Speaker 1: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask
what you can do for your country.
Speaker 2: Mister Gorbachoff, tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: It's the Ricaget Podcast. I'm James Lillax and of course
we have Generald your cook here, and who's walking through
that doorwiye, it's founder Peter Robinson. Yes, let's have ourselves
a podcast.
Speaker 3: Will you make a public commitment today to rule out
US regime change in Cuba?
Speaker 2: Regime change?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Oh no, I think we would love to see the
regime their change. We would like to see That doesn't
mean that we're going to make a change, but we
would love to.
Speaker 4: See a change.
Speaker 3: I'm not asking you whether we would prefer a different
kind of government. I'm asking whether you are trying to
precipitate the fall of the current regime.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's statutory the Helms Burton Act. The US
embargo on Cuba is codified.
Speaker 1: Welcome everybody, it's the Ricagete Podcast, number seven hundred and
seventy four. You Yes, you can join us at ricochet
dot com and be part of the most stimulating conversations
and community on the web. Join the member site where
the real friendships form, and you'll say where's this been
on my life?
Speaker 4: Where?
Speaker 1: Well? Waiting for you, and we're waiting for Peter Robinson
to say hello. It's been a while. Hello Peter, it
has been a while.
Speaker 4: How are you?
Speaker 1: James couldn't be worse. And Charles C. W. Cook, who
is with us from Florida. Charles, You're glad you've joined us.
Speaker 5: Nice to be here.
Speaker 1: And of course I'm in Minneapolis or Snoogot issue as
some people are calling it. It's a term particularly fond of.
But it has been another week. It has been another week.
We'll get to some of the things that happened. But
the most breaking story I love saying that breaking is
that they not only arrested Don Leman, but they arrested
an independent journalist in Minneapolis Saint Paul area for participating
in the church break in or the sit in or
the the Kurf fluff or whatever you want to call it,
where they barged in and started telling everybody how bad
they were. This is interesting to me because and I
would like to pretend to grapple with it. Before coming
to I pre examined my predetermined conclusion. But this whole
arresting journalists thing, there's a lot in that. There's a
lot in the word journalist, there's a lot in independent journalist.
Where are we exactly now with this? And it's a
dark new age that is besetting the country. Peter, I'll
let you start, because it's been such a long time.
Speaker 4: Uh sure, I want to hear more from you in
due course, of course. I mean, in particular, I still
think of Minneapolis, my couple of exposures to Minneapolis. It's
left of center and all, but it's a very neighborly place,
the just sort of pervasive air of friendship and goodwill
and neighborliness. And I gather that even there are attentions
are such that even in a grocery store, you can
actually feel it. So I want to hear about that.
On the journalism, I just don't know. A journalist used
to be a reasonably well defined person, and you could
prove she could prove that he was a journalist by
showing that he worked for the Washington Post or the
New York Times or CBS News. And now anybody with
a sub stack can say I'm an independent journalist.
Speaker 5: So I mean.
Speaker 4: I don't And then, of course we know that even
under the most carefully the most careful construction of the
First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Even at that,
even when if you're dealing with a thoroughly credentialed journalist
in the old sense where we all understood what journalists meant,
there are lots of things journalists can't do. They can't
break into they can't they can't trespass, they can't engage
in violence, they can't engage in incitement. So I don't know,
I'm the whole thing makes me very uneasy. Is does
everything that's taking place in Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: In Minnesota credential doesn't He is an interesting word. What
exactly does that mean? What does it mean? Right? If
you go to journalism school, does that mean you are credentialed? No, necessarily.
If you are working for a newspaper, does that mean, Well,
it depends on the newspaper. Is it one guy where
they you know, you know, putting together four sheets folded
in his basement from the Hewart packer printer or is
it a big sheet that rolls off of a massive
does that Does that mean it's credentialed and legit?
Speaker 4: I mean, even somebody such as Charlie Cook, for example,
could claim to be a journalist.
Speaker 6: Well, I wouldn't have to, because there is no distinction
in the law between journalists credentialed or otherwise than anybody else.
The First Amendment applies or it doesn't.
Speaker 4: Well, wait a minute, what about what about New York
Times v. Sullivan?
Speaker 5: But that applies to everybody.
Speaker 6: There's no such thing as a journalist in the law.
The First Amendment either applies to the activity or it
does not. The New York Times or they run a
sub stack, or they just one day decided they were
going to go out and observe something, The same laws apply.
Second point I would make about this, and I also
don't know how this will come out, but for various reasons,
some of them good. Historically, the sentence the president has
initiated the arrest of all prosecution of a journalist makes
people nervous in the same way as the sentence the
president has initiated the arrest or prosecution of a judge
makes people nervous. But one has to get to the
second part of any sentence to know whether it's good
or bad. We had this case in Wisconsin in which
this judge facilitated the escape of an illegal immigrant. The
Trump administration went after her. The press immediately said, oh
my god, this is Nazi Germany, where they go after judges.
But she was convicted, and the reason she was convicted
was because she did it. And I think the one
thing about this that makes me a little bit nervous
to combine those two points is that we have seen
this reflexive argument instantly emerge in the wake of this arrest,
the presumption underneath of which is that there's no way
that a journalist with credentials could have done something wrong,
And this is a self conception of the press that
is bizarre.
Speaker 5: It seems to me entirely possible.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying likely, I'm not saying guaranteed, but it
seems to me entirely possible given what we know about this,
that Don Lemon was part of a violation of the
Face Act. He knew what they were going to do,
he didn't try and stop it, he didn't happen upon it.
Speaker 5: He was part of.
Speaker 6: So the case goes the construction of an illegal act,
and journalists are not allowed to get away with that
just because they shout.
Speaker 5: The First Amendment.
Speaker 6: Now, on the other hand, if he was merely acting
in a reportorial capacity. Then perhaps he's innocent, and perhaps
he'll get away with it anyway, because they'll apply a
different level of scrutiny to him because he is a journalist.
But I just hate the wooly thinking that I'm seeing
on this that ipso facta, it's wrong to prosecute him
because at one point or another they worked for CNN.
We can't have a country in which that's the case.
Speaker 1: Well, we have a conception of journalists in this country
that goes back eighty years and it precedes all the
president's spen. It goes back to every wise cracking newspaper
movie that was ever made, going back to the thirties,
where you have a bustling room full of hard nosed
guys in wisecrack and gals who are getting the story,
who are working for the public, who are trying to
get the truth out there part of a big organization
with lots of smoke and lots of liquor and lots
of fast docking pattern and all the rest of it.
And that was the model up in the popular imagination
up until you know, I don't know, ten fifteen years ago,
when the idea of the newspaper as such begin to
recede completely until now it's just the only time people
really think about them is when the Washington Post announces
it's shuttering its entire sports desk or something like that.
So I mean saying I've never called myself a journalist.
I worked for a journalist organization, but I never pretended
to be objective, and so I never felt comfortable calling
myself a journalist. I was an opinion writer, a columnist,
and just because I had an ax to grind, though,
do that mean that I wasn't a journalist. I guarantee
you that there are many actes being sharpened on big
whetstones in the back of the mind merely everybody who's
got into the profession. Now what is should the government
do something about it?
Speaker 4: Though?
Speaker 1: There was a case tell me what you guys think
about this of somebody who was said that there was
a bad security at a nuclear facility and we sho
shouldn't shouldn't be so lax and securing stuff like this,
it's dangerous stuff. And so he hopped the fence just
to show how easy it was to get in, and
once he got in, security found him and arrested him,
and the FBI had a file of fourteen hundred pages
in the US Attorney for the state of Illinois and
paneled a grand jury to charge him with espionage. Do
you think that that was correct? Hold on, let me stop.
Do you know who that man was.
Speaker 7: In?
Speaker 1: Was Paul Harvey? Really good day? Yeah. One of the
first things he did in his career working for a
radio station was to you know, get bad nuclear security,
and he hopped the fence got himself arrested. It's called
participatory investigation. Participatory journalism is what they call it at
the time. So Paul, of course would go on to
be a national treasure. But it's interesting how these details
come to mined sometimes. Anyway, Well, there you go.
Speaker 6: I answer to the question, though, is that if there
was a problem with that charging, it was because it
was over zealous, not because he was claiming to act
in a journalistic capacity. I mean, I wouldn't want you
or anyone else to be charged with that. It's not
because he was poor Harvey, right. And I keep harping
on this just because journalists do seem to believe it's
a class, that they are specially protected, that the First
Amendment applies to them and not other people. That if
they just show their press credential, then they can get
away with something that others wouldn't. And that's just not
how the law works, and it's annoying as well.
Speaker 1: Right, But let me tell you that you show your
press credentials and you do have special treatment. You do
get to go places at other people don't. I remember
in Washington, I went for my press credentials and behind
me was a flag and it was a I think
it was white with a green striped diagonal. And what
that meant was I had certain access to certain areas.
So you could look at somebody's press credential and tell
exactly how far they could get in based on the
flag behind them. If you are at a political convention
where I've been, you have big, huge badges around your
neck with holograms on them to tell them whether or
not you can go in this room. You get used
to that, You get used to waving the press card
and being able to go places that other people can't,
and this I think affects how you see you.
Speaker 2: All.
Speaker 1: Right, another shooting, we had Alex, pretty intensive care nurse
killed by federal agents. And now we have a new
video and Charles, let's get to Wooly thinking about this,
because when the new video came out showing him on
the site kicking out the tailight of an ice vehicle
and spitting at it and saying the F bob and
the middle finger and all the rest of the charming
ways in which we protesting this country, some people were saying, well,
it doesn't change anything, doesn't mean he deserved to get shot,
which is wooly thinking. Guide us through, if you will,
as a firearms enthusiast, how you regard this episode, especially
the people say, oh, I thought you like Copencarey. I
thought they were supposed to have I thought they were
supposed to have guns in order to withstand a tyrenical government.
Isn't just this that?
Speaker 6: Wow, there's so much there. I'll try not to speak
for ten minutes.
Speaker 1: Peter jump in after nine.
Speaker 6: Yeah, the second video does not affect the shooting because
it was on a different day, in different circumstances. He
was not shot for his cumulative actions or for his character.
So in so far as people saw that second video
of him kicking out the tail light.
Speaker 5: And said, Aha, that explains it, it doesn't.
Speaker 6: The second video does, though, obviate the claim that he
was just a lovely, peaceful nurse who spent his time
helping puppies and children. That's not true, and that has
been smuggled in to the narrative to make it seem
as if he was an innocent bystander, in much the
same way as the shooting of Rene Good was after
a few days described as the murder of a mother
who was in the wrong place at the wrong time,
having dropped off her child. And if you believe that
the truth matter is an idea, then we ought not
to allow that. The video of him kicking out the
tail light shows somebody who was very angry and unhinged,
somebody who is shouting, verbatim, effing, assault me, you mother, effers,
somebody who committed a felony by kicking a federal vehicle
and causing more than a thousand dollars of damage to
look up the cost of the tail light.
Speaker 5: That's the law.
Speaker 6: Below a thousand is a misdemeanor, above a thousand is
a felony, and who had a gun on him, which
renders it a felony irrespective of the scale of the crime.
So the video doesn't matter, and it doesn't, but it
matters in so far as it pushes back against this
desire some how to turn everyone who has been the
victim of a wrong into a saint. On the gun point,
he committed in the second video of federal crime by
committing a crime while carrying a firearm. That's a felony.
But he wasn't arrested, he wasn't charged, and eleven days
later he got into a different incident, which I think
is much more difficult to passe out as a matter
of prudence.
Speaker 5: I don't think you should carry a gun and fight
with fee officers.
Speaker 6: But some of the rhetoric that's come out of the
Trump administration about this is just wrong. It is not
true that you are not allowed to go to a
protest armed. There are some states in which that is true.
California is one of them, which makes it ridiculous that
Gavin Newsom has adopted this stance. He has because he
signed the law outlaw and carry it protest, But Minnesota
is not that state. Minnesota wants to be that state
because Minnesota father brief with the Supreme Court arguing that
the Second Amendment doesn't apply to protests that was signed
by Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of Minnesota. But at
the moment that is not the law. The law is
that you can carry it a protest. You can also
approach cops and federal agents while armed and not expect
to get shot. A lot of what the Trump administration
has said is wrong. On the other hand, a lot
of what the left has said is wrong as well,
in that a it has been trying to outlaw the gun.
He was carrying carry itself and carrying a protests, but
is now acting as some sort of indignant Wayne Lapierre
stand in.
Speaker 5: That's ridiculous.
Speaker 6: And the description of the Second Amendment here from progressives
has been bizarre. Dean Phillips, who ran for president against
Joe Biden in twenty twenty four on the grounds that
Joe Biden was too old shocker, said that he finally
understood what the Second Amendment was for.
Speaker 5: That's an insane thing to say. Let's just clarify this.
Speaker 6: The Second Amendment is in part there to protect against
tyrannical governments.
Speaker 5: But you have to actually start a war to exercise it.
It's not an ally kart system.
Speaker 6: You can't say, well, I don't like this law, I
don't like this agent, I don't like this tactic in
this city, so we can just what shoot them. I mean,
the Second Amendment is all or nothing. If you're going
to take the Second Amendment remedy, you are starting a
revolution that you have to take to its logical conclusion.
So this doesn't somehow substantiate the Second Amendment. It doesn't
render those of us who are in favor of the
Second Amendment and haven't said what the Trump administration has
said hypocrites.
Speaker 5: We don't believe you are allowed to open fire on
federal agents.
Speaker 6: So I think so much of the commentary on this
has been completely ridiculous. I do think this was a
bad shoot. I will say I think they got it wrong.
I think it was probably the product of an accident.
I think there was a misunderstanding. He did have a gun,
he was disarmed. Someone shouts gun. Some people said the
gun went off. I'm not sure if it did or not.
And then the agent opens fire and is joined by
another agent. I don't think that it was willful. I
don't think that it was an assassination, but I do
think it was a mistake. I do think they were
too trigger happy, and I think that it's important to
acknowledge that as the Trump administration did not, at least initially.
Trump's been much better than all of his underlings, because,
as I said before, the truth has to matter.
Speaker 1: I think both were regrettable and wrong, to be frank,
and I think both were entirely avoidable. And it's one
of the reasons that don't park like gar perpendicular in
the street. When I see the police apprehending some Peruvian
pedophile what they've managed to track down? Peter, what say
you are? Is this fellow a domestic terrorist? As Christine
doan calm, No.
Speaker 4: No, the use of the word terrorist is wrong. There
by the way, Charlie, thank you very First of all,
when Charlie's angry, he's the thing to behold. He's a
wonder on any podcast, and he is extremely angry right now.
That's lovely. I confess to wooly thinking. I began with
the program with Willy thinking. I'm just offering up my
sort of reactions reading the news, looking at it as
it pops up in my ex file. Thank you Charles C. W.
Cook for rigorous thinking about journalism and the law and
the constitution. Now I confess I go from wooly thinking,
confessing that to confessing a second thought, which is that
my thinking tends to run in political grooves, and the
politics of the thing that I see here are as follows.
Five weeks ago, four weeks ago, the big story in
Minnesota was the enormous corruption, the theft at staggering levels
of public monies by largely the Somali community, which of
course raises all kinds of questions about immigrants and our
failure to assimilate them and what they're doing there, and
the bad guys in whom I would include, even if
an almost endearingly fumbling bad guy, the governor of Minnesota,
Tim Waltz, were so much on the defensive five weeks
ago politically that Waltz announced he was no longer going
to run for a third term as governor. They were losing,
and the administration, or put it more broadly, the conservative
movement or the just the impulse toward decency and accountable
government was winning. And now we have horrible incidents. Are
they regret They're both regrettable.
Speaker 1: For what it's worth.
Speaker 4: The second incident seems to me just as Charlie said, so,
I mean, you have to bear in mind these guys
are they're being screamed at, spat at. Their heartbreak is up.
There is an adrenaline release, and they can make mistakes
under those circumstances. It looks to me like a mistake.
But the way christinom yapped and said things that were
mistaken and untrue and provided an opening for the mayor
of Minneapolis and Governor Waltz, who just weeks ago were
slinking around with their tails between their legs, provided an
opening for them to reassert themselves politically as and give
one speech after another of righteous indignation strikes it strikes
me as just astounding. So at the political level here
Charlie deals with the truth, which I admit is a
higher concern. But at the political level, the administration is
just screwed up.
Speaker 1: That's what I think. I think.
Speaker 4: So taking uh a Veno Holman home Tom Holman seems
a huge improvement. I'd I'd love to hear it. Just
that the guy seems professional. He comes across as a
very ordinary, decent guy. He comes across as more than
intelligent enough, but also there's a kind of solidity and
decency about him that, let's put it this way, sending
him and strike me as as the correct move politically Again.
I'm talking politically because he seems like the kind of
person who just is so solid that by his presence
he'll calm things down.
Speaker 1: But his opinions on getting illegal people out of the
country to the progressives puts him in the same category
as Steven Miller wearing a floor length black leather SS
outfit designed by Hugo Bass. I mean, his ideas are
seen as reprehensible, which is what I want to get
back to all the time when it comes to these things.
Charlie is talking about the basic principles, you're talking about
the politic grooves. I am constantly struggling with how to
argue and discuss this with neighbors, friends, relatives, etc. Who
have a set of assumptions that I don't know what
they are. Sometimes I never hear them. Sometimes they don't
have the assumptions at all. Sometimes they have no predicates whatsoever.
Sometimes they have no thoughts. They haven't thought about immigration
at all. They start with seeing a bad thing. They
start with seeing guys with masks going into a house,
and they see their fellow Minnesota and standing on the
street corners being unhappy about it, and from that they
draw the only possible conclusion, which is that the people
who are protesting are in the right because, as we know,
in this country, anybody gets out there and protests and
has signs is correct, has the moral high ground. That's
how it works since nineteen sixty whatever. And that the
bad guys. However, you want to work that argument back,
they're the bad guys. So they are the culmination of badness.
You can't get these people. They don't want to talk
about where this starts. It starts with the idea of
a nation of citizenship, of borders, of control, of what
it means to be a citizen, what it means to
be able to say you are a citizen and you
are not. And that may sound unfair to some people.
What is it an accident of birth? No, but this
is how we've operated the state. This is this is
how it is set up. You cannot open the borders
to absolutely everybody, because then you lose your nation. Oh
so you're saying then that once the nation isn't composed
exactly like the demographs of the North Dakota, it won't
be America anymore. That's that's what I'm saying. Yes, that's
why we have to control it. So if we're going
to control it, we have to have a mechanism for enforcement.
If we have to have a mechanism for enforcement, it's
going to have to involve force. How do you how
do you get rid of the Laotian drug dealer or
the guy from Uganda who came here and drove his
car drunk into somebody and killed three people? How do
you go find them and get rid of them except
by force? And is it the fact that they have
scary uniforms and they're masked, Is that it if they arrived,
you know, in pastoral robes, would that be better? The
argument never happens because it's all focused on big scary
guys doing big scary things to people in our neighborhood.
Our neighbors in our neighborhood now. And also, you know,
I will agree arbitrary detention of somebody who just doesn't
look right. I don't agree with that. And I hear
stories about this. I hear stories about this all the time.
I don't know how true they are, but I hear
stories about this all the time. But the idea that
the enforcement mechanism that we've done for decades, that Obama
did over and over and over again, is somehow now
illegitimate because they're masked, because they're pulling people out of
the houses. And if you try to tell them, well,
they're pulling people's out of the houses because they had
to go get them because the jails let them go,
that's an argument that they don't want to have either.
It's just ice out. That's it. It's just ice out,
ice out, ice out, ice out.
Speaker 6: And this is why, James, I will not have the
conversations you're describing with until we establish as a common
starting point that the federal government gets to execute federal
law even if people don't like it. Because all of
the subsidiary objections that you've mentioned, some of which are true,
some of which I agree with, are in this instance
being used as smoke screens for the actual objection, which
is to immigration law per se. The people who are
pushing back against this are doing so in absolute terms.
They will say, well, I'm upset about the masks, or
I'm upset about this particular incident. And again maybe I'll
agree with them on the tactics from time to time,
but what they really mean and what they always eventually
get to, whether implicitly or explicitly is that Ice should
not be there in the first place, and nobody else
execute the immigration law should be there.
Speaker 5: You see this with Jacob.
Speaker 6: Frye, the mayor of Minneapolis, who will say things that
are true, for example, that Minneapolis is not obliged to
enforce federal immigration law itself.
Speaker 5: That's true.
Speaker 6: Prince of the United States nineteen ninety seven Supreme Court
case justifies that, as does the old Prig case from
eighteen forty two. But then he'll say, get Ice out.
Then he'll say, these are our neighbors we benefit from.
He calls them immigrants, but we're dealing here with illegal immigrants.
Speaker 5: Okay, that's a separate.
Speaker 6: Issue, and we resolved this pretty famously in eighteen sixty five.
The federal government gets to execute federal law. We do
not have a country in which, with the state government
egging them on, networks of activists are allowed to systematically
prevent the enforcement of duly enacted laws. And those laws,
for what it's worth, those laws are not controversial. We're
not talking here about the federal government claiming powers that
Congress hasn't given it. We're not talking here about the
federal government usurping the power of the states in violation
of the Constitution. We're not talking about a law that
is vague or that is disputed. We're not talking about
a law that is currently in litigation in the Supreme Court.
These laws have been on the books for thirty fifty
seventy eighty one hundred years. Most of the systems that
are being used at the moment by ICE were put
into place in nineteen ninety six in the Clinton administration,
and so I have been quite open to criticisms of ICE,
as we've just discussed. I think this was a bad shooting,
and I think the renee Good one was probably legally
defensible but morally problematic. But I just am not going
to be distracted by all of the smaller picture questions
to the point of which I lose sight of what's happening.
Speaker 5: I'm not that stupid. I'm not going to be calmed.
Speaker 6: They don't want immigration law enforce and that's unacceptable. That's nullification,
and it just cannot stand, and the Trump administration can't
allow it to And there.
Speaker 1: We have the problem. You call them smaller issues, and
to them they are the only issues. The biggest issue,
the main primary issue is irrelevant, Peter, do you think
that this is because and I don't want to psychoanalyze
too much. Although it's fun, part of it is like
I was something to do. Part of it is a
God shaped hole. Part of it is looking for a cause.
Part of it is, you know, people have described all
sorts of things to this, but part of it surely
stems from the idea that this is an illegitimate nation
to begin with, a nation built on colonialism and plunder
and slavery and smallpox blankets, and therefore the very idea
that it has any right to determine who and who
shall not be here is preposterous. As some of the
Mexican advocates would say, I didn't move the border moved.
The border moved and put me in a different country.
It's all arbitrary. None of these things should really exist
in the first place, so we don't have the moral
standing to say somebody is illegal, no human being is illegal. Yeah,
if I'm sure there's an element. You're on the ground there, James.
Speaker 4: So you hear what people are saying at Starbucks, you
see what they're saying on the news when they're protesting
and so forth. I'm sure there's an element of the
hard left, real hostility towards the nation. It strikes me
if I were trying to be charitable, to put the
most charitable possible construction I could on this, I would
say something like, Minnesota is a state heavily settled by
Scandinavians and Germans, and for decade in and decade out,
they were centered in small communities where people went to
church and knew their neighbors. And honestly, this is one
reason why Minnesota has a wealth, used to have a
welfare system, used to be able to pride itself on
a welfare system that worked, because there really was a
sense of neighborliness about it. And what is taking place
is when Jacob Fry, who surely knows what he's doing,
refers to these immigrants as our neighbors. He is touching
a button and it's a kind of decency button that
a lot of people in Minnesota grew up with, and
they immediately say, wait a minute, neighbors. We pride ourselves
on taking care of our neighbors, on helping each other out.
It's a corruption of a really decent impulse that has
deep historical roots in Minnesota, which in some ways makes
it even more outrageous. Every word that Charlie uttered is
true and well chosen, and there's not a single member
of the administration who's making those arguments at anything like
I am just troubled again and again and again. I'll
say it once and stop saying it, because it's an
observation we've been making for years now when it comes
to Donald Trump and the members of his administration. The
inability of the administration to articulate itself even when it
is clearly in the right, obviously in the right, even
when it is pursuing laws as Charlie pointed out, set
in place systems set in place by Bill Clinton. The
inarticulateness of the administration I find striking again and again
and again. With the one reservation, I believe that Tom Holman,
now he doesn't put it at the level that Charlie does,
but Tom Holman does make this point, we're here to
enforce the law. He stands on that point again and
again and again. But oh my lord, they have arguments,
as Charlie. Charlie just proved that they're just not making well.
Speaker 1: Rubio made some arguments the other day. Did anybody watch
that went before the Center Foreign Relations Committee. Peter, you
had a gust of something, well.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, So here I am talking about how
inarticulate the Trump administration is, and Marco Rubio is spectacularly articulate,
tough knows his position, is perfectly willing to go up
with people who are former colleagues of his and I
Rubio had had a reputee. I know a couple of
members of the Senate, and Marco Rubio was very well
liked these people off camera. At least these people are friends,
even Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. I'd
like to hear what Charlie makes of this on the law.
But Rand Paul was pushing and pushing and pushing. My
inclination is that Rand Paul actually has a very good
point that they're building, that they built much too large
an operation on the slender rationale of a police action,
and that Rand Paul had a better point, had the
better argument, I think than Marco Rubio. But I want
to hear what Charles has to say about that. Even
at that Rubio handled himself brilliantly, refusing to concede an
inch to Rand Paul, making the point again and again
and again, that Mudur was illegitimate, that he was a criminal,
that he was a thug, that what we had done
was in the interest of simple decency and hygiene in
our own hemisphere. I just thought that it was a
real to it. By the way, I've also over the years,
I've heard people wonder, Honest, I'll just put it. The
people who observe the Senate have wondered from time to
time over the years, just how frankly intelligent Marco Rubio is.
He didn't go to Harvard Law School or the University
of Chicago Law School and went to Miami. There's question
is Marco Rubio, Mark Rubyo is highly articulate, very shrewd.
We are dealing with a very intelligent man here. I
was very impressed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but he drank some water on television.
Speaker 6: Well, I was impressed by him too. I think there's
often a difference between who wins debates and who is right.
It will not shock you to learn. I suppose that
I saw a lot of debates at the AUC for
Jinian in which the side with the better debate is one,
even when that side was wrong. I think Marc Rubio
is often right so this isn't a criticism of Marco Rubio,
per se. I think in this case it's difficult in
that I am of the view, as I've argued over
and over again, that Congress needs to authorize military action.
I know there are very smart people who disagree with me.
There is a memo I believe it was written by
Bill Barr back in the first Bush administration to justify
the removal of Noriega that is being leaned on by
the Trump administration in this case. Now that doesn't mean
that the memo is correct, but the memo is precedent
for now, and.
Speaker 5: It's unlikely that this is justiciable.
Speaker 6: That is to say, the Supreme Court's not going to
get involved and determine what the federal government can and
can't do. So ultimately this becomes a political question. I'm
more on Ranpaul's side than Marco Rubio's. But while I
one hundred percent agree with what you said, Peter about
the Trump administration being representing its own case even when
its case is strong, that doesn't seem true. Have applied
to Mark Rubio in this instance. He's about as good
and advocate as I've.
Speaker 5: Seen in American politics. Recently.
Speaker 4: Ever, Yeah, well I go back a little farther than
you do, Charlie, although please don't remind me of that.
I would say he's as good as i've seen. Ever.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the things that came up, one of
the issues is and I love this because if I
can remember the sequence right, it was Greenland, Venezuela, Cuba,
or was it Cuba Venezuela. Because it's been a busy year.
We dispensed with the Greena situation. I guess we dispensed
with asit Venezuelan situation that's out the table, and now
a nation turns its lonely eyes to Cuba, Cuba, and
we're being told that we should have regime changed there
by the end of the year, which I end is
one of those things that makes you sit up, take
notice and think, well, how would that happen? What would
it look like? If indeed there's some sort of benevelment
that keeps Iran from shipping as much as they'd like,
the Venezuelan oil no longer comes, Russian oil doesn't get there,
why the Cuban economy might collapse, you know, as if
it's this sort of robust thing striding the island in
the first place. Do you think this is likely? It's
have we gone from the government policy of ah, yeah,
we'd like to see him gone, But you know, what
are you gonna do to actually trying to do something.
As somebody said to me the other day, you know,
if China invades Taiwan, we're going to take Cubea. The
next day, I thought that was interesting. What do you
think of the cuber situation, Charlie Well.
Speaker 6: I also liked Marca Ruvia's answer on this, which was
that while it might not be the role of the
United States to take out the Cuban regime, it would
be good for the United States if the Cuban regime
were gone, because it is a force for evil within
Cuba and within the rest of the world. Of course,
he said it with all of the righteous indignation you'd
expect from somebody who is Cuba.
Speaker 5: It parents game from Cuba.
Speaker 6: I suspect that we will not take overt actions in
the way we did in Venezuela, but I would be
shocked if we were not behind the scenes doing everything
that we can. Also, the action we took in Venezuela
and the pressure we're putting on venezuela is as far
as I understand it related to Cuba, because Cuba relies
heavily on venezuela, especially for energy, and as we're seeing
in Iran in a completely different circumstance, when you do
have internal economic pressure, that makes the likelihood of overthrowing
the government higher, although it doesn't necessarily guarantee it. So
I think Arka Rubio is a fascinating person. Obviously, he
was my senator for a while here in Florida. He's
been in politics for a long time. We resented career politicians,
but he's a career politician who has learned his trade
and bided his time. He has, in some respects been
a chameleon. In others he's had a core set of
beliefs he's stuck to. He has managed to weather the
Trump administration better than pretty much anyone else, maybe the
Trump years better than anyone else. He was little Marco
and he was beaten round me in twenty sixteen. Then
he didn't run for president again, but he somehow got
himself into a position within the presidency where he holds a.
Speaker 5: Whole lot of power, wears a whole lot of hats
and is advancing his agenda. So did he really lose?
Speaker 1: It's one of the better memes that's out there is
Rubio is sitting there looking a bit downcast, hands folded,
and people have been photoshopping and draping anything around him
with it. Then Isuel and army clothes, you know, Muller clothes.
I just just asserted how many things that he has
on his plate and how many things that he has
to do.
Speaker 4: Here's the way it works. Here's the way it works.
I'm told he goes to the State Department for an
hour or two hours at the most each morning, and
then goes to the West wing of the White House,
which is where he spends the rest of the day.
Nearly every day. He is right there, right and nobody
has behaved. Nobody has had that large a brief since
Henry Kissinger on Cuba. Could I just add one note?
My wife is Cuban. I know these people, I have
know many Cubans. Let's put it that way. Here's my
one note, just for all our listeners. James probably is
already well aware of this movie. You may be as well, Charlie.
On somewhere online it's available maybe YouTube, maybe on Netflix,
watch Our Man in Havana. Our Man in Havana. It
was filmed in nineteen fifty nine. It's a wonderful dark comedy.
It's slightly anti American. It's based on Graham Green, but
the lead is played by Alec Guinness Noel Coward. It's
British production. Noel Coward plays a role Ernie Kovac's Its brilliant,
fast moving, hilarious, witty dialogue. But here's the point. It
was shot very largely on location in Havana, just a
few months before the revolution, just a few months before
Feel came down from the Sierra Maestra mountains and took over.
And so what you will see in the background is
Havana as it actually looked in nineteen fifty nine. And
people are well dressed, there is traffic in the streets.
It is a bustling, beautiful city. So watch that and
then go click around. Look at Havana today on Google
and click under images and just look. Those buildings are
still there. They're in a state of total decay. Many
of the same vehicles, the same vehicles, the same vehicles
are still on the streets, but of course they've been
patched together and I mean the failure is total.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a what you do, what you do
with the I mean, I mean what you do to.
Speaker 4: The difficulty in thinking about the future of Cuba, not
that any of this can is in Super Bowl, is
that some people have been there suffering for seven decades now,
and there are going to be tensions between those people
and the ones who got to this country and have
done extremely well. Uh So that's going to be kind
of a problem. But if the government changes there, I'm
told that all over Havana there are banks, there are
contracts and safety posit boxes. The Cubans have written day
X is the day the government decisively falls, and X
plus ten. There's going to be ferry service introduced from
Miami to Havana. The Cubans, the Cuban community in Miami
has the investment running ready to go. It could happen very, very,
very fast. The question is exactly how, what's the mechanism,
but that it is rotten and disgusting. Anybody can watch
that by anybody can see that for himself by looking
at a wonderful old movie and then comparing the background
shots in that movie with Havana today.
Speaker 1: Yes, and if the people, if they come back from
Miami on the ferry ten days afterwards, reclaim their old property,
they will be regarded as Yankee colonialists who are bringing
Calaby run back to right, as opposed to the people
in the Palestinian camps who have an eternal right to
this house in this olive grove. That those people would
just be going home after the nackbar Peter. It's great,
it's wonderful to look at that old architecture, in those
great old cars. But of course Batista, you know, Batista,
secret police, inequity, all of these things, every single scread
of beauty that you see of civilization there had to
be sacrificed in order to down the horrible thing and
institute equity, and they did. Everybody is equally miserable. It's
the same with Iran. The United States has absolutely no
standing whatsoever to criticize what happened because of most of
the day fifty three. You know, we had our hands
in that, and so you know we're eternally tainted for that.
But the fact is is that if you don't get
Iran during the Shaw's reign, and yes, he was fantastically
corrupt and indifferent and a bad leader and all the
rest of those things, and screwed the poach and did
a Nicholas the second And I mean, yeah, right, I
get it. But women had the rights that they don't
have now. Women were able to walk around in Western attire.
The cities, even though teh Ran was sort of faphazidly
built and you know, may have had the street grid
of a Roman you know, of Rome in two thousand
BC there are two hundred BC, it still was a
fairly enlightened place, proud center of Persian culture. And apparently
they had to sacrifice all of that because of the
sins of the Shaw, because of Western alignment. I mean,
that's sometimes I think how they think about it, is
it when they look at what was lost, they say, yeah,
but it wasn't perfect, right, nothing ever is. And the
best that you incrementally work on what you've got then
to do the wonderful, magical, romantic, heart pounding work of
revolution and raise the red banners and storm the barricades
and the rest of it, and build a new world
from ground zero, because it never works. There's one that's worked,
that's here, and we weren't starting from ground zero. We
weren't rewriting human nature, weren't. We were gathering up everything
we'd learned from Britain and the Enlightenment and the rest
of it, and we did a pretty damn good job
of it. And everybody else seems to have forgotten the
lessons of that. But I'd like to see it. I
would love to go to Havana some day, but it
can take an awful long time to go back there
and fix everything up, because it's all falling apart. FED
chair Kevin Walsh worsh sounds like one of those things
you like. His name is Wash, but you've got a
peculiar mid Atlantic accidenth Kevin Walsh nominated to share the FED.
I know nothing about this except that they meet in
secret and make arcane pronouncements that make numbers go up
and down. I don't know where we are at the
rate right now, whether it needs to go up or
go down. I read what I read, my eyes crossed,
I saw, but Peter, you interviewed him last year. Tell
us what this guy's all about.
Speaker 4: More than that, Kevin and I are old friends, so
I don't want to. Kevin is extremely intelligent, and everybody
who's an economist tells me that he really does know
his economics. He is, Charlie. This to go back to
what we were talking about, this the inarticulousy of the administration.
As Chairman of the FED, he will not strictly be
a member of the administration. But Kevin is wonderfully articulate.
As I just reposted the interview that I did with him,
and I guess it was just about last spring, six
months or so ago, now that he's been nominated the
FED chairmanship. Kevin's view, I'm not putting words in his
mouth here. This is in that interview. Kevin's view is
that the quantitative easing went too far and lasted too long,
and that the and that it was used to underwrite
vast expansions of federal spending under the Biden administration, and
that it is time to reduce slowly, carefully, but to
become very very serious about reducing the Fed's balance sheet,
much of which has happened under Jerome Powell. But more,
Kevin is also extremely upbeat, optimistic about the economy. His
view is that the Big Beautiful Bill and contained not
widely not headline, but if you read the Big Beautiful Bill,
there are provisions there that cut taxes on corporations in
way that make investment much easier, and so he was
generally speaking. So I guess I think I can say
this without being accused of putting words in Kevin's mouth.
But at the sort of the high level, his view
is that we need to get out of the way,
constrain government spending, return the FED to a much more
limited role in the banking system, and that the American
economy is not sick, it's recovering nicely from the disruptions
of COVID, and that we really are on the cusp
of serious growth. That's as I understand Kevin's views.
Speaker 1: Will we be able to see this interview through a link?
Speaker 4: It's up, it's up, it's up. You can I linked
to it again this morning on x OH fantastic.
Speaker 1: Well, gentlemen, before we head out here, some interesting things
that we might want to discuss. Two related stories we're
learning today out of Geneva that the UN chief has
told member states, and I'm quoting here from Reuters, that
the UN is at risk of quote imminent financial collapse,
and he's citing unpaid fees and a strange budget rule.
He's reportedly spoken about the organization's work worsening liquidity crisis,
but this is the starkest warning yet that the UN
financially may collapse. In related news, scientists at MIT have
managed to construct a violin out of two atoms, and
I think that's going to be very, very handy to
to to use when we serenade our sadness about this
story about the UN? Is the UN relevant? Is the
UN necessary? If the UN goes away, what do we
do do we have a World Council of Peace with
an emblem that just shows the northern the western hemisphere,
what do we do? Do we empty out the UN
and turn it into condos? And I'd like to think,
given the way it sits, the you know, the morning
light and that is going to be beautiful, but it's
probably getting it really hot around eleven o'clock or so
you'd have to bring the windows down. Whither the UN, gentlemen.
Speaker 6: I loathe the UN. I think it is pointless and
should be disbanded. It is a relic in that it
is full of privileged members whose privileged status was the
product of their having been on the right side at
the end of World War two, not always at the
beginning of World War two Russia and not of much
else besides. And it's also full of countries that are
worse than the United States. It's almost all of them are.
And if you have a representative body that is full
of terrible countries or people, that representative body is going
to be malicious.
Speaker 5: And it's full of.
Speaker 6: Institutions like the Institution for the Advancement of Women that
are run by Iran or Saudi. I would get rid
of it. But I want to emphatically draw a distinction
between the UN and NATO. I think NATO is a
terrific organization. I don't think it has outlived its usefulness,
and I think that it ought to be sustained. I
agree with President Trump that its members ought to pay
more for their own defense and probably criticize America less
while benefiting from American military lodges. But UN bad NATO good,
is my take.
Speaker 4: Well done, Charlie. I would also abolish the UN if
I could. It strikes me as a lot of trouble,
and so second choice would be ignore it, which the
Trump administration is doing a pretty good job of. I think,
just ignore the damn thing up. If they're hard up.
Let them be hard up. NATO has not outlived its usefulness.
What is its usefulness now, Charlie.
Speaker 6: I think that if you're going to have an alliance
of nations that are better than all the others, and
if you're going to use that alliance as a block
against Russia to lesser extent and increasingly China and its
sphere of influence, then you're going to have to have
some sort of organization that manages it. And while I
agree with some of the smaller criticisms of NATO, I
think whatever you end up with is going to look
a little bit like NATO, with an agreement to guarantee
one another's security, with an ability to speak as one voice,
and with an arrangement that is backstopped by the American military,
which has its tendrils out into various other countries that
are close, relatively speaking to.
Speaker 5: The United States.
Speaker 6: So, you know, while I'm open to reform, I think
that the basic logic underneath NATO is still sound.
Speaker 4: And how do you so? Irving Crystal. Irving Crystal published
an essay in The New York Times in nineteen eighty
three predicting that European dependence on the United States would
infantilize Europe. He didn't use that word, but that was
the argument. And then who's this man who's the former
head of mi I six. I can't remember his name.
I thought you might as a proper Englishman. He's an
establishment figure. But he said during an interview just last year,
yes twenty twenty five, that NATO had infantilized Western Europe,
that they had lost the ability to think clearly and
engage in uses of hard power. Hard power was his phrase.
So how do you so is that?
Speaker 2: Is?
Speaker 4: That? Is that fundamental to NATO? Do we simply pay
that price that we're in charge and everybody else suffers
some dependency? Or if they kick up their spend and
actually produce real militaries and the Germans are now sending
troops to Lithuania, Can we want allies not vassals?
Speaker 5: Do we?
Speaker 6: I asked that, because no, I asked that quite seriously,
in that I would prefer if Europe were not infantilized.
I prefer of Europe were able to defend itself. I
prefer of Europe didn't have a thousand year history of
interonisan warfare. But I will borrow this from rich Larry
who said this recently, and I largely agree. If you
told any great nation in the history of the world,
all right, here's the deal. You get to be the
richest and most powerful nation in the world, and you
also get to effectively control an infantilized Europe, they would
have said, Wow, that's fantastic. I mean, hundreds and hundreds
of years of European history are marked by one country
or another hoping to dominate the continent. It tended to
end in a horrible conflict well after nineteen forty five
the Americans.
Speaker 5: But yeah, we kind of are in charge now. We
should be thrilled by that.
Speaker 6: So if the alternative of them not being infantilized is
not on the table, which unfortunately it's not, I think
this is the next best option. It's fantastic for the
United States that we can put our troops wherever we want,
that we can count on these other relatively rich nations,
albeit not to do exactly what we want, but to
do mostly what we want. I don't think we can
improve on that other than to have proper allies in
the way you describe, which I agree.
Speaker 1: Would be preferable, except that eventually you end up with
a thirty five year old single guy living in the
sofa in his parents' basement, which is what seems to
be at the end of all this. And I would prefer,
for the sake of Western civilization and itsntinuance, that they
actually have more national grit fiber character muscled than they
seem to be having now. Now there's just a lot
of fumes of self regard and empty statements because they
can't back up what they do with force. Well, we
live in a post we live in a post force world,
don't we wishould not, shouldn't be settling things by forces?
And absolutely ourchare concept we're beyond that. It's twenty first century.
No human nature hasn't changed, and the iron laws that
governed international relations haven't either. So if they if they
equip themselves more for their defense, that's great. There's only
one direction that's pointed.
Speaker 5: In, though I'm not sure that's sure.
Speaker 1: Well, there is the new German tank production going to
be used to, you know, to roll into China when they're.
Speaker 5: When when they have the direction.
Speaker 6: I agree with you they're fantalized, but I don't think
the trend is to it endless infantalization.
Speaker 5: Producing Eastern Europe.
Speaker 6: Is arming itself and spending more on its defense. Trump
has made headway in this area.
Speaker 1: Have no I agree. What what I'm saying, though, is
that all of these self defense mechanisms are pointed in
one direction. They're all in response to the existence of
the Russian threat.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: The United States has this vast military apparatus that can
project power at any corner of the globe, which is different,
which means will still be on top. But again, yeah,
we would like them to be strong. I read stories
of the Royal Navy in its condition, and you want
to weep. The nation that held Trafalgar is a great
emblem of national spirit. Can't get a ship out of
the dry dock, and the Silent Service is sitting there
with its you know, with its wires rotting. It's it's
it's dreadful. On the other hand, as we always say,
you know, if there's one thing that we really need
more of, its German remilitarization. You just realized how things
have changed. If things have changed, I mean the friendship to.
Speaker 5: Do it as well. I mean, if you told my
grandfather that he was and say.
Speaker 1: Italy, Italy, can you get some guys marching in proper
lockstep down there. For heaven's sakes, I know, I know.
The more things change, nothing new under the sun, except well, no,
this isn't new either. I have to remind you the
Ricochet members do get together in person, in human in
places where you can actually see each other and laugh
and talk and hoist classes. Got a couple coming up
in February. One group are in talks about a meeting
at in the Detroit area after a Hillsdale College visit,
and there'll be another media of Florida Space Coast. That's
February sixth, like six to the eighth this year. So
go to ricochet dot com slash events and you will
find out where people are meeting in your neighborhood. And
if there isn't anything in your neighborhood, why don't you
host him. That's a great thing. They'll show up, they'll
bring tater tans. And if you think I really want
to sit around and talk about politics, I experience of
every Ricochet meet up I've ben we talk about everything,
but there's a certain like minded nature to it. But
we talk about everything in the world. And then I
would ask you also to Peter, am I gonna how
many stars do I want people to give this podcast? Four? Five?
Speaker 4: Wait? How many stars are there?
Speaker 1: How many? Now we know whether not Peter was listening
or had just checked out by the time I got
to every podcast and told people five.
Speaker 4: I have heard this once or twice. I have discovered,
by the way my children explain this to me, that
in any five star system, the only star that counts
is the fifth star. Everybody assumes that the four stars
are going to be filled in. So it's important not
only to fill in five stars, but to fill in
every arm of that fifth star.
Speaker 1: All five, all five.
Speaker 4: With an exclamation point.
Speaker 1: All I know is that I've been looking for household appliances.
I go to Amazon and I look for the one
star reviews because they're the most informative. Yes, how does
this toaster perform? And there's seven hundred and forty three
paid you know, a real person who bought this, but
is actually probably just a digital robotic figure tapping you know,
a screen somewhere in Shanghai, And when you get down
to the one percent is where you find the word
fire in every single view of the toaster. My favorite
being doesen't toast, and you know when you're a toaster
and toasting is the entirety of your raise. Old debts
or a dozen toast is a pretty good one star review.
But we hope we fulfilled your expectations, folks, and we
deserve those five stars we'd like you to give us.
We would also like you to go to ricochet dot
com itself and take a look, because there you will
see if you haven't already, the member site. Yeah, you
got to pick a couple of you know, Lira, Denari
whatever to get to it, but it's worth it because
when you remember, that means you can comment, which keeps
Ricochet from being like the cess pools of iniquity and
screaming and miserable old curmudgeons in their basement pounding out
stuff on a Cheeto's dame check you know. Uh no,
no that's not us. So go there, give it a try,
and Peter, we hope you will have you back soon.
Speaker 4: I just figured out what Charlie reminds me of. Charlie
reminds me of the Dalmatian emperors.
Speaker 7: In the elite, in the in the level empire goes
about seas, these these these caesars, these emperors would come
from the outskirts of empire and show up and roam
and say, boys, boys, you've all become a feminis.
Speaker 1: We've got an empire to run in here.
Speaker 5: I'll take it.
Speaker 1: What emperor would you like to be, Peter?
Speaker 4: What emperor would I like to be? Oh? I thought
Augustus had it pretty well, pretty good.
Speaker 1: That's what I would figure to it. Yeah, exactly, that's right. Half.
Speaker 4: Essentially, let's let's Caesar set up the empire, he gets knifed,
and then Augustus comes along and runs it. That seems
like a good job.
Speaker 1: Dies in bed, did did I perform my part in
the play? Well? Yes, I think that he did. And
I like the Roman empire itself.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: I was going to say we end, but then again,
the you know, they did split off and have another
thousand years in Constantinople. Yes, I'm still calling it that
because I'm still mad about that. But that's another podcast.
Thank you for listening. Everybody will see you in the comments.
At Ricochet four point whatever, by bye bye bye.
Speaker 4: Ricochet. Join the conversation