Speaker 1: Well whiskey coming, fame, my.
Speaker 2: Pain, the money, my ray. Why think alone when you
Speaker 2: can drink it all in with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour,
Speaker 2: Join your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John Yu and the international
Speaker 2: woman of Mystery, Lucretia.
Speaker 3: Where they slapped it up and David, ain't you easy
Speaker 3: on the sold chap got it giving?
Speaker 4: Welcome everybody to another international edition of the Three Whiskey
Speaker 4: Happy Hour, because Steve Hayward is still catlevanting around the
Speaker 4: world checking out nuclear weapons sites in places like Ireland, Norway,
Speaker 4: other places where the enemies of America who tried to
Speaker 4: build nuclear weapons before, while Lucretia and I maintained the
Speaker 4: ramparts of defense for Fortress America.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, lucky for you that I am
Speaker 2: in Ireland, not far from the birthplace of Edmundburg, and
Speaker 2: so I am feeling the full Burkian virtues of moderation, prudence, prescription,
Speaker 2: and magnanimity, because otherwise I would go full George Washington
Speaker 2: on you guys for last week's risky rebellion. I mean,
Speaker 2: good grief. You say it'll be an analogy free episode
Speaker 2: and then suddenly you go off talking about Lincoln and
Speaker 2: Hamilton and all kinds of historical precedents and analogies, as
Speaker 2: though no one would notice this what those things.
Speaker 5: Are actually relevant. It's not that you give historical analogies,
Speaker 5: it's that they're irrelevant.
Speaker 2: Oh nonsense. By the way, let's let us recall that
Speaker 2: analogy was the method of Socrates in his dialogues. Right, yes,
Speaker 2: so they're well, they're often quite puzzling, just as I do. Right,
Speaker 2: I am sorry. I will say that Lucretia, your account
Speaker 2: of the distinction between political theory and political philosophy was
Speaker 2: just as I would have put it. I think, or
Speaker 2: I agree with all of it. I was going to
Speaker 2: go about it in a complimentary way, not complimentary of
Speaker 2: you know, your skill, but I mean compliment your arguments
Speaker 2: something like that, right, And I was going to offer
Speaker 2: something that I thought would be more accessible to the
Speaker 2: thick headed John Yu which is why I mentioned just
Speaker 2: to give one example, because some listeners may know this one.
Speaker 2: It was a big fashion fifteen years ago, John, you
Speaker 2: may remember this. It was the resource curse. It was
Speaker 2: all the big thing, and in simple forms what it
Speaker 2: said was, as well, you know, countries that have high
Speaker 2: amounts of their GDP from mineral extraction correlate with high
Speaker 2: measures of correlation on the World Bank Index. And they
Speaker 2: had all the fancy regressions, and it turned out it
Speaker 2: didn't hold up very well on closer scrutiny by other
Speaker 2: social scientists regression modelers. This is their theory. But look,
Speaker 2: what was this all about. First, an inability, as Lucretia
Speaker 2: points out, to ask sensible questions about, well, what's the
Speaker 2: character of the regime. Maybe those countries are corrupt because
Speaker 2: they have corrupt rulers, not because they have oil and diamonds. Uh,
Speaker 2: And they don't want to ask those kind of questions, Right,
Speaker 2: that's a common sense point of view that political philosophy
Speaker 2: would bring to the matter, that the social scientists, wanting
Speaker 2: to avoid those kinds of moral distinctions, don't want to
Speaker 2: ask those questions.
Speaker 5: So that's the example of By the way, it's an
Speaker 5: example of why it is you you mess these conversations
Speaker 5: up because you take it so far on a tangent
Speaker 5: that is so minorly related to the issue at hand
Speaker 5: that we lose the train and go off in a
Speaker 5: different direction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's the same point you made with Marxism, because what.
Speaker 5: But I made it in two sentences.
Speaker 2: Well, I like to give examples that are accessible to
Speaker 2: John as I say, well, what I feel.
Speaker 4: I feel like I'm a child of a divorce, and
Speaker 4: I've never been the child of a divorce, So this
Speaker 4: is really interesting experience for me.
Speaker 2: Keep going, Well, if I can finish that, The point is,
Speaker 2: what's what's behind that argument? What generated that argument by
Speaker 2: the social scientists? Well, because they're Marxists. They want to
Speaker 2: attack capitalism, and they want to attack oil and gas
Speaker 2: and minerals and all the rest of that. So you
Speaker 2: can come up with a neutral sounding theory that turns
Speaker 2: out to not hold up, and that avoids the serious
Speaker 2: political questions, and then that doesn't even hold up on
Speaker 2: closer example. So it's a variety. It's a three layer,
Speaker 2: three layered level of attack. And you like single layer cakes.
Speaker 2: I know that Lucretia do.
Speaker 5: Because you know what the problem is is that whenever
Speaker 5: you do, That's why John never got it, because you
Speaker 5: always wanted to take it off in these things. He
Speaker 5: understood it because I kept it at a foundational.
Speaker 4: Wait wait, wait, you're proceeding on the assumption that I
Speaker 4: understood the Cretia too.
Speaker 1: I still don't get either of you people.
Speaker 5: Oh, he can't take.
Speaker 4: Sides, analogies, non analogies, you guys, well don't make sense.
Speaker 2: Well, so another day at the office.
Speaker 4: Yes, well, Steve, you're just going to get more beatings
Speaker 4: I think today since you started it by attacking Lucretia,
Speaker 4: and Lucretia and I have been in your absence, we've
Speaker 4: been at a conference for the last two days here
Speaker 4: at Berkeley about US and Latin American relations and the
Speaker 4: future of governance and AI. It's been very interesting. But
Speaker 4: Lucretia wasn't taking any prisoners on the immigration issue, even
Speaker 4: though the audience I would think would be relatively pro
Speaker 4: immigration rather hostile to Trump's immigration and tariff policies. And
Speaker 4: nevertheless we engaged, and I think, I mean, they got
Speaker 4: to see the debate that's rung on in the United States.
Speaker 4: I'd say, Lucretia taking I think the pro Trump side,
Speaker 4: I would say, and me taking the anti.
Speaker 5: You know what, got the most positive comments though from
Speaker 5: this there were a lot of students, Latin American students.
Speaker 5: But that's a bit of a that's a bit of
Speaker 5: a misnomer because most of the Latin American law students
Speaker 5: who were there were already practicing lawyers, and didn't we
Speaker 5: hear that there were actually two judges among.
Speaker 1: Students there, very good cross.
Speaker 5: Section, but they were all students who were already practicing. Anyway,
Speaker 5: several of them came up to me to talk about
Speaker 5: the one point I made, which is a very kind
Speaker 5: of delicate, sticky point, and that is that the other
Speaker 5: problem with illegal immigration, the kind or let me put
Speaker 5: it the differently, the other problem with immigration of you know,
Speaker 5: and Trump said, they're not sending us their best people.
Speaker 5: But when they are sending us their best people, what's
Speaker 5: happening to the countries from which they emigrate is that
Speaker 5: they're losing those best people. And in terms of say
Speaker 5: Latin America, the more of those those a lot smarter,
Speaker 5: more capable people, more driven people, whatever you want to say,
Speaker 5: they leave Latin America and they end up staying in
Speaker 5: the United States, and then Latin American countries lose that
Speaker 5: valuable resource as well.
Speaker 1: We were taught.
Speaker 5: I was talking with a young woman from Ecuador who says,
Speaker 5: you know, they're just they're just art. I should I
Speaker 5: say this nice? I'm trying not to be insulting, but
Speaker 5: quality and start universities. I try not on some things,
Speaker 5: you know, because I don't want to make fun But
Speaker 5: but she she was actually saying, I know I because
Speaker 5: she would. I think she told me she studied at
Speaker 5: either Cornell somewhere like that. She says, and I know,
Speaker 5: I need to go back to my country, but it's
Speaker 5: so much easier to want to stay here where there's
Speaker 5: so much more intellectual activity. And so anyway, my point
Speaker 5: was we don't want Latin America to end up like Haiti,
Speaker 5: where anybody with any kind of sensibility at all has
Speaker 5: left Haiti and it's you know, I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 5: And that was in fact, people didn't say that out
Speaker 5: loud in the question and answer period, but at least
Speaker 5: a half a dozen people said that to me at
Speaker 5: the conference.
Speaker 4: John Well, I think that's certainly aspect consequence of immigration.
Speaker 1: It's certainly good.
Speaker 4: I think good for the United States that the people
Speaker 4: more ambitious or people who don't quite fit into their
Speaker 4: existing societies but have ambition come to the United States.
Speaker 4: But I'm not so sure it makes the home country
Speaker 4: that much worse off. You could also say, I mean,
Speaker 4: look at the Asian countries and the period after the
Speaker 4: passage of the nineteen sixty five Immigration Act. And I
Speaker 4: think one thing that happens, you know, countries like Korea
Speaker 4: and Taiwan and Japan, places that did see a lot
Speaker 4: of immigration here.
Speaker 1: Like my own experience, I.
Speaker 4: Think those home countries improved because one thing, I think
Speaker 4: a lot of those a lot of those immigrants sent
Speaker 4: capital back, which is a lot of what those countries need.
Speaker 4: You know, they have a lot of labor, but they
Speaker 4: don't have capital. So if there are Korean doctors, for example,
Speaker 4: coming to the United States, they send money back home,
Speaker 4: or Filipino nurses, you know, they send money back home,
Speaker 4: and that really helps their countries because they really lack,
Speaker 4: you know, capital, I think more than labor.
Speaker 5: And then skilled labor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so. And then I think the other
Speaker 1: thing is.
Speaker 4: Somehow those countries become Maybe this is I mean, I
Speaker 4: don't have no proof, but it seems to these countries
Speaker 4: become more American in the sense that they build ties
Speaker 4: with us in their political systems, and they become more
Speaker 4: allies of ours. Maybe they become more democratic and more
Speaker 4: places with the rule of law and constitutional governance. That's
Speaker 4: certainly the story I think of Korea and Taiwan and Japan.
Speaker 4: But I don't know, so it's not but that doesn't
Speaker 4: seem I don't know if maybe that occurred in Latin America.
Speaker 4: You know, one thing that I thought, also an interesting
Speaker 4: dynamic I saw amongst the faculty and students was not
Speaker 4: just that they're sending a lot of people here. A
Speaker 4: lot of people want to come, and it is many
Speaker 4: of their best and brightest. But Latin America has done
Speaker 4: extremely well the last thirty years until just recently that
Speaker 4: a lot of these people who came to the US
Speaker 4: for training went back to their countries and helped them
Speaker 4: adopt the right policies right that led their countries out
Speaker 4: of you know, economic stagnation. But once they let the
Speaker 4: people vote, the people seem to vote for populist communist
Speaker 4: Marxists and are I think, backsliding on the success of
Speaker 4: their countries most recently. Anyway, So now that we're done,
Speaker 4: now that people don't have to come to our conference,
Speaker 4: because Lucretia and I wrapped up basically most of what
Speaker 4: we said, we can turn now to beating up on
Speaker 4: Steve again and then talk I think about the very
Speaker 4: first topic, which of course has got to be the
Speaker 4: Israel Iran War.
Speaker 1: Oh Steve, what Steve? You had an interjection?
Speaker 2: Well, no, I was going to say more about the
Speaker 2: Latin American stuff you brought up in development, but I
Speaker 2: think that would take as far afield as a certain
Speaker 2: third person on the podcast might say.
Speaker 1: I've said, well, let's talk that say that.
Speaker 2: I'll just say this one.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 2: When you say these countries become more like America, well yes,
Speaker 2: but is it the America of Chicago or the America
Speaker 2: of Houston, Texas? And that's the real nub of the
Speaker 2: question sequels to follow.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, I'm glad Steve wasn't at the conference, So
Speaker 4: why don't we turn to the what's going on? I
Speaker 4: think everybody of course has to have this on top
Speaker 4: of mind. Is what has happened in the I would
Speaker 4: say the Israel Iran War.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what it's become. I want.
Speaker 4: Israel is conducting a massive bombing campaign now and is
Speaker 4: over Iran has air supremacy, air supremacy, air superiority over Iran,
Speaker 4: where the Iranian Air Force doesn't seem to be able
Speaker 4: to get off the ground. Israel is systematically dismantling air defenses,
Speaker 4: and they seem to be operating with virtual impunity in
Speaker 4: the skies over Tehran, and they have. Israel has tried
Speaker 4: to decapitate the military and intelligence leadership of Iran, seems successfully,
Speaker 4: and has tried to destroy one of the two major
Speaker 4: Iranian nuclear weapons sites. So the big question in Washington
Speaker 4: and nationwide is should the United States enter the war? Because,
Speaker 4: excuse me, the major Iranian nuclear weapons program is built
Speaker 4: under an enormous mountain called four Do and it appears
Speaker 4: Israel cannot.
Speaker 1: Destroy that facility.
Speaker 4: The only country that can destroy with conventional weapons, mind you,
Speaker 4: is the United States. The United States has in its
Speaker 4: possession a special bomb built specifically to destroy such facilities.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, why can't we just give those to Israel?
Speaker 4: This is this is a possible line of action. Yeah,
Speaker 4: the bunker bust, which is thirty two thousand pounds in
Speaker 4: one bomb. To give you perspective, the standard massive bomb
Speaker 4: the United States uses is two thousand pounds, So this
Speaker 4: is a thirty two thousand pound bomb and can only
Speaker 4: be delivered apparently by US strategic bombers. So President Trump appears,
Speaker 4: according to leaks, has approved the plans to drop these
Speaker 4: munitions on the Iranian new cressee, but has said he
Speaker 4: will not give the order yes or no on whether
Speaker 4: to actually attack until the very last minute. And so, Lucretia,
Speaker 4: why don't you start and then Steve, since Steve might
Speaker 4: be abroad when the war starts and the United States
Speaker 4: bombs around and may be taken hostage by Iranian agents abroad,
Speaker 4: and we may never.
Speaker 5: Let him go first, go ahead, Well, I would just
Speaker 5: I probably would argue that for many years Iran and
Speaker 5: its proxies have unleashed terror on the world. They have
Speaker 5: promised that they will destroy Israel. They have called for
Speaker 5: death to America. There does seem to be credible information
Speaker 5: out there that they've tried to kill Trump. We know,
Speaker 5: even your friend the mustache John Bolton, you know, so
Speaker 5: there's no doubt that devastating Iran is in the interest
Speaker 5: of world peace. You know, we can have all the
Speaker 5: moral equivalents in the world. I'm not playing that game. However,
Speaker 5: you know, the Iranians have launched something on the order
Speaker 5: of a thousand drones and not one of them have
Speaker 5: made it into Israel. There's all of it. So's it's
Speaker 5: very clear that Israel, as you say, has air superiority.
Speaker 5: They have superiority in this fight, but until they can
Speaker 5: actually destroy the nuclear facilities, the threat is not over.
Speaker 5: So I think what needs to happen. And Trump is
Speaker 5: right to keep his plans close to the vest, but
Speaker 5: I think he needs to give those bombs to Israel
Speaker 5: or somehow make sure that Israel if we have I
Speaker 5: don't know how you fly it through to thirty two
Speaker 5: thousand pound bomb, but bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Get
Speaker 5: it over with and let the people of Iran re
Speaker 5: establish what life the way, get rid of that regime
Speaker 5: and re establish life the way they want to do it.
Speaker 5: No neat original gangs in New yorkhan nation building. Just
Speaker 5: help the get rid of the nuclear problem. The rest
Speaker 5: of it, I think will take care of itself.
Speaker 4: Go ah, So Lucretia, notice everyone has broken ranks with
Speaker 4: her usual fellow travelers.
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson and oh Steve.
Speaker 2: Well, no, look, yeah, that's right. I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 2: if Israel has designed it may be built the bunker
Speaker 2: buster bomb, but they can't deliver it with the planes
Speaker 2: they have. It does take a heavy bomber, and nobody
Speaker 2: has that except us, and I guess the British I suppose.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what heavy bombers they used toll le
Speaker 2: the Lancasters, whatever. But look, we've got a lot of
Speaker 2: B fifty two's that are mothballed. We want to sell
Speaker 2: them one and apparently the Israelis several years ago said
Speaker 2: would you lease us or sell us a B fifty two?
Speaker 2: And Trump one apparently said interesting idea, We'll think about it.
Speaker 2: So I think, you know, let them do it, I mean,
Speaker 2: or sell them. Are bunker buster bombs. Now you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not an expert on these things. I've seen some
Speaker 2: people dispute whether even our bunker busting bombs can get
Speaker 2: all the way down to the level they may have
Speaker 2: buried the sided Ford. Now I have a couple of
Speaker 2: strange thoughts on this, which one is is that we've
Speaker 2: left the we Israelis have left the place largely untouched
Speaker 2: so far, and meanwhile they're degrading the rest of Iran.
Speaker 2: And you know, if you actually have a revolution in
Speaker 2: Iran that throws out the current regime, then guess what
Speaker 2: that problem solves itself. You could let an international force
Speaker 2: come in and dismantle that place without having to vombit
Speaker 2: with inconclusive results, perhaps without involving us in it. That's
Speaker 2: one possible outcome. The other possibility is you have a
Speaker 2: multinational force. In other words, is rarely send in a
Speaker 2: commando force backed by some Arab states that provide the
Speaker 2: sanitary cordon for them to conduct a ground operation against
Speaker 2: that facility. That would be an interesting and you know,
Speaker 2: typically nervy play that I'll bet the Israelis have a
Speaker 2: plan for the thurin Is. Then we do it, like
Speaker 2: people are saying, and you know, I'll bet Trump is
Speaker 2: willing to, but I'll bet he really doesn't want to
Speaker 2: for all the usual reasons that people can name. And finally,
Speaker 2: here's the wild card in it. I guess if you
Speaker 2: ask me should we do it? I think my answer
Speaker 2: is yes we should. And one reason why is I've
Speaker 2: heard some rumors from a couple of people whose views
Speaker 2: I respect that there's a possibility that Ron has a bomb.
Speaker 2: They may have they didn't build on themselves. They might
Speaker 2: have been given one by North Korea or Pakistan, who
Speaker 2: they have been working closely with on this whole project
Speaker 2: for fifteen twenty years now, and they still have some missiles,
Speaker 2: and they may be holding back on using a nuke
Speaker 2: against Israel because they might only have one or two
Speaker 2: and that's not enough. And they know what would happen
Speaker 2: if they knew Israel however, if we go in and
Speaker 2: take out their nuclear installation, that's the end of their program.
Speaker 2: And they know that any nuclear strike on Israel that
Speaker 2: now that we're formally allied with them, would bring us
Speaker 2: into it and bring down complete devastation on what's left
Speaker 2: inn Ran. So there's a few scenarios for you and
Speaker 2: why I think we ought to do it, or at
Speaker 2: least sell the israelis a B fifty two bomber and
Speaker 2: the bomb to.
Speaker 1: Go with it.
Speaker 4: Steve, I always thought you looked like that guy in
Speaker 4: Doctor Strangelove who's flying to be fifty two.
Speaker 1: At the end. You know, that's what you know. That
Speaker 1: was your hero when you were growing up.
Speaker 2: That was the great Slim Pickens.
Speaker 4: Yes, right, So let me maybe also ask you to
Speaker 4: address the domestic dimension of this, which is crackup of
Speaker 4: the Mega Coalition. It sounds like you and Lucretia have
Speaker 4: now joined on with the Forever War people and turned
Speaker 4: your back on the Mega.
Speaker 1: Foreign policy is only.
Speaker 5: About nineteen percent. By the way, John, a megaworld of
Speaker 5: Republicans who are totally who are totally against any kind
Speaker 5: of activity by the United States whatsoever in the Middle
Speaker 5: East only. I mean, it's it's it's an eighty twenty
Speaker 5: issue in MEGA. Because MEGA most for the most partns stupid.
Speaker 3: They're you know, this is why does this you say
Speaker 3: most of MEGA is Stupidian not stupid, was not stupid,
Speaker 3: but but it's they're prominent commentators in MEGA.
Speaker 1: I get Tecker, Carlson, Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 4: I think also uh saying making claims that this is
Speaker 4: an effort. It's echoes of Lucretia, right, there's an effort
Speaker 4: by the military industrial complex to draw the US back
Speaker 4: into foreign wars and foreign engagement.
Speaker 1: That's what they've been saying.
Speaker 5: Distinctions like between getting US involved in Ukraine and getting
Speaker 5: US involved in this thing in Middle East. Then you're
Speaker 5: hear an idiot and you don't deserve to be talking
Speaker 5: about it. I'm sorry, it was what we talked about
Speaker 5: really quickly. Sorry, Steve, But what we talked about last week.
Speaker 5: What I hate about these theories and the these positions
Speaker 5: is that they're you know, they just make you lazy,
Speaker 5: intellectually unable to make moral distinctions, political distinctions, all of
Speaker 5: those things. There is a distinction between the United States
Speaker 5: sending Israel the capability it needs to destroy nuclear weapons
Speaker 5: in Iran, which is an existential problem, and the United
Speaker 5: States getting involved in Ukraine in its regional conflict with Russia. Sorry,
Speaker 5: there you go, Steve.
Speaker 2: Now John typical, you would name a couple of clowns
Speaker 2: like Tucker Carlson, who's gone nuts, and Charlie Kirk, who's
Speaker 2: not a serious person. I think the most serious sput
Speaker 2: it this way. The most interesting commentary on this in
Speaker 2: the last couple of days comes from a very unlikely source.
Speaker 2: It's Paul Gottfried, one of the original paleocons at Chronicles magazine.
Speaker 2: Oh no, he's well known in the paleocon Russell Kirk
Speaker 2: type world.
Speaker 5: Right, the paleocons. They don't even get those people.
Speaker 2: But you did not interrupt me, please, Lucretia, just for once, please.
Speaker 2: Paul is well known as one of the leading critics
Speaker 2: of neocons for thirty years. He said, let me read
Speaker 2: you one of the things he said in Chronicles yesterday
Speaker 2: quote in my own view as a grizzled anti neocon warrior.
Speaker 2: I see no reason why our position should always be
Speaker 2: the exact opposite of what the neocons are advocating. Even
Speaker 2: the obsessions of our enemies. He thinks neocons are our
Speaker 2: enemies can occasionally be correct, as I think they are
Speaker 2: about Iran and the danger it poses as a terrorist state. Personally,
Speaker 2: I'm delighted that the Israelis have bombed at least some
Speaker 2: of the mubbe's nuclear installations, and I wouldn't cry if
Speaker 2: President Trump decides to go after the rest of Iran's
Speaker 2: nuclear facilities by dropping a bunker bomb. Now I know, Lucretia,
Speaker 2: you don't care about Paul Godfrey and don't know who
Speaker 2: he is. He carries a lot of weight, He carries
Speaker 2: a lot of weight with the paleocon world, and for
Speaker 2: him to come out like this is a big deal.
Speaker 4: Sorry, I just don't understand how they the mega people,
Speaker 4: sorry I mean maga people is too broad a phrase,
Speaker 4: but how you reconcile it with this general attitude right
Speaker 4: of the Trump administration to lower our commitments around the
Speaker 4: world and to bring them into balance with our which
Speaker 4: I think what they believe is our reduced resources to
Speaker 4: spend on national defense. That isn't if we participate in
Speaker 4: the bombing of Florido, are we not actually getting involved
Speaker 4: in the war. And isn't it actually going to cause
Speaker 4: us to have to become more involved in whatever whatever
Speaker 4: happens there.
Speaker 5: I don't know what that's what. That's why I don't
Speaker 5: care what Paul Gottfried or neocons or anti neocons or
Speaker 5: whoever those people are if you cannot think about these
Speaker 5: things in adult, real terms and you have to fit
Speaker 5: it into some stupid box. Yes, the United States has
Speaker 5: been too involved in foreign war. Yes, the United States
Speaker 5: a foreign policy has been too much affected by raytheon
Speaker 5: and North of Grumman and all of those things. I
Speaker 5: agree with every bit of that. Does that mean that
Speaker 5: there will never ever again be a conflict in which
Speaker 5: the United States and extraordinary military power will be necessary.
Speaker 5: It's extraordinary capabilities will be necessary. It's just dumb, and
Speaker 5: the fact that we even entertain those arguments drives me crazy. Okay,
Speaker 5: So Paul Gottfreed, got Freed, got whatever's name is. So,
Speaker 5: so he's figured this out, Oh thank god. I mean,
Speaker 5: come on, folks, if the the Iranian regime has promised
Speaker 5: to destroy Israel and if it has nuclear weapons, it
Speaker 5: has the capability for doing so, and it is done.
Speaker 1: Why is that national interest in the United States too?
Speaker 5: Because if they destroy Israel, they'll they'll they will go
Speaker 5: for they will completely Really, you're asking me if there's
Speaker 5: a I don't even know how to answer that. If
Speaker 5: they destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb, how does that
Speaker 5: affect us?
Speaker 1: This is what they would say.
Speaker 4: I mean, these people would say that is not a
Speaker 4: They're not threatening the United States. They're not right, They're
Speaker 4: actually this I mean, I think it's a serious argument.
Speaker 4: Is the Middle East has distracted wasted our resources for
Speaker 4: so long. We need to pull out of there, and
Speaker 4: they don't mind if israel tacks are on, But why
Speaker 4: should the United States attack?
Speaker 5: And you really can't. Steve said it, I mean, Steve
Speaker 5: said it out actually right when he's not quoting somebody else.
Speaker 5: If you you can't, if Israel cannot completely finish the
Speaker 5: mission without help from the United States, that doesn't mean
Speaker 5: that the United States has you know, bowed down to
Speaker 5: the military industrial complex and that Trump has you know,
Speaker 5: abandoned everything he said. Trump made a promise in his campaign,
Speaker 5: Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. He didn't go
Speaker 5: into all the details about you know this or that
Speaker 5: we know that Trump won the first time because he
Speaker 5: was opposed to the US actions in the Middle East.
Speaker 5: We get that Stop seems to be more capable of
Speaker 5: nuanced thought than all of these supposed conservative intellectuals. Sorry, Steve,
Speaker 5: I know, I know you know exactly what's happening there.
Speaker 5: I don't care that Tucker Carlson is doing this, and
Speaker 5: I think that that social media has just overblown it.
Speaker 5: That's I think my frustration not with you, but with
Speaker 5: the idea. Yeah, go ahead, Steve.
Speaker 2: No, Actually, John has not declared himself in this question.
Speaker 2: So John, you have to say if you think we should.
Speaker 4: Bomb me ran Oh will you guys obviously know I should.
Speaker 4: I'm the original and neo Khanna. I wanted to attack
Speaker 4: her on in two thousand and seven. That's why we
Speaker 4: have this problem now. See all the trouble. Neocon policies
Speaker 4: could have saved you if you just listened to us. Oh,
Speaker 4: it would have been so much easier to destroy their
Speaker 4: weapons program back then too, eighteen years ago. Oh, you guys,
Speaker 4: this just shows Dick Cheney was right again.
Speaker 5: Oh trouble, John, Yeah, I'm not taking the bait on that, Steve.
Speaker 4: I don't think you were finished discussing the the you know,
Speaker 4: the domestic political aspects. Is this in fact a crack
Speaker 4: up of the MAGA coalition at least when it comes
Speaker 4: time to form policy?
Speaker 1: What do you make of it? I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of dissension, so I don't think so.
Speaker 2: And that's why I point out, But he's Godfrey's not
Speaker 2: the only one. I could quote you three or four
Speaker 2: more other influential, significant people who said, no, this is
Speaker 2: this is Lucreasi's right. This is a media creation. Uh,
Speaker 2: And it's all bogus and you bought it.
Speaker 4: John, I do. I I mean, I take people like
Speaker 4: Tucker Carlson. I don't know if I take the rigorousness
Speaker 4: of what he said seriously, but I take seriously that
Speaker 4: seems to represent the views of a lot of people.
Speaker 5: So I mean, he doesn't have the platform he used
Speaker 5: to John when he had a you know, nightly news
Speaker 5: show on Fox News.
Speaker 4: And and I mean he I mean, look, President you
Speaker 4: see pictures of him with President Trump and Elon Musk
Speaker 4: wearing mega hats in the Oval office, I haven't seen you.
Speaker 4: I haven't seen either the three of us invited to
Speaker 4: the Oval Office to hang out with Trump and give him.
Speaker 4: You did not this term as far as cost.
Speaker 5: But it's early. Still. Here's the point, though, I mean,
Speaker 5: you know, there are other people who have gone off
Speaker 5: the deep end, and I don't think that Tucker Carlson
Speaker 5: a speaks for MEGA. I do think he probably has
Speaker 5: a following, and it's in some ways it's unfortunate. I
Speaker 5: think I'm not going to argue that Tucker Carlson is
Speaker 5: an anti Semite, but you know, for some reason, he
Speaker 5: seems absolutely fascinated with resurrecting Hitler's reputation, you know, like
Speaker 5: like we need to spend more time on that. But
Speaker 5: so if it's disappointing to me, But look from the
Speaker 5: other point of view, Bill Crystal turned out to be
Speaker 5: an absolute moron. And I used to think he was
Speaker 5: like the smartest guy I could do.
Speaker 1: He's a smart guy. He is not an absolute moron.
Speaker 1: You just disagree.
Speaker 5: No, I don't disagree with him. He has he has
Speaker 5: completely gone off the deep end. John he he he
Speaker 5: now thinks that that. Let's see, he came out with
Speaker 5: a tweet against the Supreme Court's decision that we're going
Speaker 5: to get to about transgender If Bill Crystal is not
Speaker 5: smart enough to understand why the whole transgender movement is
Speaker 5: devastating to the moral fabric of this country after everything
Speaker 5: he supposedly learned when he was, you know, studying with
Speaker 5: Straussians and so on, he's he's I mean, he's not
Speaker 5: even the same person anymore. I don't get it. So
Speaker 5: my point is this, I am not a movement follower.
Speaker 5: I think right now, Trump is probably the smartest man
Speaker 5: out there when it comes to figuring out what we
Speaker 5: should be doing about Iranom Jesus.
Speaker 4: Trump is definitely not the smartest man out there trying
Speaker 4: to figure out what we're doing with the wrong That
Speaker 4: is outrageous exaggeration. I hope that's not true. Oh my gosh, Steve,
Speaker 4: let me, Steve, let me, just like Steve did, you
Speaker 4: want to finish up any point on the US, because
Speaker 4: otherwise we will turn now because Lucretia created the great
Speaker 4: segue for us to turn to Scrimetti. Well, Lucretia brought
Speaker 4: up the issue of the transgender movement, and we'll turn
Speaker 4: to Steve first for something completely different than his views
Speaker 4: on bombing Iranian nuclear sites, although maybe he'll find a
Speaker 4: common theme between these two topics.
Speaker 1: You never know.
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court this week, in a case called Scrimmetti,
Speaker 4: decided that states are allowed to ban transgender medical treatment,
Speaker 4: most notably surgery, but not just including surgery, also including
Speaker 4: hormone blockers and such that states could ban the use
Speaker 4: of these medical treatments four children under the age of
Speaker 4: eighteen for the purpose of changing their gender. The case
Speaker 4: ran along the usual lines sixty three, with the justices
Speaker 4: appointed by the conservative presidents and the majority, and the
Speaker 4: three justices appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden in the minority.
Speaker 4: Just two points about the decision of note before asking
Speaker 4: Steve has views. One, the Court said this law did
Speaker 4: not discriminate on the basis of sex and so did
Speaker 4: not involve having to ask and this is the second point,
Speaker 4: having to ask the question whether transgender people are a
Speaker 4: community that the Constitution protects directly along the lines of
Speaker 4: racial minorities and sex. So, in an opinion written by
Speaker 4: Chief Justice Roberts, so, Steve, what are your thoughts about
Speaker 4: the opinion and the maybe also the general issue of
Speaker 4: transgender The transgender political movement, and Lucretia's point to claim
Speaker 4: that the transgender movement is destroying the country.
Speaker 5: Well, I have moral fabric.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, Well, without good moral fabric, you don't have
Speaker 2: a country. It's like not having steel, as Trump might say. Okay,
Speaker 2: I have three quick points.
Speaker 1: You mean nip you mean Nippon Steele.
Speaker 2: I have three quick points, the last one being baked
Speaker 2: for Lucretia. The first point, by the way, I haven't
Speaker 2: had a chance to read the decisions because I've been
Speaker 2: on the road, traveling and chasing leprechauns and drinking guinness.
Speaker 1: But so you have been what you have been with
Speaker 1: the transgender commun.
Speaker 2: Well, I was in Dublin a few days ago on
Speaker 2: blooms Day, the famous day from you know Ulysses. Okay,
Speaker 2: it was quite the colorful scene, I have to say,
Speaker 2: coming as it does in the middle of Pride month. Okay,
Speaker 2: forget all that I've only seen snippets about the opinion
Speaker 2: on social media and whatnot. I was struck, however, first
Speaker 2: point by a long story in the New York Times
Speaker 2: here the Last couple of Days by Nick Confessatory. He's
Speaker 2: a very left wing writer, although pretty good journalist. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's the guy who wrote the devastating story about Michigan's
Speaker 2: DEI program that really helped.
Speaker 1: To sink it.
Speaker 2: And this story is very revealing. Yet to read between
Speaker 2: the lines a little about how much division this case
Speaker 2: caused on the left. A lot of people, a lot
Speaker 2: of people on the left said, this is a terrible idea.
Speaker 2: The way the culture of the country is now. You know,
Speaker 2: Trump has won re election. It's an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 2: They've read the polls. But the aclu IT not only
Speaker 2: insisted on bringing the case, but having a transgender lawyer
Speaker 2: who's now celebrity amongst the community. I guess will argue
Speaker 2: the case and I'll skip over the Oh. Here's two
Speaker 2: sentences from the article. The some believe, some believe. I
Speaker 2: love that euphemism of New York Times writers. Some believe
Speaker 2: the LGBTQ movement drove itself toward a cliff and took
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party with it. I'll bet that's a great understatement.
Speaker 2: But then there's a quote in the previous paragraph or
Speaker 2: two quoting well, I'll just read you a sentence quote.
Speaker 2: This case exposes a lot of ethical problems in the
Speaker 2: practice of medicine. End quote. A law professor with expertise
Speaker 2: and sex discrimination law told me, speaking on the condition
Speaker 2: of anonymity for fear of blowback from students and colleagues. Right,
Speaker 2: let that think, So it wasn't you, John. Obviously The
Speaker 2: point is is that how did this come about? What's
Speaker 2: because the Left lives in this hermetically sealed bubble where
Speaker 2: you know, of course, anybody wants to be anything, it
Speaker 2: has to be recognized as a protected class. That's point number,
Speaker 2: by the way, is you know, so do my own
Speaker 2: of dissent try to say, wait a minute, they should
Speaker 2: be a protected class. You know, this makes a determination
Speaker 2: based on sex. Yes, as though I mean, in other words,
Speaker 2: they proved once again that in fact democrats can't tell
Speaker 2: men from women, as you know Justice Jackson's famous comment,
Speaker 2: and the confirmation here, and the third point is is
Speaker 2: that the really strong concurrence in the case came from
Speaker 2: Justice Barrett.
Speaker 1: Yes has been attacking for being.
Speaker 2: I know I was aboutence. Thomas joined her opinion. Now
Speaker 2: he filed separately with a terrific opinion saying, look, you know,
Speaker 2: why should we defer to expertise because expertise has disgraced itself.
Speaker 2: So I think you see several things here. You see
Speaker 2: the end of the road for the protected classes beloved
Speaker 2: of you know, the eco protection movement and all the
Speaker 2: rest of that. Uh, the clear marker that I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: we're not gonna we're not going to give any difference
Speaker 2: to this progressive premise of one hundred years now of
Speaker 2: expert rule. But then, yes, I'll stop here with this Lucretia.
Speaker 2: Just the sparent looks pretty good this week. Maybe somebody
Speaker 2: should say something nice about her.
Speaker 5: Listen, I said something nice about about Kittangy a week
Speaker 5: ago or two weeks ago. So no, no, you see, that's
Speaker 5: the difference. I am not a member of any categorical
Speaker 5: group that if it comes from Kittangy it's wrong, as
Speaker 5: it comes from Barren it's right.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 5: I bring my rational skills to every argument that's made,
Speaker 5: and I don't care who makes it. It just turns
Speaker 5: out that most of the time Clarence Thomas makes the
Speaker 5: best arguments, right, That's what it really comes down to,
Speaker 5: because probably because he understands things the way I do,
Speaker 5: or I guess I should say it the opposite way.
Speaker 5: I understand things the way he does. But I'm very
Speaker 5: happy about his his and Alito's attack on boss Stock,
Speaker 5: which what's her name didn't do Bostoc. It shouldn't even
Speaker 5: what I like about Thomas's concurrence over Alito's Alito applies
Speaker 5: that it should be overturned. Thomas implies that it's such
Speaker 5: a stupid decision we shouldn't even be paying attention to
Speaker 5: it one way or the other. And that was probably
Speaker 5: my favorite thing about this case. Well, let's go back
Speaker 5: for a minute to what John said. Here's the problem John,
Speaker 5: if you start to embrace frands, sexual activities, transsexual identities,
Speaker 5: I don't know either's such namby Pamby words to begin with.
Speaker 5: What you've done is you've actually said that everything about
Speaker 5: the human condition that we have understood for millennia to
Speaker 5: be defining the marriage, the family, etc. Is destroyed. Now,
Speaker 5: people argued that that was also the case after a
Speaker 5: Burger foul, that there's always been homosexuality, but to celebrate
Speaker 5: it and give it legal sanction and all of that
Speaker 5: was to destroy the fabric of the family. Also, I'm
Speaker 5: not sure I disagree with that. I'm not sure that
Speaker 5: ship hasn't sailed, But I think that a while back,
Speaker 5: Steve and I started talking about how this was, this
Speaker 5: whole transgender thing was going to be the next major
Speaker 5: push by the left, and boy were we right, Probably
Speaker 5: more right than we ever realized. It's time to stop it.
Speaker 5: We're not going to be able to stop I don't
Speaker 5: think we'll ever see a situation where will pass what laws,
Speaker 5: widespread laws nationwide that stop people from being transgender if
Speaker 5: they're adults. But I think this is an absolute must.
Speaker 5: You know, this stand up for yelling stop right that
Speaker 5: you cannot go this far or you will destroy your country.
Speaker 5: There will be nothing left.
Speaker 4: You raised the example of what happened after the gay
Speaker 4: marriage decisions. And maybe I'm wrong to think this, but
Speaker 4: I'll ask Steve this society not collapse after gay marriage.
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 4: You know, so people could say the Burkean and Steve
Speaker 4: might like that society just move slowly.
Speaker 1: And experiment along the way and nobody.
Speaker 4: Isn't this the implication of the Time story, which I
Speaker 4: haven't read, But the Time story people could say their
Speaker 4: goal is still to have, you know, equal rights for
Speaker 4: the transgender community. They just thought this was rushing things
Speaker 4: along too fast and they should have waited a little
Speaker 4: longer and let the country's views catch up, and that
Speaker 4: was just a mistake to go to the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: this early. It doesn't sound like they think the overall
Speaker 4: goal is wrong. They just think their tactics are off.
Speaker 4: So why wouldn't why wouldn't the transgender movement just take
Speaker 4: this long but then continue with the Supreme Court? Actually
Speaker 4: the majority opinion in contrast, I think to what Barrett
Speaker 4: Thomas and Elido are saying, the majority Pini says we
Speaker 4: are taking no view at this time about whether the
Speaker 4: trans in their community has constitutional rights because we don't
Speaker 4: have to reach it. Doesn't that also give the opening
Speaker 4: for the fights about this to continue, Steve.
Speaker 2: Well, I suppose it does. Look let's back up the
Speaker 2: opening part of your question, which was Obergefel case. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's several ways to look at that. One is, at
Speaker 2: least same sex marriage is imitating a normal middle class practice.
Speaker 2: And you can say, as a sort of historical matter
Speaker 2: that homosexuality is very ancient, all right. You could say
Speaker 2: that a lot of the predictions then were by the way,
Speaker 2: or that the next step is going to be polygamy,
Speaker 2: legalizing polygamy. There were even some lawsuits brought. I don't
Speaker 2: know what ever happened to any of those, and.
Speaker 4: I think I think that they I think that they
Speaker 4: succeeded in Ireland perhaps, or Norway, where you spend a
Speaker 4: lot of your time these days, men decided.
Speaker 5: What a stupid thing to do to have more than
Speaker 5: one wife dealing with ones enough?
Speaker 2: Well, no, that's all right, Look, it's uh remember the
Speaker 2: popular culture slogan that happened literally the day of Old bergerfelt,
Speaker 2: love winds right now there, Yeah, I can't imagineything sort
Speaker 2: of stupid than that as an actual idea, right, love winds? Well,
Speaker 2: what if I love little children? Or what if I
Speaker 2: love three women at once?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: And in other words, there were total abandonment that there
Speaker 2: was any way of reasoning about any matters of the
Speaker 2: distinction or limits. But we didn't get a push for polygamy.
Speaker 2: What we got was, I think it was literally six
Speaker 2: weeks later you had the first bills in North Carolina
Speaker 2: to say let everybody use any bathroom they want, and
Speaker 2: transgender rights and all the rest of that. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think it was literally decided by the Human Rights
Speaker 2: Campaign Fund and other of the identity groups that now
Speaker 2: we're going to press the pedal to the metal on
Speaker 2: the whole transgender business. And that caught everyone by surprise
Speaker 2: because we were expecting something more gradual. It's going to
Speaker 2: be polygamy or you know who the heck knows, right,
Speaker 2: And so there we are and at you know, the
Speaker 2: end of the day, it's a question of human nature.
Speaker 2: I'll just say here, and Lucasia may or may not
Speaker 2: disagree to one degree or another, but the fact that
Speaker 2: you can observe homosexuality in all of human history suggests
Speaker 2: that it may be aberrant, it may be beyond the
Speaker 2: normal statistical distribution, but maybe not unnatural in the least
Speaker 2: in one sense. It's unnatural from the point of view
Speaker 2: of telos, which I know you guys bought up last
Speaker 2: week in natural law, that's true, but as an actual
Speaker 2: human phenomenon that we witness, yes, But to be transgender,
Speaker 2: as we now know, you have to you have to
Speaker 2: make physical, chemical interventions on the human body and perform
Speaker 2: surgeries that cannot be natural under any kind of understanding
Speaker 2: of nature and its spectrum.
Speaker 1: I'll stop there, Lucretia. I don't understand what all that
Speaker 1: made sense or not, but so go ahead. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: but I don't understand.
Speaker 4: So are you saying that natural uh, natural rights cannot
Speaker 4: encompass things that involve change to sort of the basic
Speaker 4: human I don't know what genetic or physical condition, but
Speaker 4: we have human aided assistance and all kinds I mean
Speaker 4: machine aided assistance and all kinds of aspects of life.
Speaker 5: Okay, So so if we were to do.
Speaker 1: Our lives, we distinguished and I won't.
Speaker 5: But what Aristotle says is the basis of human society
Speaker 5: is the family, okay, and and you know builds from there.
Speaker 5: No no aerorsot a lesson today. But I think in
Speaker 5: some ways you're by the way, you're wrong. The problem
Speaker 5: is I can only do correlation and not causation between
Speaker 5: gay marriage and further destruction of the moral fabric of
Speaker 5: our society. And I do think like Steve, that we
Speaker 5: probably right away didn't predict the transgender thing. That is
Speaker 5: really you know, it started out as a very fringe
Speaker 5: kind of kinky I don't even know the right words
Speaker 5: for it, and then you know, the Left forced it
Speaker 5: to be mainstream on us. But the good average American
Speaker 5: person understands there's nothing right about this. If you have
Speaker 5: to have if a man who claims his identity as
Speaker 5: a woman has to have surgery in order to do so.
Speaker 5: Does that make any damn sense? And of course you're
Speaker 5: not a woman? What it would actually define it, TANGI
Speaker 5: couldn't tell us the normal definition of those things. The
Speaker 5: common sense definition of those things is what people understand.
Speaker 5: And this is all an attempt to throw it in
Speaker 5: their face and say, well, your common sense view isn't
Speaker 5: isn't it's bigoted and it's unscientific, and you know people
Speaker 5: are too smart for that. Okay, I'm gonna actually apologize
Speaker 5: to Steve first before I do this and say it's
Speaker 5: really interesting because what popped up on my phone as
Speaker 5: Steve was talking was an article from Substak by Matt Tavey,
Speaker 5: who says the Supreme Court drives a stake in transgender controversy,
Speaker 5: neither party says much. Is this chapter in American politics
Speaker 5: headed for the dustbin of history? And he goes on
Speaker 5: to say even the New York Times seems to agree
Speaker 5: with it. Of course they can't quite come out and
Speaker 5: say so. I think that because America. Remember, the most
Speaker 5: successful political campaign ad of the twenty twenty four presidential
Speaker 5: election was Sama is for they them is for you
Speaker 5: people understand that this is that. I think that it's
Speaker 5: a vast conspiracy by the evil left to create amongst
Speaker 5: the already mentally disturbed out there some sort of place
Speaker 5: for them to go to and be, you know, supported,
Speaker 5: be part of some movement. And I think that most
Speaker 5: people who claim to be transgender are just following trends,
Speaker 5: and it's certainly true of children. That turns out that
Speaker 5: there aren't very many children in the Amish community who
Speaker 5: are claiming to be transgender. Why is that? Why are
Speaker 5: they all from Berkeley and you know, Cambridge, Massachusetts and
Speaker 5: other places like that. Why aren't they from Springfield, Ohio?
Speaker 5: Because it's not a genuine Oh, we must accept who
Speaker 5: they believe they are. It's being forced on them by
Speaker 5: some sort of massive propaganda campaign. Okay, done to Steve says,
Speaker 5: we're unning out of time.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, now that Lucretia has been gotten this band
Speaker 4: on all the other distribution channels we were not already
Speaker 4: banned on, why don't we turned very briefly to the
Speaker 4: last issue, which just came out last night. And I
Speaker 4: can't think of a better place for us to talk
Speaker 4: about it than a better place for anyone to talk
Speaker 4: about it than the decision last night by the San
Speaker 4: Francisco Federal Appeals Court. The Ninth Circuit used to be
Speaker 4: one of the most liberal courts in America, upholding President
Speaker 4: Trump's right to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles.
Speaker 4: And the implication would be, if you read the opinion
Speaker 4: other cities in America where rioters are trying to prevent
Speaker 4: immigration authorities from carrying out their duties.
Speaker 1: So, Steve, you know who.
Speaker 4: People may not know this, but Steve is a secret
Speaker 4: admirer of Koreans. A particular brand of Koreans, what we
Speaker 4: call who we're known and because is the roof Koreans.
Speaker 4: And these are the Koreans during the Rodney king riots
Speaker 4: who took self defense in their own hands and got
Speaker 4: up on the roofs above their buildings while they were
Speaker 4: being burned down by riders and shot people from their roofs.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure how many people they actually shot, but
Speaker 4: they certainly tried to defend their property. And there are
Speaker 4: these famous pictures of them with rifles. And people don't
Speaker 4: realize this, but Steve has been emailing pictures of these
Speaker 4: guys saying which ones look like me.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: I don't have big hair anymore. Neither does Steve for sure,
Speaker 4: But you know that was Steve was around for the
Speaker 4: last set of riots in LA, the last time the
Speaker 4: National Guard was deployed. Steve, what do you think about
Speaker 4: this opinion? And maybe more broadly, what do you think
Speaker 4: about Trump deploying the military to LA? Is it time
Speaker 4: for it to come to a close? Does he actually
Speaker 4: need to ramp it up? Does it need to be
Speaker 4: in places.
Speaker 1: More than Los Angeles?
Speaker 4: Undeniably, this is a big win for the Trump administration,
Speaker 4: which would be the top of the news were it
Speaker 4: not for the fact that we're about to bomb Iran.
Speaker 2: Well, it seems a perfectly sensible outcome, and I don't
Speaker 2: have much to say about whether he should expand it
Speaker 2: or into LA or whatever. You know, I'm in overseas
Speaker 2: almost a month now, so I'm remote from things.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, should.
Speaker 4: We send them to Dublin? I mean, Dublin's had troubles.
Speaker 4: I hear maybe they could solve their security issues too.
Speaker 2: Well, I am going to a protest tomorrow that's apparently
Speaker 2: a populist protest against current Irish policy. That Tommy Robinson's
Speaker 2: guy's been promoting it. Look. Actually, all I'm curious about John,
Speaker 2: is anybody keeping a one loss tally for Trump. My
Speaker 2: impression is he's doing pretty well on appeals with these
Speaker 2: many district judges who keep getting in his way. But
Speaker 2: I've lost.
Speaker 1: Count Oh yes, No, And this all happened, I think
Speaker 1: while you've been away.
Speaker 4: But the trial decision, which was quite activist, right, this
Speaker 4: is a judge, you said. I can review whether there
Speaker 4: are conditions on the ground that justify using the military.
Speaker 4: I can say that Trump did not sufficiently consult with
Speaker 4: Gavin Newsom before sending the tree. I can say that
Speaker 4: federal law is being enforced enough that Justice this was
Speaker 4: no other than Stephen Brier's younger brother, Chuck Bryer, who's
Speaker 4: a federal judge, and I think really expressed or the
Speaker 4: progressive view of judging here.
Speaker 1: There's no difference.
Speaker 2: All I can say is they must be having too
Speaker 2: much Briar's ice cream because they both suffered from brain freeze.
Speaker 1: All right, couldn't.
Speaker 5: Help, and I don't thank you. I said last week
Speaker 5: Steve that I didn't think that even Justice Stephen Brier
Speaker 5: would have gone as far on that whole No, Kings
Speaker 5: and yeah, da da da da. Anyway, maybe we should
Speaker 5: have some limits on never mind that anyway, back to
Speaker 5: the decision. Of course, the president has this power. John
Speaker 5: made it very clear by taking us last week's step
Speaker 5: by step through the the legal power that the president has.
Speaker 5: So you know, I think that if it keeps going
Speaker 5: for or if they keep suing, it will win before
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court. Do you think they will even challenge
Speaker 5: his decision?
Speaker 4: John?
Speaker 5: At the Supreme Court?
Speaker 4: Oh, well's running for this is Noosom running for president.
Speaker 4: But the interesting question is I could easily see the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court not granting review the case.
Speaker 1: Now, yeah, because they probably agree with the outcome. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's no there's no split in the circuits
Speaker 4: on this, and it is an important federal question, but
Speaker 4: they probably feel the Ninth Circuit got it right.
Speaker 5: Sah. I did see several commentators try to make some
Speaker 5: some get some hope out of this and say that well,
Speaker 5: he did say that the court did the Ninth Circuit
Speaker 5: Court did intimate that the judges did have some role
Speaker 5: to play in all of this, and that made the
Speaker 5: only sort of tiny area which could actually find its
Speaker 5: way to the court to the Supreme Court. But at
Speaker 5: any rate, I think it's good news. I do think
Speaker 5: that the tests are are winding down a bit. And
Speaker 5: so before Trump actually you know, uses nuclear weapons against protesters,
Speaker 5: I am in frustrated.
Speaker 1: Well that would be only a few were secretary defense,
Speaker 1: but no.
Speaker 5: I can't imagine. But anyway, so yeah, good thing, and
Speaker 5: I think those things are going to keep happening. But
Speaker 5: one last comment on this, and Steve had actually put
Speaker 5: in his morning substack all of our articles. It's very interesting.
Speaker 5: Without any coordination, both John and I decided to write
Speaker 5: articles about executive power and and you know, the proper
Speaker 5: way to understand executive power within our constitution, the separation
Speaker 5: of powers, checks and balances. And I did so out
Speaker 5: of not because of John, about although we've had many conversations.
Speaker 5: I did so a lot of frustration and about some
Speaker 5: of the idiot commentary that was out there, and you know,
Speaker 5: just things like well presidents can't call for impeachment. That
Speaker 5: would be unconstitutional, dumb dumb thing. Right. So but my
Speaker 5: point in making it quickly, because I know we've got
Speaker 5: to end, Steve, is that this has in fact for
Speaker 5: about you know, ever since the Trump being attacked with
Speaker 5: lawfare and so forth. We've had some very serious conversations
Speaker 5: for the last couple of years about what is the
Speaker 5: nature of executive power, what is the nature of judicial power?
Speaker 5: And I think that's been good for the republic. Shall
Speaker 5: we say, for people to start seriously considering and debating
Speaker 5: and writing about these things, so that the American people
Speaker 5: go back to understanding how their constitution is supposed to work?
Speaker 5: Am I too optimistic like Steve?
Speaker 1: Oh? I disagree.
Speaker 4: I want the people to remain asleep while their betters
Speaker 4: run the government on their path. So we are unfortunately,
Speaker 4: I mean, this is I can't believe how fast the
Speaker 4: hour went. We are unfortunately at the end of time
Speaker 4: we were going to so I want to definitely do this.
Speaker 1: Next week.
Speaker 4: We were planning to talk about Steve and Lucretia's article
Speaker 4: and National Affairs, which everyone's going to buy and read
Speaker 4: because it has my article about birthright citizenship at the top,
Speaker 4: but way down at the way the way down, at
Speaker 4: the bottom of the list of table of contents, it
Speaker 4: is an article about envy. And I think this was
Speaker 4: really I had the luck to read it in draft
Speaker 4: many many months ago, and I think this would be
Speaker 4: a really interesting thing for us to discuss about envy
Speaker 4: and its unfortunate impact on public policy.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately we have to end now.
Speaker 4: So, Lucretia, do you have some Babylon b mine great?
Speaker 5: I have some great ones. So the first one we
Speaker 5: didn't even get to this, but again another article, Democrats
Speaker 5: announce they will celebrate Juneteenth by giving their slaves an
Speaker 5: extra five minute break. Okay, so this one, I like
Speaker 5: Democrats confused on what exactly children are for if you
Speaker 5: can't mutilate or kill them. And it's a picture of Schumer. Okay,
Speaker 5: So we didn't actually talk specifically about Ted Cruz's interview
Speaker 5: with Tucker Carlson, but I'm assuming everybody I.
Speaker 1: Don't watch it. No, I don't know about it, but.
Speaker 5: You saw read you read about it. So this is
Speaker 5: the babonbee Ted Cruz destroyed in interview as he's unable
Speaker 5: to name Iotola's favorite starter Pokemon. You have to think
Speaker 5: about that for a minute. British doctor arrested for misgendering
Speaker 5: baby he just murdered. Come on that, that one's funny.
Speaker 5: I don't care what you say. Iran starting to regret
Speaker 5: regret putting old blind Mohammed in charging in charge of
Speaker 5: aiming all missiles.
Speaker 1: Yeah that one I like.
Speaker 4: Okay, well let me bring it to a close and
Speaker 4: then so always drink your whiskey.
Speaker 1: Meat and Steve, what is.
Speaker 4: The latest ai haiku slash poem slash right epic well
Speaker 4: poem about us?
Speaker 2: Since I'm in Ireland and I was driving through Limerick,
Speaker 2: I decided we needed a Limerick instead of oh no
Speaker 2: legend right. Yeah, I actually did one of my own,
Speaker 2: but I'll leave it beside. This one's better. Here's from
Speaker 2: chat GPT. Three pals with a dram and a mic,
Speaker 2: talk whiskey, their banter just right, with laughs that flow
Speaker 2: free like a good PT spree. They're podcasts of Friday
Speaker 2: Night the.
Speaker 4: Light, Steve, that's so much better than your usual lyrics
Speaker 4: about Nantucket. Why everybody see you next week?
Speaker 5: Month?
Speaker 3: We said, that's a day.
Speaker 1: Because that's you. Livens the beer that keeps un.
Speaker 2: Giving in I'm drinking and I am winning.
Speaker 1: If it's all then I'm feel nice.
Speaker 5: That's you.
Speaker 2: Revenue names the peer that keeps un given some hoddest price,
Speaker 2: you get a bigger that Chief takes.
Speaker 4: Twice.
Speaker 2: We got on a plane and flew across the seat.
Speaker 2: Next thing that we do a far in Germany, we
Speaker 2: met a Donny months we made a dining gutta. They
Speaker 2: pointed at the table.
Speaker 5: They said we were drinking under USA likes water done beer.
Speaker 1: That's not drumming on the Upto Bonn in first gear.
Speaker 2: I said, we just came to Polk A hardcore.
Speaker 5: That's still lived, he that keeps on giving, and that
Speaker 5: if I'm bringing an eye, am winning better than I
Speaker 5: feel nice.
Speaker 2: Ricochet join the conversation.