and then you won't. My last dancing, my
last night. I'm the warming about is hey God? My money is dashion
hip Benshi, myney is downship content and myneme a cenship, senship cenship then
sensation and me here and there do you think I really care? And my
rechusband, my teams you should be living with Dames Cot cut snips with My
name is senshi, this ship senshion. My name is sensionment. Myneme is
sension ship, sension senorsen ship. The crime JA doesn't want many want,
no requiring tray. Well, will you comment? Go Ricochet join the conversation.