Speaker 1: Well Whiskey Coming from power Line blog dot com and
Speaker 1: produced by Ricochet dot com. This is the three Whiskey
Speaker 1: Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and
Speaker 1: power Lines International Woman of Mystery Lucretia Gotta give in
Speaker 1: that whiskey floon where you're feeling in loud.
Speaker 2: Down and lod. Welcome everybody to the too Whiskey Happy Hour.
Speaker 2: Because there's just two whiskey officionados on the podcast. We
Speaker 2: are against Steve heywardless because Steve has yet to return
Speaker 2: from his foreign travels abroad it so it's just Lucretia
Speaker 2: and I getting back to basics. How you doing, Lucretia,
Speaker 2: I'm doing well?
Speaker 3: Thanks Jo? How about you? And do you think Steve's
Speaker 3: over there smoking pot or you know, doing some sort
Speaker 3: of heroin derivative or something. Isn't that what Amsterdam used
Speaker 3: to be famous for? Yes?
Speaker 2: For those of those not following Steve's travels, Steve is
Speaker 2: such a millennial. He takes pictures of everywhere he goes,
Speaker 2: so you know exactly where he is at all times.
Speaker 2: And right now he's in Amsterdam and posting his Facebook
Speaker 2: and posting photos of him eating, drinking, falling into the canals.
Speaker 2: I actually love Amsterdam, but I've not been there in
Speaker 2: a while. I love to see. I spent the summer
Speaker 2: there teaching at the Free University of Amsterdam, which actually
Speaker 2: will get us into a topic we're going to talk
Speaker 2: about at the end, because you might ask, why is
Speaker 2: it called the Free University of Amsterdam. There's also a
Speaker 2: University of Amsterdam. There was also a Free University of Berlin,
Speaker 2: and there's a university but there's This is kind of
Speaker 2: interesting gets to a topic we're talking about in our
Speaker 2: philosophy corner at the end, because Lucretia has posted an
Speaker 2: interesting paper up on substack which raises the question about
Speaker 2: natural rights and what is freedom, so which you'll get
Speaker 2: to that at the end.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm looking forward. What do you got before me
Speaker 3: for then? What have you got for me before then?
Speaker 2: So we got a number of really interesting topics to
Speaker 2: talk about this week. I mean, the hits never stopped coming.
Speaker 2: But I think one thing we might talk about would
Speaker 2: be the second assassination attempt on President Trump. We hosted
Speaker 2: our last episode right before on Saturday of last week,
Speaker 2: and the second assassination TEP was on Sunday, I recall
Speaker 2: this is a fellow who was scoping out President Trump
Speaker 2: at his golf course actually managed to lie and wait
Speaker 2: for eleven hours with an AK forty seven style assault rifle,
Speaker 2: a rifle he doesn't get a shut off. Apparently the
Speaker 2: Secret Service saw him and shot at him. Somehow got
Speaker 2: into you know, a Nissan, and drove took off on
Speaker 2: the highway and wasn't captured till afterwards. So, Lucretia, what
Speaker 2: are your thoughts about this second assassination attempt of what
Speaker 2: is going on with the Secret Service? This is Do
Speaker 2: you think that there I've read a lot of people
Speaker 2: who are raising doubts about whether the Biden administration is
Speaker 2: actually providing this, saying the sufficient amount of coverage and
Speaker 2: protection to their main incumb of their main challenger, who
Speaker 2: they also accuse of being an existential threat to democracy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's I don't even know where to start with that.
Speaker 3: Since we're not live this time, John, I don't have
Speaker 3: on my designer Cowboy Tinfolk Cowboy Head America, but I
Speaker 3: actually do have some I don't even think their conspiracy
Speaker 3: conspiracy facts. I think that they're just a little bit
Speaker 3: hard to square with everything that's going on in the
Speaker 3: first place. Did you know John that both Routh Ruth?
Speaker 3: However you say his name, I can never remember bad
Speaker 3: people's names. I remember yours. John that he and Crooks,
Speaker 3: Crooks was the first assassin, were both pro Ukrainian. Okay,
Speaker 3: that's no big deal. There's a lot of people like that.
Speaker 3: We'll talk in a moment about the second guy's extraordinary
Speaker 3: relationship with Ukraine. But they were both in blackrock videos.
Speaker 2: Is that true?
Speaker 3: It is true. I've seen the videos, and I know
Speaker 3: those things can be faked, but I've seen them from
Speaker 3: multiple sources. So yes, they were both in the first one.
Speaker 3: The first guy, Crooks, they came to his high school
Speaker 3: and he was in a couple of different scenes in
Speaker 3: a promotional video. And then the second one was a
Speaker 3: pro Ukrainian video, and Ruth featured prominently in that video
Speaker 3: as well. The other thing is is that people have said, again,
Speaker 3: you know, it's always a little bit. You got to
Speaker 3: take these things with a grain of salt. The fact
Speaker 3: that the mainstream media is ignoring them makes me think
Speaker 3: it's true, because otherwise they'd be trying to debunk it.
Speaker 3: He's shown up at more than one of Kamalama ding
Speaker 3: Dong's rallies being busted in by the campaign, which I'm
Speaker 3: assuming you know that one too, That approximately five thousand
Speaker 3: cell phones have been traced to both the Arizona kam
Speaker 3: Lama ding Dong rally and the Georgia one, And so
Speaker 3: they're buzzing in the same people to her rallies to
Speaker 3: get enough of a crowd size because you know how
Speaker 3: Trump is obsessed with crowd size, right, So anyway, so
Speaker 3: there's thing one make of that what you will. I
Speaker 3: do think that the more interesting thing about the second
Speaker 3: assassination is how this guy, who is a pretty much
Speaker 3: a nutjob. I mean, there's no doubt about that. He
Speaker 3: just seems nutty, Nuttia's heck, but one of those smarter
Speaker 3: than average nutty guys who has delusions of grandeur. I
Speaker 3: actually had to get an investigation FBI investigation of a professor,
Speaker 3: an adjunct professor that someone encouraged me to hire that
Speaker 3: turned out to be just as nutty as this guy,
Speaker 3: but with respect to China anyway, so I'm familiar with
Speaker 3: the type, you know, promises everything, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: The guy, though, traveled to Ukraine on no apparent means,
Speaker 3: and he builds little houses, cheap little houses, and that
Speaker 3: went under no apparent means, has something like a fifty
Speaker 3: page rap sheet in North Carolina before he moved to Hawaii,
Speaker 3: was among other things, indicted and charged, I think, convicted
Speaker 3: of having a weapon of mass destruction. They haven't told
Speaker 3: us what that is, but it's just some serious, serious
Speaker 3: kinds of flags. And he's never been stopped flying back
Speaker 3: fourth from Hawaii, excuse me, or flying into Ukraine, meeting
Speaker 3: with Ukrainian officials. All of that's really really suspicious to me.
Speaker 3: I am one of those people who don't who believes
Speaker 3: that there is no such thing as a coincidence, and
Speaker 3: so I don't know what to make of all of that.
Speaker 3: I just thought maybe some of our listeners out there
Speaker 3: do know. They've had more time to follow it than
Speaker 3: I have. But yeah, the guy's just fishy as hell.
Speaker 3: Back to your The thing about the first assassination. The
Speaker 3: thing I find the most objectionable about the whole report
Speaker 3: on the Butler assassination attempt is how what's his name? Roe?
Speaker 3: Is it Roe? Is he the guy that's ahead.
Speaker 2: Of the Secret Service, Yes, the acting head.
Speaker 3: Yes, acting head, how he's willing to throw his people
Speaker 3: under the bus and say it's all their fault, which
Speaker 3: I suppose you have to do, because if you took
Speaker 3: any kind of while this was I was responsible, I
Speaker 3: should resign Da da da da da. Then people would
Speaker 3: start saying, oh, why were you responsible? Why did this
Speaker 3: go all the way to the top, and exactly why
Speaker 3: couldn't you the most prestigious protection federal protection company in
Speaker 3: the world, what I know, what you call it, three
Speaker 3: letter agency, whatever you call it, can't protect a guy
Speaker 3: on a golf course, can't protect a guy in a
Speaker 3: rally by just sweeping the perimeter within easy line of
Speaker 3: sight to where he's speaking. All of those things are hard,
Speaker 3: hard for me to even swallow. So I'll let you comment,
Speaker 3: I'll let you undo my conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2: John Well, one thing is you start to wonder about
Speaker 2: the basic competence of the Secret Service. You know, they say, oh,
Speaker 2: it's a golf course, hard to cover. They don't have drones,
Speaker 2: they don't have dogs. I mean, I bet the Ukrainians
Speaker 2: could have found the guy right like, just using a
Speaker 2: few cheap drones and cameras. You know, it actually raises
Speaker 2: a question for me. I think I mentioned in the
Speaker 2: last episode was why isn't the military in charge of
Speaker 2: the Secret Service? You know, why are we using people
Speaker 2: who are probably you know, they are domestic law enforcement
Speaker 2: officers when you know, the military obviously has to deal
Speaker 2: with protecting assets and people all the time, and I
Speaker 2: think probably are much better at this than the Secret
Speaker 2: Service right now. So this is sort of on the
Speaker 2: ground question when it comes to he says the other
Speaker 2: and then the other comment I had was way at
Speaker 2: the other end, which I thought you were going to address,
Speaker 2: which is, even if there's no artists in bias or
Speaker 2: partisanship going on in how the administration is allocating resources
Speaker 2: of the Secret Service, I think it's a fair thing
Speaker 2: to say they're rhetoric is contributing to the spikes and
Speaker 2: political violence. I mean, these are President Biden says, you know,
Speaker 2: political violence has no place in the United States. But
Speaker 2: at the same time, he has called Donald Trump an
Speaker 2: existential threat to democracy. Existential means right ending the existence
Speaker 2: of democracy in the United States. And if you keep
Speaker 2: using language like that, just as by the way, we
Speaker 2: also saw someone arrested for threatening to assassinate Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 2: Although it sounds like this was an old guy in
Speaker 2: Alaska who was posting crazy things on the Supreme Court's
Speaker 2: website or something, so it was easy to track him
Speaker 2: down and he didn't actually do But if you also
Speaker 2: fill the airwaves with attacks after attack on justices and
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, you're going to encourage some people, crazy
Speaker 2: people to want to carry out assassination attempts. So that's
Speaker 2: the thing I thought is notable here that you have
Speaker 2: two assassinations times and you have the administration Democrats claiming
Speaker 2: there should be no place for pol govins. But they're
Speaker 2: the ones who are amping up the rhetoric that might
Speaker 2: be setting the cultural environment for it.
Speaker 3: I never forget actually blaming Trump for it, blaming because
Speaker 3: Trump supposedly made the comments about our dear little cats
Speaker 3: and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, which supposedly led it turns
Speaker 3: out not to have been true, but supposedly led to
Speaker 3: bomb threats. And they were called in from overseas Russia, Russia, Russia,
Speaker 3: who knows.
Speaker 1: But.
Speaker 3: No credibility to them whatsoever. Yet, who is that guy?
Speaker 3: I can see his face on CBS. I think he
Speaker 3: is who Lester Holt who came out and said it's
Speaker 3: Trump's fault for making those unfounded accusations and getting people
Speaker 3: all riled up about immigrants. So what does he expect
Speaker 3: is going to happen? It's ye believe it or not. John,
Speaker 3: I'm a little bit hesitant to jump to that. I
Speaker 3: get that there are nut jobs out there, and being
Speaker 3: a leftist automatically means that you are a ideological, rabid hack.
Speaker 3: Rabid ideological hack I think makes more sense in order
Speaker 3: to believe any of that stuff to begin with. And
Speaker 3: then I do think that they appeal to, you know,
Speaker 3: the mentally unstable aspect of society because of you know,
Speaker 3: the resentment that's part of leftist lore and all those
Speaker 3: other things. So when the left makes comments like, you know,
Speaker 3: he's a threat to democracy, he's the next Hitler. Of course,
Speaker 3: why wouldn't you, if you're a little bit crazy, want
Speaker 3: to assassinate Trump. You'd certainly want to go back and
Speaker 3: assassinate Hitler. Right, That's that's the argument I am not.
Speaker 3: I am not quite of the opinion that we hold
Speaker 3: either side accountable for the things that they say and
Speaker 3: the third order effects of those things. I get the argument.
Speaker 3: I find it a little bit stretched. That guy is
Speaker 3: responsible for it. That guy's responsible for his stupid ideas
Speaker 3: about everything that he goes along with, including supporting Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: When they accused Sarah Palin of being responsible for Gabby
Speaker 3: Gifford's assassination attempt, it had nothing to do with the
Speaker 3: fact that she had put those target signs on the
Speaker 3: different congressional races across the country and she tried to sue.
Speaker 3: It looks like you've heard probably that she's got another
Speaker 3: opportunity to make her case. She's been allowed again. But
Speaker 3: you know, she's fighting a fight in the middle of
Speaker 3: all this that says how much do we hold people
Speaker 3: responsible for the things they say? If we concede that point,
Speaker 3: are we conceding the silence is violence and speaking is
Speaker 3: violence argument of the left. That's just my thoughts on it. John,
Speaker 3: I actually agree with you, but I'm going to play
Speaker 3: devil's advocate a little bit here. What do you think,
Speaker 3: mister free speech guy?
Speaker 2: Oh who? I would never say that they should be
Speaker 2: in any way legally punished or anything like that for
Speaker 2: these kinds of over the top statements about Trump and
Speaker 2: being a threat to democracy. But you know this is
Speaker 2: from the party that says, it's defending democracy. This is
Speaker 2: from the party that claimed, you know, claims that they're
Speaker 2: the ones who are trying to We're not going it's
Speaker 2: trying to move us forward and away from chaos. And
Speaker 2: yet their actions are destabilizing, and you would think that
Speaker 2: they would they would conduct themselves in a more adult,
Speaker 2: responsible manner. It actually reminds me in some ways of
Speaker 2: Kambala Harris's conduct at the debate. I was going to
Speaker 2: say first debate, but it may just be now the
Speaker 2: debate the debate, right, She did not conduct herself in
Speaker 2: a way to answer questions, treat the voters like adults,
Speaker 2: give them answers to questions. She engages kind of taunting
Speaker 2: gay exercise against Trump. So they I just struck by
Speaker 2: how I'm just struck by how their political methods are
Speaker 2: at odds with their playing of being.
Speaker 3: And are you really stress?
Speaker 2: I am? I expect better?
Speaker 3: You do well, remember what Steve always says, I'll have
Speaker 3: to at least quote Steve quoting the same thing over
Speaker 3: and over again at least once since he's not here.
Speaker 3: And that is, if the left had no stand or
Speaker 3: had didn't have double standards, they would have no standards
Speaker 3: at all. And I you know, here's the problem I think,
Speaker 3: and this is why you're right and I'm wrong, John,
Speaker 3: because I agree with everything you said. The problem is
Speaker 3: is that we're just so used to accepting the idea
Speaker 3: that the left is going to gaslight, the left is
Speaker 3: going to project to accuse the other side of doing
Speaker 3: what they do, all of those things that we know
Speaker 3: that the left does. And I don't know what you
Speaker 3: do about it, I mean, other than bring it up
Speaker 3: on the three Whisky Happy Hour along with this lovely
Speaker 3: glass of McCallan I have here and try to get
Speaker 3: more people to pay attention to the fact that they're
Speaker 3: lying to us every day. There was a great article
Speaker 3: really quickly by your friends, the American Mind publication out
Speaker 3: of Claremont that listed listed all of the hoaxes that
Speaker 3: the left has perpetrated and say, I'm going to say
Speaker 3: since about twenty sixteen, because it started, of course with
Speaker 3: the the PP dossier. Excuse my language, and just I
Speaker 3: mean the list is like twenty five things long, and
Speaker 3: some of them are pretty serious. You know. They include
Speaker 3: everything from They'll find people hoax to Russia Russia Russia,
Speaker 3: to you know, Hillary that Hillary's emails were stolen by
Speaker 3: the Russians and it was Trump's fin and just it's
Speaker 3: I should probably ask Steve to post that, because it's
Speaker 3: amazing how much we have been treated to lies, dissembling,
Speaker 3: gas lighting, disingenuousness. I don't know any you know, just
Speaker 3: outright just disgusting, despicable, corrupt lies from the left because
Speaker 3: that's how they get what they want. They convince enough
Speaker 3: of those people in the middle. And by the way, John,
Speaker 3: if you don't know who you're voting for now, you
Speaker 3: are by definition a low information voter and probably shouldn't be.
Speaker 3: But those are the people the left targets with these lies.
Speaker 2: Look, I am sitting right now in Pennsylvania, which is
Speaker 2: a wonderful experience because it's the only time I get
Speaker 2: to watch campaign ads. I got to say, I think
Speaker 2: when I was telling you guys last time, when I
Speaker 2: was here for the APSA meeting two weeks ago, that
Speaker 2: Harris had the better as in Trump. But how the
Speaker 2: ads have completely changed in quality. The Trump ads are
Speaker 2: really good. And you know whose ads are even better.
Speaker 2: McCormick is the guy who's running for Senate against Bob Casey.
Speaker 2: His ads are even better than Trump's. He is tying
Speaker 2: Bob Casey, the incumbent Senate Democrats here, to Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: so tightly, and then it's a great Every ad on
Speaker 2: the radio I hear is just three quotes from Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: The first one is, of course, I would ban fracking.
Speaker 2: The second one is, we're you know, we're spending too
Speaker 2: much on police. We should study the structural racist origins
Speaker 2: of policing. I mean, it's me. They just they have
Speaker 2: identified the quotes and then they say, and now here's
Speaker 2: her position allegedly, and it's just thirty seconds and they
Speaker 2: play it whit And you know, Harris's ads are have
Speaker 2: no substance to them. It's really interesting, Really, I think
Speaker 2: the ads are really turned around. But as you say,
Speaker 2: the latest polls show forty eight to forty eight here
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania. How can you not have it? How can
Speaker 2: it be so even it's unbelievable. But before you before Lucretia,
Speaker 2: let me stop you there. We got to take a
Speaker 2: break for an ad. And then when we come back,
Speaker 2: hear what you think about what's going on Pennsylvania. Also,
Speaker 2: I wanted to throw at you. You just mentioned Russia.
Speaker 2: Russia RuSHA welcome back everybody to our second post, second
Speaker 2: post ad installment of the two Whiskey Happy Hour. We
Speaker 2: have Lucretia and John minus Steve Hayward. So right before
Speaker 2: we rite, right before the break, I was telling Lucretia
Speaker 2: what's like to see campaign ads in Pennsylvania, and following
Speaker 2: up on her point that how could anyone not have
Speaker 2: an opinion between these two? By now you should be
Speaker 2: you're by definition a low information voter. Yet Pennsylvania is
Speaker 2: forty eight to forty eight percent. It's evenly tied according
Speaker 2: to the Washington Post.
Speaker 3: No, well, okay, I don't trust the Washington Post, but
Speaker 3: there are others like, yeah, slightly more respectable polls. It
Speaker 3: still have it very very close across the board in
Speaker 3: the battleground state. It's a popular voute. The whole thing.
Speaker 3: I'll reiterate my point from before that because of shy
Speaker 3: Trump voters, whatever else, a little bit of an error
Speaker 3: in picking the sample and so on, that that Trump
Speaker 3: tends to outperform the polls. Has outperformed the polls in
Speaker 3: every single race he's been in. So I do think
Speaker 3: that if the polls stay the way they are Kamalahamma
Speaker 3: Kamalama Dingong is loses, right. I think she loses in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: If the polls. If the polls show them tied, that
Speaker 2: means Trump probably means.
Speaker 3: Trump's probably going to win. What one of the things
Speaker 3: that's very frustrating to a lot of us. But you know,
Speaker 3: I cannot pretend, even for a moment to understand the
Speaker 3: average voter. I'll just put it that way, don't I
Speaker 3: don't people who do who are like us, who do
Speaker 3: I am in awe of because I just don't get it.
Speaker 3: I understand the rabid leftists a little bit anyway. I'll
Speaker 3: leave it at that. But last week, as you know.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 3: Teamsters came out and refused, for the first time ever.
Speaker 3: I'm to understand, right, refuse to endorse the Democratic candidate
Speaker 3: for president. How much they have the fortunes of the
Speaker 3: Democratic Party changed if that could happen. And I don't
Speaker 3: think it's just because she's Kamalama ding Dong and she's worthless.
Speaker 3: I think it's because they couldn't possibly endorse Trump. But
Speaker 3: even the leaders have to understand to some extent that
Speaker 3: Trump is better for the working class than Kamalama ding Dong.
Speaker 3: I mean they have to. They have, you know, from
Speaker 3: so many different metrics. I don't know if the leaders
Speaker 3: themselves have come to that conclusion, but they can't completely
Speaker 3: ignore the polls they've taken of their own union members.
Speaker 3: Sixty percent. Sixty percent of union members now support Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: That has to be a reality in places like Pennsylvania,
Speaker 3: John doesn't it, Or Wisconsin or Michigan or some of
Speaker 3: the southern states that aren't right to work states. Right.
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania is a funny state because it is for much
Speaker 2: of the state is a Midwestern manufacturing state. Obviously, railroads,
Speaker 2: oil and steel were a big part of the history
Speaker 2: of the state. But it has this humongous liberal blue
Speaker 2: spot in it called Philadelphia my hometown, which is more
Speaker 2: like is a Northeast corridor city, and so it's more
Speaker 2: like Washington, Baltimore, New York, and Boston. And it used
Speaker 2: to always be the joke that, you know, the election
Speaker 2: officials in Philadelphia would wait to see the returns from
Speaker 2: the rest of the state before they figured out how
Speaker 2: many right, how many smokes they needed to produce a listeners.
Speaker 3: Did everybody catch that? It used to be a joke.
Speaker 3: Now it's reality. That's what he was supposed to finish
Speaker 3: that sentence with, Oh.
Speaker 2: Man, you're on me like you're on me like a
Speaker 2: trial lawyer across examination, my hand on a bible and
Speaker 2: take an oath.
Speaker 3: I had a frustrating experience yesterday, I'll leave it at that,
Speaker 3: and ended up having to be in a long car
Speaker 3: ride with nothing to do but look at X and
Speaker 3: any of my followers, and X probably thought what the
Speaker 3: heck happened to her? Because I was just live it
Speaker 3: about everything that came across my feed. So I'm going
Speaker 3: to try to be a little more calm today, not
Speaker 3: be quite as hard on you as I might otherwise.
Speaker 2: I'm grateful to X and grateful for long car rides
Speaker 2: so that I.
Speaker 3: Got out of my system. I'll give you one really
Speaker 3: quick example before we go back to the top of
Speaker 3: get hand, and there was a picture of Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 3: Justice Thomas next to his brand new RV. Looks all
Speaker 3: you actually see him is in the one of the pianels.
Speaker 3: He's standing on the ground one of the panels to
Speaker 3: the side that looks like it might be a mechanical panel.
Speaker 3: I didn't pay that much attention. But Jen Rubin and
Speaker 3: all these other slime balls, who paid for this? Oh,
Speaker 3: he can buy a brand new RV after he went
Speaker 3: out and destroyed women. Is killing women and leaving them,
Speaker 3: leaving their children without a mother because of his decision
Speaker 3: in Roe versus Wade. It was these people, John, these people,
Speaker 3: So Jen Rubin says, who paid for this? And I said,
Speaker 3: the US Constitution right, And then somebody came back and
Speaker 3: said something stupid about the US Constitution was bent over
Speaker 3: by Clarence Thomas and giving it good and hard or
Speaker 3: something along those lines. So I just look you more on.
Speaker 3: If you can explain to me where there is a
Speaker 3: right in the constitution to kill an unborn child, uh,
Speaker 3: then then tell me where it is, because it's not there,
Speaker 3: and you should shut up, you ignorant and fanticide moron.
Speaker 3: Give you some example of.
Speaker 2: Is that what you were typing on? X? Oh my god,
Speaker 2: I didn't realize we were getting the censored version of
Speaker 2: Lucretia all these years.
Speaker 3: I think you're just you're getting the calmer version. Back
Speaker 3: to Kamalama ding.
Speaker 2: Dong, that's not that I was going to let me
Speaker 2: ask you about that. Kamalama ding Dong was her her
Speaker 2: appearance on Oprah, Because let me just throw that onto
Speaker 2: the fire there. Since you're about to talk about her
Speaker 2: a little bit, what did you think of her?
Speaker 3: I don't want to know what I said about Oprah either,
Speaker 3: because about oh yeah, anyway, so here she has what
Speaker 3: has to be the most ideal conditions, you know, a
Speaker 3: handpicked audience, Oprah, who as we all know, is responsible
Speaker 3: for giving us a mama now putting her primiture upon
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris, and even Oprah is just looking at her
Speaker 3: and disbelieve how that excuse my language? Hell? Can you
Speaker 3: say something so god awful stupid in response to a
Speaker 3: simple question asking you about policy. I have none of
Speaker 3: the quotes because I refuse to repeat them. Let's just
Speaker 3: say your aspirations and my dreams, John, they're elusive.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I don't know if she was trying to win your
Speaker 2: vote though, because she said she has a gun and
Speaker 2: she would shoot someone who came into her house, I thought, no,
Speaker 2: join the speech writing.
Speaker 3: To no person who owns a gun would ever say that. Honestly,
Speaker 3: it would put you in so much trouble. I would
Speaker 3: never say that. First of all, if somebody comes in
Speaker 3: my house and I have to use a gun on them,
Speaker 3: it's because they're doing something bad enough to kill them.
Speaker 3: You don't point guns up people for no reason. Anyway.
Speaker 3: You know who is she? Try to pretend she's yeah tough,
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris. Let's see some Let's see some pictures of you,
Speaker 3: some video of you at the shooting range with your smithon.
Speaker 3: Was in three point fifty seven uh, with a group
Speaker 3: this big at thirty yards. Let's just see that. Okay,
Speaker 3: you couldn't see that, folks, but it's like an inch long.
Speaker 2: Guys, I think we've just heard Lucretia challenge Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: to a shooting range head to head matchup. I don't
Speaker 2: think it would be close, frankly, but I would want
Speaker 2: to make sure both contestants had lots of kevlar on
Speaker 2: when they went.
Speaker 3: I was going to say, but you can't stop me
Speaker 3: from a headshot. No, you don't want to do range.
Speaker 2: This is this is the thing I mean. I I
Speaker 2: what struck me was if a conservative candidate said something
Speaker 2: like that, people would be all over him or her
Speaker 2: for a sec. Oh wait, you would check first to
Speaker 2: see if it was a mistake, if they were actually
Speaker 2: a threat to you, you would to shoot them right
Speaker 2: away without any provocation. I mean you would. Actually when
Speaker 2: these kind of cases happened, you see lots of demands
Speaker 2: on the left for gun control. Yes, they don't want
Speaker 2: to they want to get rid of the castle doctrine,
Speaker 2: which is the yably. Yes, Tama Harris say this, it
Speaker 2: seems like utter vote pandering because I don't think she
Speaker 2: believes this, or.
Speaker 3: No, she doesn't. But I also thought that her her
Speaker 3: follow up comment was rather interesting. It reminded me of Biden.
Speaker 3: My staff will have to take care of this for me,
Speaker 3: so I can be a bring that idiot my predecessor was,
Speaker 3: And I'll just count on the fact that I've got
Speaker 3: this gas lighting disingenuous. I got to come up with
Speaker 3: new adjectives to on staff that will cover up and
Speaker 3: lie about everything I say so that it gets the
Speaker 3: best possible play in the media, and then the media
Speaker 3: will go right along with it. Yeah, you're absolutely right
Speaker 3: about that.
Speaker 2: I part problem was the thing I thought also about
Speaker 2: the interview there. Really but I'm just like, put aside
Speaker 2: the word salads and the circular logic and the never
Speaker 2: addressing real policies. You know, she's been asked every interview now,
Speaker 2: even the most friendly interviews. Right, She's asked about inflation,
Speaker 2: and she still has no answer other than saying, I'm
Speaker 2: from a middle class family. Although it's weird to have
Speaker 2: a middle class family where both parents are PhDs. But anyway,
Speaker 2: if that's a middle class family, but she says, I'm
Speaker 2: from a middle class family. Yeah, two PhD parents in
Speaker 2: Berkeley and then Canada. Uh but yeah, but well, in Berkeley,
Speaker 2: mowing your lawn you have to move the homeless people
Speaker 2: off the lawn first. I wonder how they achieve that.
Speaker 3: And my sense of Berkeley is that there's no law
Speaker 3: bigger than a postage stamp.
Speaker 2: Really, not her neighborhood. I know where she lives. I
Speaker 2: live but here. But here's the point, is that still
Speaker 2: she's got this. She has this quandary. Is she's in
Speaker 2: office for four years while the inflation occurred. She signed
Speaker 2: the Inflation Reduction Act, which was like pouring gasoline on
Speaker 2: the burning economy and making inflation worse through fiscal expansion.
Speaker 2: And yet she's saying she's gonna make things better somehow,
Speaker 2: although she won't say how, except for stimulating the economy
Speaker 2: even more I suppose. So she is a problem because
Speaker 2: she can't really attack the policies that created the inflation,
Speaker 2: but she has to distance herself somehow from it, and
Speaker 2: she doesn't seem to be able to do that.
Speaker 3: No one would think she should do one of two things.
Speaker 3: She should own it, own her past leftist policy positions,
Speaker 3: own it, justify them, and so on. We know that
Speaker 3: we can't that she can't do that. It wouldn't work
Speaker 3: in Pennsylvania, as you pointed out, if it wasn't fracking,
Speaker 3: it would be all sorts of the other positions. It's like,
Speaker 3: is everybody in Pennsylvania, excuse me, going to drive an EV?
Speaker 3: I mean, come on, in The only thing worse than
Speaker 3: driving an EV in the absolute heat of summer in
Speaker 3: Phoenix is driving an EV in the cold of Philadelphia
Speaker 3: in the winter. I mean, people aren't going to buy
Speaker 3: that stupid car.
Speaker 2: I frankly no, thank god, I got a pickup trucks.
Speaker 3: Yes, so every you know, defund the police. Now there
Speaker 3: might be a small section of Philadelphia, like you say,
Speaker 3: that's in favor of that. That her record on that
Speaker 3: is so clear, and this pretend attempt to be a prosecutor.
Speaker 3: If you dig down even a quarter of an inch
Speaker 3: deep into her record as a prosecutor, it is at
Speaker 3: best a mixed bag. It does not make her a
Speaker 3: tough on crime prosecutor, but it makes her a tough
Speaker 3: on all the marginalized communities that she supposedly supports. And
Speaker 3: then on the other hand, you know, she's the champion
Speaker 3: of MS thirteen gangs and you know, we could go
Speaker 3: on and on my point is okay, So she can't
Speaker 3: own up to her leftist past. How does she get
Speaker 3: away with just saying yeah, I don't do that anymore, because,
Speaker 3: as Bernie said, I gotta be pragmatic if I'm gonna win.
Speaker 3: And everybody knows what she's going to go back to.
Speaker 3: And how are they so stupid that they like I
Speaker 3: can't I can't wrap my head around it. But when
Speaker 3: you have the media, I suppose it's a little bit easier.
Speaker 3: I'm told, however, that even the media is getting a
Speaker 3: little tired of it. That seems some of them, you know,
Speaker 3: And when when our friends at ABC were so humiliated,
Speaker 3: and I guess ABC's ratings have completely tanked, which is
Speaker 3: odd to me because why would you be watching ABC
Speaker 3: in the first place. If you didn't already realize what
Speaker 3: a biased, shall we say, a pro democratic party organization
Speaker 3: it is. But all of these things are mysteries to me, John,
Speaker 3: I want.
Speaker 2: To I expect you to clear them. Well, here's one
Speaker 2: other interesting angle about the again, just going from spending
Speaker 2: time in Philly.
Speaker 4: Now, is.
Speaker 2: Uh the negative ads against Trump? You don't hear any
Speaker 2: of this anymore, you know, threat to democracy, business. You
Speaker 2: never see anything about January sixth. It's all about abortion.
Speaker 2: Every negative ad I see that the Harris campaign is running.
Speaker 2: Is he ended Roe versus Wade. He's proud of ending
Speaker 2: Roe versus Wade. And that's it. Nothing about the economy,
Speaker 2: nothing about immigration, you know, all those things that he trusted.
Speaker 2: That she tried to attack Trump for the debate go
Speaker 2: unmentions all about And Pennsylvania is a weird state to
Speaker 2: try to make the election about abortion, because this is
Speaker 2: a state that used to have very prominent pro life Democrats,
Speaker 2: Like his father is not pro life. I think he
Speaker 2: started out pro life, but he hasn't his father. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's not his father, Bob Casey, the father who he's
Speaker 2: the defendant of plant parad versus Casey back in ninety
Speaker 2: two because he signed and supported a very restrictive abortion
Speaker 2: law in Pennsylvania. I mean, much of the state is
Speaker 2: her life because it's a very religious Outside of Philadelphia,
Speaker 2: it's a very religious, agricultural state still in many way
Speaker 2: very rural and culture.
Speaker 3: I don't like you, but when we come back, I
Speaker 3: do want to ask you a quick question. And again
Speaker 3: I don't want to ambush you, because I didn't tell
Speaker 3: you I wanted to talk about this.
Speaker 2: Guys, being ambushed by Lucretia is a real pleasure. I
Speaker 2: have no problems with it. Let's take another commercial break,
Speaker 2: and when we come back, we'll walk right into that ambush. Okay, Well,
Speaker 2: before Lucretia springs ambush on us, you all probably know
Speaker 2: the Marine Corps tactic for responding to an ambush, which
Speaker 2: is to guess, keep going forward and go through the ambush.
Speaker 3: And I imagine you will on this one, however, go ahead.
Speaker 3: So it came out this week. Then, in fact, Trump
Speaker 3: did ask for National Guard protection of the Capitol on
Speaker 3: January sixth. I forget exactly the words I had somewhere
Speaker 3: now I can't find it. Said, you know that there
Speaker 3: could be some disturbance on January sixth and that we
Speaker 3: should bring in the National Guard, and that it was
Speaker 3: in fact that slimeball trader Millie, Ryan McCarthy and others
Speaker 3: who said no and thwarted the effort to bring in
Speaker 3: the National Guard because they were afraid of the optics
Speaker 3: of it. But what that means is, I think, you know,
Speaker 3: there's a lot to be said for all of the
Speaker 3: side things going on and should merely be tried for treason,
Speaker 3: absolutely tried and hung by the neck until dead. That's
Speaker 3: my pleasure for Milly. But but the fact that Trump
Speaker 3: would have called in the National Garden was thwarted by
Speaker 3: his own people, to me, is a pretty clear indication
Speaker 3: that he certainly never intended anything like an insurrection. And yeah,
Speaker 3: and the evidence about that was completely suppressed by the
Speaker 3: January sixth Committee at the time. And then, of course,
Speaker 3: as you recall, they destroyed all of their evidence in
Speaker 3: violation of the law, and we can't go back and
Speaker 3: look at a bunch of it. But anyway, the story's
Speaker 3: going on just that alone. If you're the president of
Speaker 3: the United States, you recognize that you have followers who
Speaker 3: are very very upset. Maybe you've made them more upset
Speaker 3: you're somewhat responsible for that, but very upset about what
Speaker 3: they feel like was and what they think. There is
Speaker 3: evidence for stolen election, true or not true. And you
Speaker 3: call in the National Guard to make sure that everything
Speaker 3: goes peacefully and so on, and your own people and
Speaker 3: Nancy Pelosi thwart that order and keep it from happening.
Speaker 3: And there's this whole timeline with Ryan McCarthy disappearing, and
Speaker 3: you know that any orders to bring in the National
Speaker 3: Guard right into the city around the Capitol had to
Speaker 3: come from him, and then he disappeared and was no
Speaker 3: comms for like eight hours or something. You know, there's
Speaker 3: all this. I don't know what to make of it.
Speaker 3: But isn't that in and of itself, if not proof
Speaker 3: of a conspiracy on the Nancy Pelosi Millie Ryan McCarthy side,
Speaker 3: at least proof that Trump is not complicit in planning
Speaker 3: an insurrection.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, I've never been persuaded that he committed
Speaker 2: an insurrection conspired to commit it. You know, I actually
Speaker 2: supported the second impeachment, although I didn't think he should
Speaker 2: be convicted because I thought he was derelict in his
Speaker 2: duty of protecting the Capitol. But that was based on
Speaker 2: the facts which seemed to be contradicted by this report.
Speaker 2: So I'd want to see more. I mean, if Trump
Speaker 2: actually had called out the National Guard and then people
Speaker 2: in the military chain of command refused to carry out
Speaker 2: the order, then you know, they have committed a violation
Speaker 2: of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the ideal
Speaker 2: of civilian control over the military. But this is the
Speaker 2: first I've heard of it, you know, I didn't. For example,
Speaker 2: when President Trump was putting on a defense to the impeachment,
Speaker 2: his lawyers never said that this had happened. You know,
Speaker 2: they you know, there was a very rushed, i think
Speaker 2: haphazard investigation in the first place. But trump selawyers never,
Speaker 2: as far as I remember, made the argument that he
Speaker 2: had actually factually called out the National Guard and that
Speaker 2: you know, the military leadership have refused to carry out
Speaker 2: the order. If that's true, that's a very serious right,
Speaker 2: that's a very serious I mean that that's unconstitutional, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, the president gives But I want to know what.
Speaker 2: I would want to see more it happened, because that
Speaker 2: was that would be incredible actually.
Speaker 3: Reporting on it. It's obviously not showing up in the
Speaker 3: Washington Post, and and I'm going to be frank with
Speaker 3: you about this after Dan, rather, you know, putting together
Speaker 3: that fake uh document for George Bush and doing which.
Speaker 2: By the way, put power line, put power line on
Speaker 2: the map in the mak.
Speaker 3: Yes, but I mean that was before we had AI,
Speaker 3: that was before we had Adobe Edit. And so the
Speaker 3: idea that just producing a document in and of itself
Speaker 3: is proof of something I don't even know where we
Speaker 3: go with that anymore, but there are there is documentation
Speaker 3: about that, the transcripts from phone calls and so on,
Speaker 3: that supposedly prove that. I won't try to prove it
Speaker 3: to you today because I'm obviously not a position.
Speaker 1: To do so.
Speaker 2: But I think it's really important to know if this
Speaker 2: is true, because, as you say, it would directly undermine
Speaker 2: this idea, right that the Trump actually wanted there to
Speaker 2: be an attack on the Capitol, but would undermine my
Speaker 2: view that I think he was just derelict, you know, negligent,
Speaker 2: just sitting apparently for hours in the West Wing but
Speaker 2: not in the personal residence, but not calling out the
Speaker 2: National Guard, and then the real fault would lie with
Speaker 2: the military. Gosh. I mean, if this is true, Trump
Speaker 2: should be saying you know, yelling this from the right
Speaker 2: from the tree tops. But I don't think he was
Speaker 2: responsible for the insurrection anyway. I mean, I don't think
Speaker 2: it was an insurrection, and there was a ricket. I mean,
Speaker 2: the most incompetent insurrection in the history of insurrections. Yeah,
Speaker 2: all the.
Speaker 3: People with guns couldn't manage to overthrow a few capitol police.
Speaker 2: Right, I mean yeah, I mean they got the January
Speaker 2: sixth investigation and prosecution. They don't have they I'm still
Speaker 2: waiting to see any evidence linking him actually to the
Speaker 2: attack other than that speech on the ellipse, and that's
Speaker 2: not enough in my mind. I thought they would have more.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you actually handled that ambush pretty darn well. I
Speaker 3: have to tell you.
Speaker 2: That's not a real accretiate ambush. You were too nice
Speaker 2: about it and warned me although there's so many things
Speaker 2: you could attack me about. I wasn't sure which direction.
Speaker 3: And again, I you know, sometimes you're absolutely right. Sometimes
Speaker 3: these things make a big splash and then they turn
Speaker 3: out not to have the evidence behind him, or they
Speaker 3: make a big splash and the evidence is suppressed.
Speaker 2: Or or or you know.
Speaker 3: So I'm always I'm always hesitant to make too much
Speaker 3: of it. I of course have never thought it was
Speaker 3: an insurrection, but and I've always thought that the Justice
Speaker 3: Department was complicit in it. I am not forcing you
Speaker 3: to concede that point to me today. That's I guess today.
Speaker 2: I noticed she said today, And I think our.
Speaker 3: Listeners will probably be gratified to know that you have
Speaker 3: somewhat changed your opinion about that based on, if not
Speaker 3: the evidence non evidence I produced today, the other development
Speaker 3: since January sixth that have caused you to kind of
Speaker 3: look back on it and say, maybe this shouldn't have
Speaker 3: happened the way it did. And so I don't want
Speaker 3: to put words in your mouth, but my fans will
Speaker 3: be happier with you today.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know what I exactly if I've changed
Speaker 2: positions on it, but I have been disappointed in the
Speaker 2: Justice Department. They've not lived up to their public rhetoric
Speaker 2: about the case. I do think there should have been
Speaker 2: and was an investigation, but I haven't seen anything. I
Speaker 2: have not seen public facts that would justify charges against
Speaker 2: President Trump. That's uh, so the Justice Apartment failed. If so,
Speaker 2: they should have done the investigation, and then so we're
Speaker 2: not charging them because we can't make out these charges otherwise.
Speaker 2: But then the real fault I think then is to
Speaker 2: this goes back to the political writer point. Is the
Speaker 2: real fault then is for the president and the vice
Speaker 2: president and the Turney General would run around calling Trump
Speaker 2: excessential through democracy and an insurrectionists when they're not willing
Speaker 2: to charge them with it in court because they can't
Speaker 2: prove it. That's really a serious violation of the norms
Speaker 2: in our country, has been for a long time. Anyway,
Speaker 2: one more issue before we talk about your interesting paper,
Speaker 2: which is I love Lucretia's name for this. She wanted
Speaker 2: to talk about Operation grim Beeper. Yeah, so you know,
Speaker 2: while while we're talking about the secret services inability to
Speaker 2: use even drones to check the perimeter of golf course,
Speaker 2: Israel pulls off one of the great high tech intelligence
Speaker 2: operations that we know of in public for a long time.
Speaker 2: Although they've in history, although there's a number of them,
Speaker 2: there's that they've been successful, and we already forget that
Speaker 2: they stole the Iranian nuclear weapons archive a few years ago,
Speaker 2: like the whole thing, and have of course assassinated leaders
Speaker 2: of Hezbollah and Hamas in places like Iranian governments, you know,
Speaker 2: safe houses or but this is really one of the
Speaker 2: greatest ones. This, of course, I'm sure everybody knows, but
Speaker 2: the Israel allegedly managed to introduce explosive beepers into the
Speaker 2: Hesbelah supply chain because Hesbela knows that Israel can't intercept
Speaker 2: their cell phone communications, so that they're using a beeper network.
Speaker 2: And so hundreds and hundreds of these exploded at the
Speaker 2: same time and killed a few, but seems have injured
Speaker 2: hundreds of Hesbola leaders and operatives. Then when Hesbula switched
Speaker 2: to walkie talkies, those blew up too. And then just
Speaker 2: most recently, Israel pinpointed the location of the military leaders
Speaker 2: of hesbal some of their highest military commanders, and killed
Speaker 2: them all in a strike just recently. What I mean
Speaker 2: this is we're seeing no incredible use of technology to combat,
Speaker 2: to conduct war, while our own government seems incapablehi of
Speaker 2: using the most basic technology to protect the leaders of
Speaker 2: our country.
Speaker 3: So mister Lucretia, when he was America's Q actually explained
Speaker 3: to me early that morning, the first morning when it happened,
Speaker 3: exactly how the technology worked. And you know, being missus Lucretia,
Speaker 3: I of course immediately dismissed what he said, and you
Speaker 3: never believe what your husband says. And it turned out
Speaker 3: that what he said was absolutely true.
Speaker 2: Tell us what the tell us the insights?
Speaker 3: Oh, you think I can remember, But the technology was
Speaker 3: actually developed in his lab a long time ago, a
Speaker 3: long time ago.
Speaker 2: And back when people used peepers, probably.
Speaker 3: Could people use beeper. It's actually a battery technology, which
Speaker 3: is why it was you know, and the whole idea
Speaker 3: that you can quite easily in today's world disrupt the
Speaker 3: supply chain and move things in and out of it
Speaker 3: without anybody knowing.
Speaker 2: I mean, so I noticed this company that made the beepers,
Speaker 2: allegedly was in Budapest. And I might add that I
Speaker 2: noticed that you delivered your paper that we're going to
Speaker 2: talk about. But that's how you do an ambush, Lucretia.
Speaker 3: I'm also told that the original company that produced them,
Speaker 3: which means that they would have produced the the the trigger,
Speaker 3: shall we say, is a is Israeli shell company. And
Speaker 3: so what you actually have is Hesbela buying these beepers
Speaker 3: after an incredible psychological operation, just with after the cell
Speaker 3: phone business and whatever Hesbela leader. They killed that to
Speaker 3: get them to buy beepers. I mean, this has to
Speaker 3: be some amazing planning going on as a safer way
Speaker 3: of communicating and then buying these beepers and distributing in them.
Speaker 3: And it was an Israeli company, a shell company that
Speaker 3: produced and might have been in Budapest. I saw that too.
Speaker 3: But not only did they get the maime and otherwise
Speaker 3: harm the terrorists with these exploding beepers, they got the
Speaker 3: Hesbela to have to pay for them to the Israelis.
Speaker 2: That's right, they had. They were apparently, I mean, to
Speaker 2: maintain their front. They were making perfectly legitimate beepers too,
Speaker 2: and selling those two people or the right to become
Speaker 2: a legitimate seller in the marketplace until they got this contract.
Speaker 3: So what the way you described it was too. The
Speaker 3: sequence of events was absolutely right. What you didn't highlight,
Speaker 3: which I think is in some ways the most interesting
Speaker 3: are the actually the the second and third order effects
Speaker 3: of this. And so let's talk about the second order effect,
Speaker 3: and that's the psychological one that's kind of gotten a
Speaker 3: lot of a lot of play. You know the fact
Speaker 3: that you're, uh, you're blowing up beepers in guys pockets.
Speaker 3: I don't know, do hes blot people wear pockets, but
Speaker 3: for whatever reason.
Speaker 2: They're probably they probably carry man purses.
Speaker 3: Man purses around their waist. Whatever the explanation for that is,
Speaker 3: it seemed to have done an extraordinary amount of damage
Speaker 3: to an extraordinary number of terrorists around the Genitalia. I'll
Speaker 3: just leave it at that, and that in and of itself, yeah,
Speaker 3: I know, just kind of makes sure that in and
Speaker 3: of itself, in Muslim culture, terrorist culture, whatever you want
Speaker 3: to call it, is more devastating than being killed. You know,
Speaker 3: it's you can't go visit your seventy two virgins just
Speaker 3: if you got your genitalia blown off. You have to
Speaker 3: be a martyr to do that, right, Well.
Speaker 2: Christians in this point, I hate to say this, but
Speaker 2: if you study the economics of war, isn't it actually
Speaker 2: better to inflict casualties by wounding the enemy rather than
Speaker 2: killing them?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Outright, well, but more so I.
Speaker 3: Think in that culture, John, more so, because you know,
Speaker 3: it's very much I hate this word, that macho, kind
Speaker 3: of manly culture that you know, these guys walking around
Speaker 3: now maimed for life wherever they were maimed are less
Speaker 3: able as as you know, warriors whatever you want to
Speaker 3: call it to be.
Speaker 2: Although they conduct war by you know, trying to kill
Speaker 2: civilians and women and children. I mean, you're right that
Speaker 2: culture might be that way, but the way they conduct
Speaker 2: wars actually I think.
Speaker 3: But actually actually think they kill women and children because
Speaker 3: they don't consider them valuable, you know, I mean we
Speaker 3: see that all the time with the Palestinians. They're willing
Speaker 3: to use their children as human shields. So you have
Speaker 3: that whole psychological thing, and and the fact that they
Speaker 3: did it and then they did it again, and then
Speaker 3: they tried to fix it, and then they did it again.
Speaker 3: The Israelis did it to them again, and then you know,
Speaker 3: they killed off the whole bunch of Hesballa leaders because
Speaker 3: they got together they didn't want to trust any more
Speaker 3: communications devices, and then they had a very targeted strike
Speaker 3: against them. I mean, all that's that's just absolutely wonderful
Speaker 3: in my opinion. But there's one other thing that happened
Speaker 3: too as a result of sending out those beepers. Because
Speaker 3: once they once they were activated, they already could start
Speaker 3: putting together a network of known terrorists. And then once
Speaker 3: the Uh, once the damn was done and they went
Speaker 3: to hospitals, they could also uh do Lincoln Palate pattern
Speaker 3: analysis on on their families, on on their associates. So
Speaker 3: the amount of intel that they were able to garner
Speaker 3: as a result of the the pagers and the walkie talkies,
Speaker 3: uh is more invaluable than I'll ever understand. But so
Speaker 3: you know, you gotta love the Israelis. You got to,
Speaker 3: and then you've got to really despise those people. I
Speaker 3: guess you expect it from Rashida to leave in AOC,
Speaker 3: but those people on the left who are just so weak, Oh,
Speaker 3: how could you do this? You know, this is just
Speaker 3: how could you celebrate this kind of violence? I celebrated
Speaker 3: it with a lot of drinks. I will just tell
Speaker 3: you that right now, I was, I was having fun.
Speaker 2: We're not at the Babylon Bee part of the show,
Speaker 2: but there was one headline that said it was so funny,
Speaker 2: said Rashida to leave safe and unharmed after big Ber explodes.
Speaker 2: Yet it was very funny.
Speaker 3: It was funny. Remind just remind that our listeners, what
Speaker 3: a horrible excuse for human beings and ORGANI human organization
Speaker 3: has bala is and all of the innocence that they've killed,
Speaker 3: and I could list it.
Speaker 2: I operate primarily by attacking innocence. That's my the thing
Speaker 2: they're not. You said, they have a masculine culture, but
Speaker 2: they're not a civilized warrior culture in the sense that civilizations.
Speaker 2: The warrior ethos is not to attack innocence to fight
Speaker 2: other combatants. The one thing I came away with from
Speaker 2: the Beeverything to carry your point further is what does
Speaker 2: it mean Israel's up to? And so one thing I'm
Speaker 2: glad is it shows that they're not listening to the
Speaker 2: Biden administration. Yes, the Biden administration wants the fighting in
Speaker 2: Gaza to end, doesn't want there to be any conflict
Speaker 2: along the Lebanon border. And it seems see what Israel
Speaker 2: is doing is what makes sense. They're closing out Gaza,
Speaker 2: you know, not closing out, but they're finishing the war
Speaker 2: or drawing down the war against the moss and Gaza
Speaker 2: where they conducted the war. I think, you know, with
Speaker 2: all due effectiveness, but they realize the real problem is
Speaker 2: Hesbelah to the north. And it seems to me, you
Speaker 2: attack the leadership of Hesbelah before you're about to do
Speaker 2: something else, And so I imagine this means that there's
Speaker 2: going to be some kind of broader offensive against Hesbela,
Speaker 2: that Israel will take advantage now of the disorder they've
Speaker 2: sown in their ranks and take the war to them,
Speaker 2: which makes complete sense to me, I think, and then
Speaker 2: remove those two great threats on its border.
Speaker 3: And then let's never forget that we don't necessarily have
Speaker 3: to be sending them foreign aid and arms and those
Speaker 3: sorts of things. Don't want to get into that debate
Speaker 3: right now, but even my anti Neocon friends are actually
Speaker 3: cheering on Israel and all of this in part because
Speaker 3: the Biden administration did have no part in it.
Speaker 2: But if anything, they've they've given billions of dollars to Iran,
Speaker 2: which has turned around and right funnel the money to
Speaker 2: La and Hamas.
Speaker 3: My best tweet of the day was the other day
Speaker 3: that it was Biden administration gives one billion dollars to Iran,
Speaker 3: who gives it to Hesbalah, who uses it to buy
Speaker 3: a beepers, who uses it to Da Da Da Da da.
Speaker 3: A great day for Jake Sullivan. Jake Sullivan, this was
Speaker 3: one of those Uh.
Speaker 2: This is a sad thing to say, but I think
Speaker 2: we will look back on all of these people, Jake Sullivan,
Speaker 2: Blink and Austin as maybe the most incompetent national security
Speaker 2: staff we have had since Parl Harbor. I mean this
Speaker 2: has been an otter design. I mean Carter looks good
Speaker 2: compared to this, right, I mean this has been a disaster,
Speaker 2: and all those leaders are I think, are going to
Speaker 2: go down in history as having done a terrible, terrible
Speaker 2: job for the United States. So but short and incompetent.
Speaker 3: Only, if only if the globalist perspective doesn't end up
Speaker 3: writing history. Remember, they're happy about the fact that the
Speaker 3: United States is waning in international influence. They don't want
Speaker 3: any hegemone to be on top. They want they want equilibrium,
Speaker 3: and not just equilibrium amongst the superpowers, but the third
Speaker 3: world countries third world I won't use the word countries.
Speaker 3: They want to make sure that prosperous capitalist countries suffer
Speaker 3: so that third world countries. I don't know, I guess
Speaker 3: if our suffering helps that third world countries do better,
Speaker 3: or at least there's a relative equality if you bring
Speaker 3: us all down to the bottom. I'm not really sure
Speaker 3: how their thinking works, but we know that from Obama on.
Speaker 3: Obama thinks that the United States is not exceptional, and
Speaker 3: there's nothing about the United States that means it ought
Speaker 3: to be a leader of the free world. So when
Speaker 3: you say in competent, I agree, but they don't see
Speaker 3: it as incompetence.
Speaker 2: You know what. That is a great segue to our
Speaker 2: last topic, actually, isn't it. So let's take our last
Speaker 2: commercial break here, and when we come back, we will
Speaker 2: talk about Lucretia's recent posting, which I will set up
Speaker 2: because I was independently asking her about questions I've been
Speaker 2: coming to during my own reading about these issues. So
Speaker 2: when we come back, I heard everybody. Our last segment
Speaker 2: is going to be on a paper that Lucretia posted
Speaker 2: while she was setting up shell beeper companies in Hungary.
Speaker 2: So while she was in Hungary, we don't know why
Speaker 2: she delivered a paper which Steve has posted on the
Speaker 2: substack page associated with power line. Is that where we
Speaker 2: think it's hours Okay, you and Steve have your own substack.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, but you excluded.
Speaker 3: You are always welcome.
Speaker 2: But in all seriousness though, that's whorrified. But Steve has
Speaker 2: got to post it to the show notes too, because
Speaker 2: I thought it was really interesting. And the background to this, everybody,
Speaker 2: is that Lucretia, Steve and I are going to be
Speaker 2: teaching a class at Berkeley and October on constitutional interpretation,
Speaker 2: and one of the big issues is this resurgence of
Speaker 2: what's called common good constitutionalism, which rejects the idea of
Speaker 2: small l liberalism, which is, I think, as I understand
Speaker 2: as I would describe its small liberalism, I think begins
Speaker 2: with the idea that the legitimacy of our government begins
Speaker 2: with consent. And so it's consent to the Constitution which
Speaker 2: gives the constitutional government legitimacy. It's also why we enforce
Speaker 2: the Constitution and not just whatever we feel like.
Speaker 3: Doing today, So which is common law to me John, But.
Speaker 2: Yes, he's not here to exactly. So that's the question
Speaker 2: I was coming to.
Speaker 1: Was.
Speaker 2: So this critique by one of my really good friends,
Speaker 2: Adrian Vermuil, a really very thoughtful guy, but a bunch
Speaker 2: of others too, argues that liberalism has been a failure
Speaker 2: and that instead of following the pure original understanding of
Speaker 2: the Constitution, which he claims may be unknowable, we should
Speaker 2: be enforcing policies and rules that provide for the common good.
Speaker 2: So I asked Lucretia, just by chance, you know, I've
Speaker 2: been doing this reading what is the source of political
Speaker 2: legitimacy for people who don't we're not liberals, small liberals
Speaker 2: who don't believe that government comes about because of individual consent.
Speaker 2: And I guess in fact, I was asking what was
Speaker 2: the theory of political legitimacy for the governments before the
Speaker 2: idea of the social contract came along, before Hobbes and
Speaker 2: Locke came along and built the idea of government based
Speaker 2: on consent. Because I couldn't really figure out reading the
Speaker 2: common good constitutionalism stuff, where where it comes from, where
Speaker 2: political legitimacy comes from? Well and so, and actually Lucretia
Speaker 2: then said, I have a paper about this, but it's only.
Speaker 3: Partially an answer to your question, John, because your question
Speaker 3: also asks, you know, where did it come from prior
Speaker 3: to social contract theory? And also where does it come
Speaker 3: from now if you reject social contract theory.
Speaker 2: So the simple as this could be two different answers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for prior to social contract theory is religion. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's not the entire explanation of it, but from the
Speaker 3: you know, that from prior to the b C. I
Speaker 3: guess you'd call it prior to the birth of Christ,
Speaker 3: or the take over.
Speaker 2: Under the Roman gods, under the Roman gods.
Speaker 3: The Greek gods, even all of those barbarians out there
Speaker 3: fighting against the Israelis and in Canaan, and you know,
Speaker 3: all of those people, the gods of the city were
Speaker 3: the were the ruling forces of the city, and gave
Speaker 3: legitimacy to the laws. And so that if you were
Speaker 3: a citizen, excuse me, in one of those ancient cities,
Speaker 3: your piety was being a good we might say today
Speaker 3: a patriot. Better way to put it is you obey
Speaker 3: the laws, You're being highest because the laws had their
Speaker 3: legitimacy and something greater than human beings. When Christianity comes along,
Speaker 3: it complicates the issue a bit because in the ancient
Speaker 3: days you had the gods of the cities, gods plural cities, plurals.
Speaker 3: Each city had its own, each state whatever you want
Speaker 3: to call it, had its own gods. But if your
Speaker 3: god was defeated in battle, then you know, the other
Speaker 3: city took you over and you had to adopt their gods.
Speaker 3: And so, okay, Christianity comes along, it it's just.
Speaker 2: Kind of like the divine right of kings. Take the
Speaker 2: right of king's part out, but it's still divine the
Speaker 2: regency comes from.
Speaker 3: But what you said is very important because post Christianity,
Speaker 3: what you would the primary source, at least in the
Speaker 3: Western world is in fact the divine right of kings
Speaker 3: and the king. That's why you know, uh succession was
Speaker 3: so important what it still is in those places.
Speaker 2: There the fight between the popes and the kings was
Speaker 2: a poorb So who's in charge.
Speaker 3: The pope or the king? Because you have divided loyalties now,
Speaker 3: your piety to your God is to the Christian universal God,
Speaker 3: that's everybody's God. Everybody can be saved now as opposed
Speaker 3: to you know, in the Hebrew Bible, the God had
Speaker 3: his chosen people, and with the advent of Christianity and
Speaker 3: with the Roman Empire carrying it essentially over the world,
Speaker 3: you now have divided loyalty between your God and your
Speaker 3: eternal salvation. And here, the here and now makes it
Speaker 3: very difficult to establish any kind of sovereignty for for
Speaker 3: a leader, a ruler without some kind of divine justification
Speaker 3: tied to it. Shall we say so? The reason that
Speaker 3: Hobbes first, and then Locke.
Speaker 2: Oh can I answer before we get to Hobbs and Lock,
Speaker 2: so before we get to them, because he doesn't come
Speaker 2: up with social contract theory. But Machiavelli is very critical
Speaker 2: of Christianity for right trying to put up set up
Speaker 2: as an ideal these virtues you can't really achieve and
Speaker 2: actually produce a kind of weakness that invites other city
Speaker 2: states to take advantage of you and you so so
Speaker 2: many who are not good political legitimacy come for him
Speaker 2: because he's very modern, right people off in the you
Speaker 2: know Harvey Manster that thinks of him as the first
Speaker 2: modern political philosopher, but he's pre social contract theory.
Speaker 3: Machiavelli is an interesting case because he looks around and
Speaker 3: he sees the weakness, as you say, of political authorities.
Speaker 3: He sees the strength of the popes. There's a lot
Speaker 3: of interesting stuff about the popes and Machiavelli, but basically
Speaker 3: his argument is this, you cannot be a Christian, a
Speaker 3: Christian or even in some ways an ancient philosophy ruler,
Speaker 3: because you'll try to do what is good, what is
Speaker 3: the right thing to do. You'll try to follow justice,
Speaker 3: and in the real world those things basically don't exist.
Speaker 3: And as he puts it, anyone who he who tries
Speaker 3: to do what is good for the sake of good,
Speaker 3: comes amongst so many who are evil, comes to ruin.
Speaker 3: So Machiavelli is the ultimate the ends justify the means.
Speaker 3: But he provides that sort of an end of the wedge,
Speaker 3: camel's nose under the tent, whatever lame metaphor you want,
Speaker 3: or the separation of the church from the authority of
Speaker 3: the state. We don't have anything like separation of church
Speaker 3: and state, as we find in the American regime at
Speaker 3: this point. But once of Machiavelli unhinges the authority of
Speaker 3: the pope from the authority of the state in theory,
Speaker 3: Hobbes comes along and he sees that what Machiavelli was
Speaker 3: so worried about. He sees these civil wars. He sees
Speaker 3: these wars on the continent that are destructive, They create
Speaker 3: massive instability. And so Hobbes has this, and I make
Speaker 3: this very quick, has this theory of the social contract,
Speaker 3: which is based upon this radical humanity, excuse me, radical
Speaker 3: equality of humanity. We are so absolutely fundamentally equal in
Speaker 3: the important respects. Because we are all at risk of
Speaker 3: a violent death, and the most compelling human motivation is
Speaker 3: fear of violent death. No other motivation, feeling, thinking, anything
Speaker 3: comes close. So we agree we form this social contract
Speaker 3: under Hobbes. Because remember Hobbs says that before or we
Speaker 3: have a social contract in the state of nature. The
Speaker 3: state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Speaker 3: Why would anybody want to stay there? So, because we
Speaker 3: all fear violent death, we come together in this social contract.
Speaker 3: We agree to give up all of those rights that
Speaker 3: are ours by nature because of our radical equality. No
Speaker 3: person has any rights over anyone else, any authority over
Speaker 3: anyone else. We're all our own rulers. But we give
Speaker 3: up that exercise in order for peace and security in Hobbes,
Speaker 3: and we set up over us ourselves a sovereign or
Speaker 3: a leviathan. And there is no appeal in Hobbes. This
Speaker 3: is the important part. Without a long lecture on Hobbs,
Speaker 3: there is no appeal from the sovereign. Everything the sovereign
Speaker 3: does is by definition just so we've gone from Machiavelli,
Speaker 3: who said, oh, you can't really do what's try to
Speaker 3: do what's just when everybody's able to definition of justice
Speaker 3: is what the sovereign does. So Locke comes along and
Speaker 3: he moderates that a bit. I guess you could say
Speaker 3: one place in. Locke says the state of war is
Speaker 3: so far from the state of nature that they're not
Speaker 3: even the same thing, and that the law of nature
Speaker 3: is written on the hearts of man, so we are
Speaker 3: not motivated entirely and completely by fear of violent death.
Speaker 3: According to Locke, we have the law of nature written
Speaker 3: on our hearts. We know what's right and wrong, we
Speaker 3: know what the golden rule is. The problem is that
Speaker 3: our rationality is often undermined, shall we say, by our feelings,
Speaker 3: by our passions, And so even though we have the
Speaker 3: law of nature written in our hearts, we are often
Speaker 3: faulty in our application of it. And that's why we
Speaker 3: need a social contract. Not because the state of nature
Speaker 3: is solitary, poornessy and short, but it's just not the
Speaker 3: best place for us, so we rationally decide to form
Speaker 3: a social contract. The outcome of that that makes it
Speaker 3: different from Hobbes is that the sovereign is no longer
Speaker 3: all powerful and completely in charge, shall we say, There
Speaker 3: is an appeal from the sovereign. The social contract remains
Speaker 3: the most important part of my ruling myself, and agreeing
Speaker 3: with you that your ruling yourself will give up some
Speaker 3: exercise of our rights in order to have better security
Speaker 3: for all of our rights. Our founding fathers adopted the
Speaker 3: Lockeand point of view. Okay, not the absolute sovereign, the
Speaker 3: leviathan of Hobbes, but.
Speaker 2: The social constitutional government. Yes, exactly, and so what happens
Speaker 2: when religion disappears as the source. But you also reject
Speaker 2: social contract theory. That's what this sort of new conservative
Speaker 2: attack on cost two government. Right, So we're used to
Speaker 2: the left, you mentioned it earlier. The leftist attack on
Speaker 2: the constitution is it's a colonialist of pressers sticking it
Speaker 2: to the weak. Why should we respect the outcomes of
Speaker 2: the constitution is all done by racist slaveholders, and they're
Speaker 2: sympathizers anyway. But now we have this new critique from
Speaker 2: conservatives who reject social contract theory. You know, the Benthamer
Speaker 2: Mills individualistic nonsense on stilt social contract. There's never historically
Speaker 2: any state of nature, there was never any meeting, there
Speaker 2: was never any entry into a social compact. It's all
Speaker 2: just an artifice. So there that's the utilitarian criticism. So
Speaker 2: they adopt some of that, but these people are not utilitarians.
Speaker 2: They are right, we reject individualism and the autonomy idea
Speaker 2: underlying the social contract idea. But I have a hard
Speaker 2: time wondering where their theory of political legitimacy comes from
Speaker 2: because they don't make it openly one based in religion either.
Speaker 2: They don't say, let's go back to the pre social
Speaker 2: contract way of thinking of where government comes from, the
Speaker 2: social contracts.
Speaker 3: So what do we have we They do appeal to
Speaker 3: religion and tradition.
Speaker 2: That's that's a history and tradition, Yes.
Speaker 3: History and tradition that or you could even say common law,
Speaker 3: that we have seen things that work, and those things
Speaker 3: that work are things that we should continue to do.
Speaker 3: That we should develop them into traditions and deep cultural norms,
Speaker 3: and that that's if we could do that, we could
Speaker 3: go back from this god awful place we're in where
Speaker 3: we don't know who what's a woman? We don't you
Speaker 3: know there, we don't know how many sex excuse me,
Speaker 3: genders there are. You can be a furry, you know,
Speaker 3: all of the abortion on demand assistant suicide, all of
Speaker 3: the things that the right, the conservative right, quite finally,
Speaker 3: quite rightly finds objectionable, but there is actually no legitimacy.
Speaker 3: You go to the deep ages of time and hope
Speaker 3: that those kinds of traditions and cultural norms are enough
Speaker 3: to carry you through. I do want to mention quickly,
Speaker 3: and I know I've gone long on this already, but
Speaker 3: I want to contrast that because I actually think that
Speaker 3: those conservatives we're talking about right now join the left
Speaker 3: in this whole enterprise. If you go back to even
Speaker 3: if you don't all go all the way back to Locke,
Speaker 3: but you go to Jefferson, the entire Declaration of Independence,
Speaker 3: and then the country the constitution built on the principles
Speaker 3: there are dependent upon a very specific view of human
Speaker 3: nature that it adopts the radical equality of Hobbes that
Speaker 3: is carried on by Lock. It adopts the notion that seems,
Speaker 3: according to Jefferson at least self evident that if you
Speaker 3: are your own natural ruler, you have the right to life,
Speaker 3: your own life, your own property, your own liberty. And
Speaker 3: that's the basis a very low not quite as low
Speaker 3: as Hobbes, but a very low basis for forming a
Speaker 3: constitution and a form of government. But the Founding fathers
Speaker 3: also understood much more about human nature that actually applies here.
Speaker 3: They have a capacity for virtue human beings do they
Speaker 3: have a capacity for evil, They have a capacity for
Speaker 3: hatred and resentment, good, you know, all of those things
Speaker 3: that education and culture so on help form human beings
Speaker 3: one way or the other. But they have a nature,
Speaker 3: and that nature is the same, let's say in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four as it was in seventeen eighty seven. Human
Speaker 3: beings are not fundamentally different today in any fundamental respect
Speaker 3: than they were in seventeen eighty seven or in the
Speaker 3: time of Locke or Hobbes. What that is contrasted with
Speaker 3: are the progressives who believe that human beings are infinitely
Speaker 3: perfectible and that society is infinitely perfectible. And if you
Speaker 3: believe that society is infinitely perfectible and human beings are,
Speaker 3: then when you sacrifice individuals or whole groups of people
Speaker 3: toward that wonderful, lofty goal, it's really not a problem.
Speaker 3: There's no dignity in the individual human being. There's only
Speaker 3: dignity in that final progressive utopia and communism is that
Speaker 3: way the progressives of the nineteen twenties in the United
Speaker 3: States believe that that's where eugenics comes from. And so
Speaker 3: I think, I hate to say it, but our friends
Speaker 3: on the right are a little bit naive about what
Speaker 3: they share with the other side. They take, they take, yeah, way,
Speaker 3: we're way over to pick it up next time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we actually should reserve that to next time.
Speaker 2: Whether the conservative critique of constitutionalism or originalism is the
Speaker 2: same or different than the liberal critique of originalism or constitutionalism,
Speaker 2: I think that the there's more to the common good
Speaker 2: constitutionalism side than there is to the to the progressive side.
Speaker 2: I think conservative constitutional common good constitutional people do think
Speaker 2: that there's a place for rules and norms, but it
Speaker 2: still leads open the question what is the ultimate source
Speaker 2: of political legitimacy?
Speaker 3: Of it all?
Speaker 2: Because people should read your paper, because your paper is
Speaker 2: a critique of the idea of just relying on history
Speaker 2: and to just in tradition for its own sake. So
Speaker 2: why don't we stop there? And if you want to
Speaker 2: close Lucretia with the babylon b headlines, yeah.
Speaker 3: I'll have to just keep it to a couple because
Speaker 3: I know how we're long, there's a list of the
Speaker 3: remaining ten celebrities who haven't endorsed Kamala Harris. Fifteen seconds
Speaker 3: into Kamala Harris interview, Oprah decides to endorse Trump. We
Speaker 3: can't afford another four years of this, shouts, running made
Speaker 3: of candidate who has been leading country for four years.
Speaker 3: I didn't even want to give any of any credence
Speaker 3: whatsoever to the Diddy thing. That's just I just want
Speaker 3: to stop my emails I get from the Post because
Speaker 3: they seem to be obsessed by Diddy and by our
Speaker 3: FK Junior's sex texting with some reporter. I couldn't care
Speaker 3: less but sorry. Governor Abbott declares textuary sanctuary state for memor.
Speaker 3: I know you've been following your governor who wants to
Speaker 3: outlaw means that make fun of him and other things. Jill,
Speaker 3: we didn't even talk about this really quick. Did everyone
Speaker 3: see that Biden held his first in the s of
Speaker 3: my last one, held his first cabinet meeting in eleven months, spoke,
Speaker 3: rambled for a couple of incoherent seconds, and turned over
Speaker 3: the cabinet meeting to doctor Jill Biden.
Speaker 2: You know I saw that that was bizarre it was barre.
Speaker 3: Jill Biden becomes first female president, says the Babylon be
Speaker 3: What a crazy world we live in? John Yes, and
Speaker 3: then Biden promises next Trump assassin will be a woman
Speaker 3: of color.
Speaker 2: Okay, So we still are waiting to decide on our
Speaker 2: new sign off. We might have to wait until after
Speaker 2: the election and then shape our new sign off based
Speaker 2: on whoever wins.
Speaker 3: So shape our new sign off unburdened by what is in.
Speaker 2: So goodbye everybody, Goodbye Lucretia, and we'll see you next weekend.
Speaker 2: It's my understanding that we might even have a Steve
Speaker 2: Hayward sighting at our next episode.
Speaker 3: Yeah, rumor has it. Have a wonderful week John, you.
Speaker 2: Two, Chrisia, Bye everybody.
Speaker 4: Well have you heard about the painter Vincent van gorm
Speaker 4: who love Colorado? Let it show and in the museum?
Speaker 4: What have we here? The most solful pain a Cyncion
Speaker 4: for me Edy Long he loved that's so bad paint
Speaker 4: and tad twice in color all the pain and tad
Speaker 4: go bad. That the world had to know he love Colorado.
Speaker 4: Let us show in the Ampstead Museum.
Speaker 2: I was feeling bad and looking for away, not to
Speaker 2: be so sad.
Speaker 4: I felt the feeling from the paintings all the waw
Speaker 4: and Vincent Vangal.
Speaker 2: Was with me in the hall, and he loved he
Speaker 2: loved life that way.
Speaker 4: These painting said things pain and seldom saying so bad
Speaker 4: that the world had to know.
Speaker 1: He loved color.
Speaker 4: Letty shaw
Speaker 2: Ricochet joined the conversation.