Speaker 1: Well, whiskey, come and fame my pains all.
Speaker 2: Ray, oh whiskey, Why think alone when you can drink
Speaker 2: it all?
Speaker 3: In with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy.
Speaker 2: Hour, join your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John U and the
Speaker 2: International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia.
Speaker 1: Where they slaps it happened, David, ain't you baby on
Speaker 1: the snow Tat's gotta give me.
Speaker 3: And let that whiskey flow.
Speaker 4: Welcome everybody to the Snowmageddon episode of the Three Whiskey
Speaker 4: Happy Hour, where I am the only true American on
Speaker 4: this podcast because I about to have a foot of
Speaker 4: snow dumped on me while Lucretia and Steve Hayward, my
Speaker 4: co hosts, sit in their sunny climbs and are wondering,
Speaker 4: what are we talking about? Freezing rain, snow? What are
Speaker 4: these magical substances they know?
Speaker 5: Not raining here?
Speaker 3: John, Yeah, it's it's cloudy here. It rained a little yesterday,
Speaker 3: but it's mild.
Speaker 2: I've been through those snow mageddons many times, and I
Speaker 2: did get to communicate yesterday from a friend, actually, someone
Speaker 2: on the faculty of George Mason Law School, who said
Speaker 2: she went to the local whole foods or whatever the
Speaker 2: market was, and they were sold out of Pellegrino, which.
Speaker 4: Is that's like the end of civilization.
Speaker 3: The Northern Virginia thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 4: So, as some of you know, I'm spending this semester
Speaker 4: at the University of Texas at Austin, and so I
Speaker 4: went to my first h e B which is, you know,
Speaker 4: some kind of cool supermarket here that rivals Walmart but
Speaker 4: only exists in Texas. The owner who's private, it's privately owned.
Speaker 4: I believe the owner doesn't want there to be any
Speaker 4: outside of Texas. And it was like a rodeo. People
Speaker 4: were going crazy buying up water pasta. It's actually interesting
Speaker 4: the things people buy in turn in case of a design,
Speaker 4: they'd buy water pasta and toilet paper.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I don't know why they think COVID creep?
Speaker 3: How about you?
Speaker 4: Is there going to be a disaster in Arizona?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 5: Two things. So, when I was about seven months pregnant
Speaker 5: living in upstate New York, we had an ice storm
Speaker 5: that took out our power for three and a half weeks,
Speaker 5: and so we had oil you know oil generators, right,
Speaker 5: but we had a some pump that kept the cellar
Speaker 5: from filling up with water, so we actually had to
Speaker 5: get a generator so that some pump would work. And
Speaker 5: then we were warm, and we were the only house
Speaker 5: in the entire town that had lights on, and all
Speaker 5: the soldiers are coming in eating stew that I was
Speaker 5: making on my gas stove and whatnot. We had absolutely fine,
Speaker 5: but it was a disaster. I mean, seriously, nobody, that's
Speaker 5: thing one, Thing two, thing two. How long could you
Speaker 5: guys go without making I mean I think I could
Speaker 5: go for two months with the food that I have
Speaker 5: here at the house the freezer. I wouldn't be eating
Speaker 5: things I want to eat eventually.
Speaker 4: But in California, for me, that was easy because I
Speaker 4: didn't have a lot of food, but I had a
Speaker 4: lot of ammunition, so I could just stone next door
Speaker 4: and get as much food as I wanted. But Ruts
Speaker 4: that theory doesn't work anymore. So go to h me
Speaker 4: and get camed chili like everybody else.
Speaker 2: But wait a minute, John, you're facing you know army
Speaker 2: Snowmagedden in Texas, and you haven't socked up on whiskey
Speaker 2: for the weekend.
Speaker 3: No, that was dumb up.
Speaker 4: I didn't stop by the liquor. They also have everything
Speaker 4: here's bigger. So they have these enormous liquor stores that
Speaker 4: are the size of supermarkets Texas, right, yeah, Yeah, what's
Speaker 4: the old one? Three blocks from where I'm staying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's the old joke?
Speaker 2: Is that in Texas the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Speaker 2: Firearms is a convenience store chain.
Speaker 4: So aha, what are you drinking, Freud?
Speaker 3: I'm drinking with Freud of course. Yeah.
Speaker 4: And I appreciate you're oh lucre of you, John, Yes,
Speaker 4: that's a great drink. Whistle pig piggyback rye.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: So, by the way, I should mention for listeners, John,
Speaker 2: I mean you're in charge of this, but the three
Speaker 2: of us are going to be there joining you in Austin.
Speaker 3: And was it two weeks? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Talk about live Yeah, we'll have a typing Well we'll try,
Speaker 2: I mean audient kind of.
Speaker 3: But I am.
Speaker 2: I am watching this whole storm with great interest because
Speaker 2: it will be relevant to that conference. You know, when
Speaker 2: Texas had that big freeze, what was a twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3: I think five years ago?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you know you had huge power outages, but
Speaker 2: not just that because so many generators were offline and
Speaker 2: things weren't working. Uh, the Texas grid had to buy
Speaker 2: power from out of state where they could get it.
Speaker 2: They normally pay I think the average price in Texas,
Speaker 2: the spot price for electricity something like forty dollar a
Speaker 2: megawatt hour. The price during that crisis rose to nine
Speaker 2: thousand dollars for mega wow. And you know the utility
Speaker 2: has to eat that cost because you know, you get fixed,
Speaker 2: regulated retail prices to customers, so it costs them huge
Speaker 2: amounts of money. So now you're going to see possibly
Speaker 2: a freeze of that magnitude crossing tire southwest, like one
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty million people perhaps, And you see that, Steve.
Speaker 5: That our friend Robert Bryce said that the price of
Speaker 5: natural gas had already risen by fifty five percent.
Speaker 3: Yeah, gas is way up.
Speaker 2: And right, that's just for not only home use, but
Speaker 2: for generators that are going to be going full blast.
Speaker 3: And well, now.
Speaker 5: Would you use natural gas on it? I guess if
Speaker 5: there was a permanent built in generator, you might, but
Speaker 5: normally well.
Speaker 3: No, no, natural I mean it's natural gas.
Speaker 2: Speaker plants for no, I mean natural gas, you know,
Speaker 2: combines the big plants.
Speaker 3: You know, you're big five in our megawatt plants gas
Speaker 3: as your producer, and.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll stop there in the schooling Lucree on energy,
Speaker 2: which he's learn all about here in two weeks.
Speaker 3: So okay, well, let's yeah.
Speaker 4: I'm sure the reader's listeners they can send in comments
Speaker 4: about what they're going to do over the weekend during
Speaker 4: snow armageddon, and maybe favorite drink, favorite foods to eat
Speaker 4: while we're holed up for the next two days, like eskimones, cavemen,
Speaker 4: whatever you But why don't we start with our first topic,
Speaker 4: which was going to be I believe some of the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court oral arguments and cases this week. Is that
Speaker 4: what you guys? And also some questions about ICE searching
Speaker 4: people's houses for illegal aliens?
Speaker 3: Do I have that right?
Speaker 5: Let me start, John, because I had one of our
Speaker 5: very loyal listeners asked this question, and there have been
Speaker 5: things about it ever since he asked it, which was
Speaker 5: only yesterday afternoon, including what you said, here is the
Speaker 5: question the Democrats most mainstream media organizations outlets are are
Speaker 5: reporting that the when when an ICE agent goes into
Speaker 5: a home without judicial warrant but with uh and let
Speaker 5: me help not mess this up, John, an administrative warrant
Speaker 5: that is actually the result of the final determination through
Speaker 5: the whole process du process of determining that this person
Speaker 5: has actually removal orders that it is appropriate or is
Speaker 5: it appropriate? They're saying it's inappropriate. It's a Fourth Amendment
Speaker 5: violation to go into someone's house without a judicial warrant
Speaker 5: of the Fourth Amendment type. So fixed where I.
Speaker 4: So, let me describe what the law is and then
Speaker 4: we could have I think a very interesting discussion about
Speaker 4: what the original understanding of the Constitution should be, because
Speaker 4: I think those are quite those are different. So the
Speaker 4: law of these days is to get you can get
Speaker 4: a warrant that's called an administrative warrant, which allows you
Speaker 4: to search without going through the process that's used for
Speaker 4: the criminal justice system, where you go to a federal
Speaker 4: judge and you have to show probable cause that criminal
Speaker 4: activity is occurring in this location. The judge gives you
Speaker 4: that warrant and specifies exactly where you can search, when
Speaker 4: and so on, and then that gives you the.
Speaker 3: And the remedy.
Speaker 4: The interesting thing is, right, what is the real remedy
Speaker 4: for a violation of that? Is that at your criminal
Speaker 4: trial the evidence that's gathered is suppressed. So administrative warrant
Speaker 4: is this kind of thing that was created by these
Speaker 4: progressive era agencies where they would say, I'm not mentioning
Speaker 4: your statute, Steve, don't get excited. But the case is
Speaker 4: that exists come out of that, right, There are these
Speaker 4: cases that come out of Well, if you're the EPA
Speaker 4: and you are going to inspect a business to make
Speaker 4: sure they were complying with unnamed statutes, would you really
Speaker 4: have to go to a court and get a warrant.
Speaker 4: There's no criminal punishment at the end of it. So
Speaker 4: they created this idea of the administrative warrant where you
Speaker 4: wanted to search for violations of quality of things. We're
Speaker 4: not going to mention in violation of a regulation. You
Speaker 4: could go and get a warrant from a non judge,
Speaker 4: and the court has kind of upheld these, but they
Speaker 4: haven't decided exactly how independent that quote unquote judge would
Speaker 4: have to be. It wouldn't have to be a federal judge.
Speaker 4: It could be a judge like the kind that work
Speaker 4: at agencies. Perhaps, So this is a question, right when
Speaker 4: you are enforcing immigration law, Theoretically that's not a criminal proceeding.
Speaker 4: You're just grabbing them and kicking them out, that's not criminal.
Speaker 4: Could an immigration judge is the warrant to go catch
Speaker 4: these people, enter house, catch them and eject them. How
Speaker 4: independent does that immigration judge have to be? Immigration judges
Speaker 4: work for the Justice Department. They're not part of the
Speaker 4: federal bench. And so that's that's actually not been decided
Speaker 4: by the Supreme Court, believe it or not.
Speaker 2: Well, now, John, you don't have to use a certain
Speaker 2: favorite unnamed statute. You could use OSHA inspections where I
Speaker 2: think this has been a live issue for a long
Speaker 2: time because I remember being controversies about OSHA Occupational Safety
Speaker 2: and Health Administration. Right, they would show up at workplaces
Speaker 2: to do an unannounced inspection for safety purposes, and people said,
Speaker 2: isn't this a don't they need a warrant? Isn't this
Speaker 2: a Fourth Amendment violation? And I don't know where that
Speaker 2: all landed, although I do know the data that we
Speaker 2: learned a few years ago that proceedings before administrative law
Speaker 2: judges of the IRS or the SEC were always hugely
Speaker 2: favorable to guess what the agency?
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, So I don't know where it all stands.
Speaker 3: But interesting question.
Speaker 4: Well, it's interesting also because the arguments that are being
Speaker 4: raised against this used to be raised by conservatives defending
Speaker 4: property rights right and wanting to limit the power of the
Speaker 4: administrative state, and so he has right.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: The other let me ask acretion of this is if
Speaker 4: you believed in natural rights, and you thought that the
Speaker 4: Bill of Rights was just a statement of some but
Speaker 4: not all, then would you have to believe that the
Speaker 4: government just has no power to search your house ever
Speaker 4: for any reason except when it can get a criminal warrant.
Speaker 4: Right would the natural right presumption be well, there is
Speaker 4: no power ever given to the government to search your
Speaker 4: house for administrative purposes, So why does the government get
Speaker 4: do it?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: Well, this doesn't sorry, go ahead ahead, you can answer, Steve. Well,
Speaker 2: I'll just go this is a criminal matter being investigated.
Speaker 2: We're you know, it's one thing to say we're looking
Speaker 2: for civil violations of safety regulations. It's a different thing
Speaker 2: to say we are looking for someone who's violated immigration
Speaker 2: laws and in many cases, many others.
Speaker 3: But immigration is.
Speaker 4: Non crypt Immigration is not criminal. It's not okay, well,
Speaker 4: it is considered administrative.
Speaker 5: But you can be a felon under immigration law.
Speaker 4: That's one of the reasons to kick you out.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yes, yes, And and presumably presumably I couldn't tell
Speaker 5: you in any given case, we are talking about illegal
Speaker 5: aliens who have been adjudicated as removable deportable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, by these judges.
Speaker 5: I still have a really hard time, based on social
Speaker 5: contract theory, with the idea that the for that anything
Speaker 5: in the Bill of Rights applies to a non citizens,
Speaker 5: especially to a non citizen who is here not subject
Speaker 5: to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Speaker 4: But and then you're going to throw that in.
Speaker 5: I do agree with you that it, you know, I
Speaker 5: like to throw out there the dissent from Olmsted versus
Speaker 5: us that, you know, whatever, whatever else. A civilized society believes,
Speaker 5: it believes in an a sphere of privacy into which
Speaker 5: the government made on intrude right, and I do believe that. However,
Speaker 5: I honestly do think that in this case, if you
Speaker 5: have been adjudicated to be deportable, it's a what it's
Speaker 5: a technicality about how Ice finds you and gets you
Speaker 5: out of here. You have no right not to stay
Speaker 5: in your house and not be deported, is what it
Speaker 5: would come down to. I don't know that's not a
Speaker 5: very good legal theory, and I won't know be a
Speaker 5: lawyer today.
Speaker 4: I can I throw on two things. It pains me
Speaker 4: to support Lucretia's arguments with evidence, so why I mean,
Speaker 4: because humfully they're much better without any evidence. But love
Speaker 4: argument is and this need the implication people haven't teased out.
Speaker 3: But you know that.
Speaker 4: Justice Thomas and some folks in the Claremont School think
Speaker 4: that the Bill of Rights should be incorporated against the
Speaker 4: States through the Privileges and Immunities.
Speaker 3: Clause, not the due process clause.
Speaker 4: That would make a big difference on your point, because
Speaker 4: the privileges and immunities are privileges and immunities of citizens
Speaker 4: of the United States, and the due process clause is
Speaker 4: just to persons. So if actually in corporation of things
Speaker 4: like the Fourteenth Amendment against the States were to shift,
Speaker 4: then you might have to figure this out whether aliens
Speaker 4: who are here illegally actually get constitutional rights of the
Speaker 4: same kind that citizens get when you do it through
Speaker 4: the due process clause. The Court has said when you
Speaker 4: do it through the process clause, because it's to persons,
Speaker 4: everyone on the territory of the US gets the same
Speaker 4: constitutional rights. It's really that could make a big difference.
Speaker 4: But you know, the court doesn't seem to show any
Speaker 4: signs of One last thing is that the original understanding
Speaker 4: does seem to be from the fourteenth Amendment that privileges
Speaker 4: and immunities. It really is the right sparing provision, not
Speaker 4: exactly what.
Speaker 5: I was going to say. Give evidence to your evidence, John,
Speaker 5: And that evidence also includes the fact that it was
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court who really mucked it up in the
Speaker 5: first place. And again, all of the legislative history, evidence
Speaker 5: and so on of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 5: indicates that it was intended to take the Privileges and
Speaker 5: Immunities clause as the proof that the at least the
Speaker 5: first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights, the first
Speaker 5: eight amendments would be in fact applied to the states.
Speaker 5: And that's, you know, really because it was designed to
Speaker 5: change that relationship between between citizens and their states versus
Speaker 5: citizens and their federal government. The original Bill of Rights,
Speaker 5: Marshall told us, was to protect us against federal government abuse,
Speaker 5: because that was the considered the greatest danger in the founding.
Speaker 5: But the Civil War sort of puts that on its head,
Speaker 5: and so I think that Thomas has always been right
Speaker 5: about that. Whether the court will I mean, that would
Speaker 5: be a major that would be bigger even than overturning Humphreys.
Speaker 5: Let's just put it down way.
Speaker 4: Oh I agree, So let's take a go to commercial Well, yeah,
Speaker 4: go ahead with and also raise Steve's favorite topic of
Speaker 4: parents genderism. And when we return, Steve, your thoughts on
Speaker 4: differences in constitutional rights or between the aliens and citizens,
Speaker 4: or the privileges and ease.
Speaker 3: Caused or the right.
Speaker 4: I'm sure you're going to turn this in some kind
Speaker 4: of discussion environmentalism, but about administrative schurches and the Fourth
Speaker 4: Amendment was the leading Supreme Court case is called I
Speaker 4: think it's Monsanto versus Ruckle Shouts or something. So, oh, yeah,
Speaker 4: you know it's a Monsanto case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but Steve, go ahead yourself.
Speaker 2: I already got that out of my system in the
Speaker 2: opening bit about power prices in Texas this weekend. I
Speaker 2: actually I was going to bring up something slightly different.
Speaker 2: We've done a decent job with the Fourth Amendment there,
Speaker 2: and that is just as Thomas.
Speaker 3: You mentioned.
Speaker 2: Something else this week is embraceive natural law in the
Speaker 2: what the Ellenberg case about to whether a certain kind
Speaker 2: of font civil find was constitutional under the expost facto clause.
Speaker 2: The court ruled, no, Only that's only a criminal fine
Speaker 2: that can be on retro act. Sorry, I'm staying it backwards.
Speaker 2: Only a civil find can be retroactive, not a criminal one.
Speaker 5: My taxes can be retroactive, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, right, yeah, And you know, Thomas is I won't
Speaker 2: spend too much time on this, but I just thought
Speaker 2: it was funny at a whole page about that passage
Speaker 2: that I have quoted many times in the classroom from
Speaker 2: Madison's notes on the Convention, where James Wilson says, we
Speaker 2: don't need an ex post facto clause. Everybody knows it's
Speaker 2: against the natural law, and people will think we're idiots
Speaker 2: if we I'm paraphrasing, right, but that's his real colloquial meanings.
Speaker 2: People think we're idiots if he wrote that in there,
Speaker 2: that's as dumb as saying, you know, the sun rises
Speaker 2: in the east, right. And so I thought that was fun.
Speaker 2: But the serious point is that distinction between the expost
Speaker 2: factor law applying to criminal but not civil law goes
Speaker 2: all the way back to the seventeen nineties, and this
Speaker 2: will connect to the next case I'll bring up but.
Speaker 3: Called their bulk casus bull. So what the case is?
Speaker 3: What seventeen ninety seven or something.
Speaker 2: And the point is, if we talk about before Marshall,
Speaker 2: but if we talk these days about how you know,
Speaker 2: a long practice of the way we applied to law,
Speaker 2: Thomas's skepticism about whether that distinction is valid would face
Speaker 2: an awful steep uphill climb.
Speaker 3: I think, now that's a long discussion.
Speaker 4: Right, Lucretia on Lucretia, on the fascinating topic of retroactivity.
Speaker 5: No, I'm actually going to go to the deeper topic
Speaker 5: of those things that we as Americans, with our constitutional focus,
Speaker 5: shall we say, our beliefs are that I was having
Speaker 5: a discussion with my classes last week about the Declaration
Speaker 5: and how it that's really sad, Steve.
Speaker 3: I know, good guy, Steve.
Speaker 5: It's sad that you that you actually let yourself run
Speaker 5: out anyway.
Speaker 3: Back to that.
Speaker 5: So, we were discussing the right to property and its protection,
Speaker 5: you know, the whole argument of it in the Declaration
Speaker 5: of Independence, even at Locke and then into the Constitution,
Speaker 5: and a student asked, what you know. It was a
Speaker 5: really good question. He said, if they were so concerned,
Speaker 5: the founders about protecting the right to privacy. Why in
Speaker 5: the original Constitution is there no specific, specifics statement to
Speaker 5: the effect that, you know, other than the takings clause,
Speaker 5: which is not a statement for the right to privacy.
Speaker 5: It doesn't say anything, for instance, about the need of
Speaker 5: government to protect your right to privacy. It's you know,
Speaker 5: And the argument that I gave back was the argument
Speaker 5: that Steve just did, and I said, I didn't use
Speaker 5: sex post fecto. I used guilty until proven innocent. That
Speaker 5: it was that, you know, the founding Flauthers were so
Speaker 5: committed to the idea of the right to privacy to
Speaker 5: property excuse me that it didn't even occur to the
Speaker 5: in some ways to have to spell it out in
Speaker 5: the Constitution. Is that unfair?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 4: I mean there's other things in the Constitution like that,
Speaker 4: Like it doesn't actually say legislation passes by a majority vote,
Speaker 4: all right, It just said it gives us super majority requirements.
Speaker 4: So there's all kinds of things like that in the Constitution.
Speaker 4: So my argument, which you guys don't like, is that
Speaker 4: we read it against the common law and its definition
Speaker 4: of terms and concepts, and.
Speaker 3: We kind of fill it.
Speaker 4: I mean, whether you read that or not, that's what
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court has done, is that they use the
Speaker 4: common law to fill in gaps.
Speaker 3: But you guys know don't like that. Yeah, I'm like that,
Speaker 3: just fine.
Speaker 5: Oh you guys okay, no igs what I'm the only
Speaker 5: really quickly so we can move on. My only argument
Speaker 5: against it would be when the common lass somehow stands
Speaker 5: in the face of what we know the Constitution really means.
Speaker 5: Like in the case of birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2: John Well, there was a I don't remember the case now,
Speaker 2: it's a long time ago, but there was a moment
Speaker 2: in an oral argument where one of the lawyers says
Speaker 2: something like, you know, my client wants to repair behind
Speaker 2: his constitutional right, wasn't self incriminated? Oh no, behind the
Speaker 2: constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and Justice Scalia
Speaker 2: piped up says, oh yes, where in the text does
Speaker 2: that clause appear? And the point is it doesn't, but
Speaker 2: it's well understood, like the expost facto clause that James
Speaker 2: Wilson is something that proceeds from the logic of the
Speaker 2: law as and no one really disputes that. It's only
Speaker 2: positivists like you who get picky about things like.
Speaker 4: Sorry, well, you know the it bears some importants on
Speaker 4: a topic Lucretian and I are going to write on
Speaker 4: in the next few days about Californians leaving for Arizona.
Speaker 4: Because you'll notice this wealth tax that's on the ballot
Speaker 4: is retroactive too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because and a bunch.
Speaker 4: Of billionaires move out before the January first effective date,
Speaker 4: even though it would have to pay it's going to
Speaker 4: pass later on this year, but it would be retroactive
Speaker 4: to January first. If you're reading, we're correct of the
Speaker 4: expost facto clause, you could not have these retroacted. And
Speaker 4: by the way, Congress does this all the time too.
Speaker 4: It's not just the state of California.
Speaker 3: So moving on.
Speaker 4: To our next topic, Lucretia has some thoughts she wants
Speaker 4: to raise about the state of Virginia under its new governor,
Speaker 4: Abigail Spanberger and the progressive furies that have been unleashed
Speaker 4: by this allegedly quote unquote moderate Democrat.
Speaker 5: Yeah, moderate, the wicked witch, the white witch, the wicked
Speaker 5: white witch, that's what they're calling her. So let me
Speaker 5: before we move on to Spanburger, let me just talk
Speaker 5: about J. Jones for a minute. J Jones, It's sorry.
Speaker 5: I'm going to just say it is proof of how
Speaker 5: much affirmative action in law schools destroyed the law profession.
Speaker 5: The guy is a moron. Never mind that he's evil, vile,
Speaker 5: all of those other things. On top of that, he's
Speaker 5: so stupid it's unbelievable. He can't even spell attorney.
Speaker 3: Oh did you guys see that.
Speaker 5: This huge sort of social media what would you call it,
Speaker 5: Steve A. I don't even know what the word for
Speaker 5: it is. I'd call it a poster, but on social media,
Speaker 5: that's not what it is. And of course he's saying
Speaker 5: that they're going to pull out of their agreement with
Speaker 5: the DOJ not to offer tuition in state tuition to
Speaker 5: illegal immigrants. They're going to do that. But of course,
Speaker 5: you know, his stupid ass, sorry, stupid, sorry, stupid commentary
Speaker 5: on is we're not gonna let we're not gonna let
Speaker 5: the DOJ destroy students. I don't even know what that means,
Speaker 5: but that's what he says.
Speaker 4: He misspelled attorney. He misspelled attorney in.
Speaker 3: The atto n E Y.
Speaker 4: So maybe he went to the Somali Learning.
Speaker 5: Center exactly the Luring center in Minneapolis. Oh God.
Speaker 2: Anyway, by the way, General's appreciate Did you see what
Speaker 2: your state's attorney general said today?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 5: I did, Yes, I did. I did. Yes. So you know,
Speaker 5: because illegal immigrants are allowed not to have guns and Ammo,
Speaker 5: Actually you have to show in Arizona. If you just
Speaker 5: go buy Ammo at Walmart, which you can do, you
Speaker 5: have to show your driver's license. You have to show
Speaker 5: proof that you are an American citizen. So the idea
Speaker 5: that you know, I should be careful because they're going
Speaker 5: to show up with no badges and costumes on and
Speaker 5: masks and nobody's going to know their ice whatever. Idiot,
Speaker 5: and then they're gonna get shot because we have a
Speaker 5: standard ground law in Arizona, said dumbest I these people. Okay,
Speaker 5: So I want to I want the context of this
Speaker 5: to be that every time we talk about something like
Speaker 5: say getting rid of the filibuster or this or that, uh,
Speaker 5: squishy Republicans, Oh, we can't do that because we can't
Speaker 5: get rid of the blue slip. We can't do this
Speaker 5: with that because when we do and then we're out
Speaker 5: of power, that democrats are going to do that to us.
Speaker 5: What happened the first day that white witch shows up,
Speaker 5: she and does all of the agreements that said we're
Speaker 5: gonna uh cooperate with ICE and with federal authorities to
Speaker 5: deport legal immigrants. Oh, we can't let our people waste
Speaker 5: their time on that because they've got more important things
Speaker 5: to do. And the legislature. I can't even I don't
Speaker 5: even want to list all of the things, but I
Speaker 5: will list what I consider the worst thing, and that
Speaker 5: is that they decided to get rid of, for no
Speaker 5: apparent reason that I can think of, to get rid
Speaker 5: of minimum criminal sentences for rapists, child rapists, child pornographers,
Speaker 5: a whole long list of really violent crimes. Why would
Speaker 5: you do that? I mean, can you guys? I can't think,
Speaker 5: but give me a give me a rational reason why
Speaker 5: it might do that.
Speaker 4: Since I've sat through many workshop papers at Berkeley about
Speaker 4: I can tell you what they say.
Speaker 6: I'm associated with my own views, But what they say
Speaker 6: is that sentencing should be a personalized process that takes
Speaker 6: to account all the things that happened to that individual criminal.
Speaker 4: For example, mandatory minimums are unfair because what if there
Speaker 4: were you know, terrible family abuse of this you know
Speaker 4: perpetrator when they were growing up, or what if they
Speaker 4: lived in abject poverty when they were growing So to
Speaker 4: how a mandatory minimum prevents judges from tailoring the exact
Speaker 4: sentence to the particulars of that individual and taking into
Speaker 4: account all the things that happened to them.
Speaker 5: Okay, I mean fair enough that at least it is
Speaker 5: an explanation. It's allows it. It's a scinarian behavioral lest explanation.
Speaker 5: People aren't responsible for their actions. They have no moral
Speaker 5: moral what's the word.
Speaker 4: When you have your responsibility?
Speaker 5: Yeah? That you know, they're just the product of their
Speaker 5: skinner box and whatever that looked like. So how can
Speaker 5: we hold them accountable for it? Okay, it's not a
Speaker 5: rational explanation, because there's nothing rational in that, but at
Speaker 5: least there is a explanation. Anyway, that's one of the
Speaker 5: things they did. Another thing that they did because all
Speaker 5: of these different I'm not going to list all the
Speaker 5: different crazy things they've done. But the one that's really
Speaker 5: problematic is what they're doing to electoral integrity. So they
Speaker 5: are all right, they're permanent mail in you you have
Speaker 5: permanent what they they're calling it absentee voting, but it is.
Speaker 5: Once you sign up, you will forever receive a mail
Speaker 5: in ballot in Virginia. There will be no more signature verification,
Speaker 5: and you will no longer have to have a witness
Speaker 5: sign that you are the person who say who you
Speaker 5: say you are when you turn in your absentee ballot
Speaker 5: mail in ballot. And they're going to encourage so we
Speaker 5: can have more voting. That's such a good thing, you know,
Speaker 5: interdet vote. That was sarcast If anybody missed it, I
Speaker 5: think they did. Do you think they got that, Steve?
Speaker 3: I hope so well you didn't.
Speaker 2: You didn't say it in your sultry voice inational law.
Speaker 5: So you know, think about this for a moment. Well,
Speaker 5: go ahead, you guys, come well.
Speaker 2: Look on the on the crime thing. I mean, you said,
Speaker 2: what rational reason? It's not a rational reason. I think
Speaker 2: this goes back to the impulse that ruined liberalism in
Speaker 2: the sixties, capturing that great story that I think the
Speaker 2: neocons used to say, like Irving Crystal, it's reversal of
Speaker 2: the good Samaritan. You know, two liberals walk along the road.
Speaker 2: They find the guy beaten up and bloodied by some mugger,
Speaker 2: and one of the two liberals say we must find
Speaker 2: the poor person who did this to you and help him.
Speaker 2: I mean, that really is the impulse ofalism that explains
Speaker 2: those kind of crazy papers that we see at Berkeley
Speaker 2: john But the bigger point you're making with all these,
Speaker 2: and I think it has shocked people, is Spanberger was
Speaker 2: supposed to be a moderate. And let's go back for
Speaker 2: a minute. And maybe I'll come to this a little
Speaker 2: bit in a second, but you go back to Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton in nineteen ninety two. What he runs as a moderate.
Speaker 2: He remember, he's going to end welfare as we know it,
Speaker 2: He's tough on crime. He presides over and signs the
Speaker 2: execution of the mentally retarded Ricky Ray record, which really
Speaker 2: was kind of grotesque in some ways. He has the
Speaker 2: sister soldier moment. What does he do when he gets
Speaker 2: in office? First thing out of the box, gaze in
Speaker 2: the military and raising taxes and a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: other stuff. And it cost him badly, right and Clinton
Speaker 2: only recovered by moving to the right in the last
Speaker 2: six years of his term. So I think we're going
Speaker 2: to see something similar on this again. I think span Berger,
Speaker 2: and also I think you can look at the governor
Speaker 2: of New Jersey, keep your eye on her, Mikey Mikey
Speaker 2: Chryl or something like that. And Hokle is still trying
Speaker 2: to move to the center, but I think un successfully.
Speaker 3: You know, there's a.
Speaker 2: Whole bunch of stuff in the mainstream media about how
Speaker 2: you never mind Trump's polls that are actually no worse
Speaker 2: than Biden's or Obama at this point in their second terms.
Speaker 2: But you're seeing a bunch of smart Democrats like David Pluff,
Speaker 2: who you know, ran Obama's campaigns, writing The New York
Speaker 2: Times this week, Democrats in a deep hole. You saw Axios, right,
Speaker 2: saw Axios, You know, no conservative outlet interviewing leading Democrats
Speaker 2: asking them what is a woman? And most of them
Speaker 2: couldn't answer it. The only person who got it right
Speaker 2: was rama Manuel Why he's an old Clinton alumni.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: And then my favorite of the week is The Atlantic
Speaker 2: did a long story about Gavin Newsom and how he's
Speaker 2: got so much baggage, how can he possibly run for president?
Speaker 2: My favorite line in it was Newsom's well, Newsom's records
Speaker 2: a problem. My favorite one is that how do it
Speaker 2: go something like California's policies under California's progressive policies read
Speaker 2: like something reverse engineered from a Republican attack AD.
Speaker 3: That's the Atlantic saying this, right, So, I mean it's
Speaker 3: all very bad. I agree with you completely. On the
Speaker 3: other hand, there.
Speaker 4: Boy, Okay, we're gonna Steve, I'm gonna cut you all.
Speaker 4: I'm going to cut you, okay, because it's time to
Speaker 4: go to another ad break, And when we come back,
Speaker 4: we'll hear from Lucretia again, and then we'll turn to
Speaker 4: our next new topic, which is Steve's fascination with the
Speaker 4: utterances of conservative calmness in the New.
Speaker 3: York parts the Kristia.
Speaker 4: You have another point to make about the Virginia governor
Speaker 4: and her progressive platform.
Speaker 5: Yes, and so she was able to get away with
Speaker 5: the moderate.
Speaker 3: Label.
Speaker 5: I don't think anybody believed it to begin with, but
Speaker 5: I learned this from one of our listeners, Michael Lee,
Speaker 5: and then a couple of other places. I started paying
Speaker 5: attention to the actual electoral process that put all of
Speaker 5: those lefties shall we call them into power. One of them.
Speaker 5: But this is a really interesting thing I just want
Speaker 5: to point out quickly. So if you'll recall the election,
Speaker 5: especially the weeks leading up to the election, was right
Speaker 5: in the midst of the shutdown, and I had to
Speaker 5: heard people say, you know that they were the unions
Speaker 5: and so forth were able to rally the troops to
Speaker 5: come out and support all of these federal workers and
Speaker 5: so on, and that's why they won. But Michael actually
Speaker 5: provided another interesting piece of information, which was they weren't working,
Speaker 5: so they had plenty of time to go out and
Speaker 5: work on behalf of Spanberger and all of those incredibly
Speaker 5: liberal leftists. And I just thought that was interesting. Why
Speaker 5: not because of that point alone, but because so many
Speaker 5: people made so much out of the fact that this
Speaker 5: moderate leftist, I mean moderate white witch won in you know,
Speaker 5: doctor Trump is done for. The midterms, are done for.
Speaker 5: Everything is going against Republicans. Everybody hates what's happening with immigration,
Speaker 5: and I actually think none of that is true. I
Speaker 5: do think if we continued, if we allow them to
Speaker 5: continue to gaslight like that, it will become true. It
Speaker 5: will be a self fulfilling prophecy. But what I want
Speaker 5: to say to patriots out there is don't believe it.
Speaker 5: Don't be disheartened. They lied, They had extraordinary circumstances, and
Speaker 5: Republicans are gonna Not that I care that much about
Speaker 5: Republicans either, which is a secondary problem, but it's better.
Speaker 5: You know, Republicans are awful, but they're not Democrats, and
Speaker 5: you have to choose them over Democrats every single time.
Speaker 5: So don't lose hope, go out and work hard for
Speaker 5: the midterms. And not because the military impeached Trump, but
Speaker 5: just because.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, the last point I would make is I
Speaker 4: wouldn't be so pessimistic about Virginia as I think both
Speaker 4: of you are. I mean, they're got Glenn Youngen. He
Speaker 4: was elected to the governorship and he did an outstanding job.
Speaker 4: And I bet if they had Virginia's a strange state, right,
Speaker 4: they don't have reelection of governors, and I bet if
Speaker 4: he were subject to re election, he would he would
Speaker 4: have won. I think he's very popular in Virginia, and
Speaker 4: so he's done a really great job there, right, did
Speaker 4: He creates some massive surplus in the state budget and
Speaker 4: was appointing a lot of good conservatives to reform higher education,
Speaker 4: which Spanberger has put a halt to. But it doesn't
Speaker 4: strike me that Virginia is just going to be hopelessly
Speaker 4: democratic going forward.
Speaker 5: Well, event's question in here quickly. Let me bring it up.
Speaker 5: If the Democrat and I would have said this, if
Speaker 5: I could have remembered, if the Democrats ran through all
Speaker 5: of their election reforms as it looks like they're going to,
Speaker 5: will it be even be possible for Republicans to win
Speaker 5: in Virginia again? Because you know, is it going to
Speaker 5: be possible for Republicans to win in California again?
Speaker 3: Guys?
Speaker 5: And a lot of that has to do with the
Speaker 5: way California changed.
Speaker 3: Oh, I don't think so.
Speaker 4: You really, I don't think any changes in electoral law
Speaker 4: has made any difference in California going so blue.
Speaker 3: I mean, the difference is so huge.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I could be wrong, but I think these things
Speaker 4: you talked about they make their marginal chant differences in
Speaker 4: close selections, they might matter, but republic I mean, Dick
Speaker 4: Trump lose by like twenty five point. You know, in California,
Speaker 4: it's not going to be close, no matter what the.
Speaker 3: Voting rules are in California.
Speaker 2: But I think I think Virginia has changed in some
Speaker 2: really big ways. I mean absolutely stipulate that if you
Speaker 2: have loose voting rules, it's going to make it harder
Speaker 2: for Republicans to win but you know, I was in
Speaker 2: Virginia well forty five years ago, right out of college
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty one. It was a very different state
Speaker 2: than it is now. And I'm living in Arlington, right,
Speaker 2: And you know, order in the Virginia elected Republican congressman,
Speaker 2: very conservative ones like Frank Wolfe, and now that's impossible.
Speaker 2: And that's the growth of the federal bureaucracy. And also
Speaker 2: all their hangars on that are contractors. I mean as
Speaker 2: late as eighty two, I still remember, probably later than this,
Speaker 2: but I remember nineteen eighty two, if you flew out
Speaker 2: of Dallas Airport, you drove along the road with forest
Speaker 2: on either side of you. Right, if you go through
Speaker 2: the Doulls. Today, it's all developed and built up.
Speaker 3: Yes, government contractors.
Speaker 2: They're all government contractors, and most of those people are
Speaker 2: going to lean Democratic. And I just think that the
Speaker 2: demographics of the state have changed. I don't count it
Speaker 2: out the public trial, of course. Well, the fact that
Speaker 2: what is it, something like six of the ten richest
Speaker 2: counties by income levels are clustered around the Beltway, right,
Speaker 2: so four of those are in Virginia and three in Maryland.
Speaker 2: Something like that.
Speaker 4: That's now.
Speaker 5: I think it still is. Yeah, I started passing the
Speaker 5: Save Act. The next best thing for Republicans our Trump
Speaker 5: to do is to get all of those bureaucracies out
Speaker 5: of the Beltway and send them across the country.
Speaker 4: Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 5: Don't know that they could do without getting judges to
Speaker 5: overturn that right or just to put injunctions against it.
Speaker 4: Yes, a lot of the statutes don't require No, a
Speaker 4: lot of statutes don't specify where the cabinet headquarters has
Speaker 4: to be. So uh no, I mean it's you could
Speaker 4: just the question is do you want more of those
Speaker 4: blue people infiltrating good red states or would you rather
Speaker 4: just have them concentrated in places like Virginia and Southern Pal?
Speaker 3: Did you say blue people? I get?
Speaker 2: So, you know our our my comic pal Dave Deebel
Speaker 2: has a great one up like that nowhere, he says,
Speaker 2: because he uses a lot of comedy and cruise ships.
Speaker 2: He says, used to be talking to blue hair ladies
Speaker 2: meant I was on a cruise ship. Now it means
Speaker 2: talking on a college campus and the women studies program.
Speaker 3: That's okay, Well let's move.
Speaker 4: On to now. Uh you know, we're doing our each
Speaker 4: host guests to pick a favorite topic to talk about.
Speaker 4: So now we're turning to Steve. Steve, what's your topic
Speaker 4: and what would you like us to discuss?
Speaker 2: Well, actually, I fooled you on. I'm actually gonna talk
Speaker 2: about a certain statute you don't like. No, I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm just kidding. No, it's frighten you. No, No, it's
Speaker 2: there's a lot of I don't know if you guys
Speaker 2: follow it, because you guys tend not to. But uh,
Speaker 2: I'm always amazed at how ross data the New York
Speaker 2: Times makes news. I mean, he does it with the
Speaker 2: guests he has on his podcast, in his column, and
Speaker 2: he's got to call him out here a few days ago.
Speaker 2: That's cutting a lot of buzz and a lot of
Speaker 2: responses from other people in the mainstream media, from a
Speaker 2: lot of conservatives. And he's asking a simple question, what
Speaker 2: is post Trump conservatism gonna look like? Or I am
Speaker 2: calling it conservatism five point oh? Because I have a
Speaker 2: long piece almost finished about how that is. The question is, uh,
Speaker 2: you know Trump represents conservatism four point oh.
Speaker 3: I won't go through all the predations of how I
Speaker 3: got there. You can read the article when it's done,
Speaker 3: and what Ross says is uh. I think he starts
Speaker 3: out very strongly.
Speaker 2: It's a New York Times column, right, he starts out
Speaker 2: very strongly saying there's a lot of contradictory elements right now,
Speaker 2: and it's all being held together by.
Speaker 3: The force of Trump's personality. And I think that's true.
Speaker 2: And he says it's not clear whether the nat cons
Speaker 2: or you know, he doesn't mention Adrian Remule and the
Speaker 2: Catholic integclists or some of the Protestant groups who want
Speaker 2: a more self consciously religious political conservatism. And you know,
Speaker 2: foreign policy, is it going to be realists and isolationists,
Speaker 2: or we're going to go back to some kind of
Speaker 2: principle internationalism. And he goes through a bunch of stuff
Speaker 2: and the air kind of comes out of the balloon
Speaker 2: as you go. But I think he's onto something there.
Speaker 2: And one of the things I'm going to point out
Speaker 2: in my pieces.
Speaker 3: Well, I will give a little bit of the history.
Speaker 3: I'm old enough to.
Speaker 2: Remember now and have read about that. We've been through
Speaker 2: at least four new rights in my lifetime, called that
Speaker 2: by the media, called that by conservative leaders, and two
Speaker 2: point zero is actually Buckley in the mid fifties. Why
Speaker 2: was it two point zero because new right one point
Speaker 2: zero as the media they didn't use one point oh then.
Speaker 2: But the new Right in nineteen fifty was a bunch
Speaker 2: of liberals. Really it was Peter Vererek, Clinton Rossiter, Walter
Speaker 2: Littmann to a certain extent, and they said two things
Speaker 2: above all else. They said, conservative should make their peace
Speaker 2: with a new deal and support government economic planning, and
Speaker 2: we should accept coexistence with what not mean you no
Speaker 2: be quiet? And then the other one was we should
Speaker 2: accept coexistence with communism. And you know, Buckley said nuts
Speaker 2: to all that, and you had the sort of fusionism
Speaker 2: of Frank Meyer. Leave that aside for now. But Meyer's
Speaker 2: fundamental point was the economy should have as little government
Speaker 2: control over it as possible, and preferably none. He was
Speaker 2: a free marketeer, but he was also a person who
Speaker 2: said we do need virtue. He didn't think much of
Speaker 2: Russell Kirk, but he thought that people who said that
Speaker 2: the individual virtue was necessary for republic were right, and
Speaker 2: he explained how they belong together. Well, that's all sort
Speaker 2: of changed over the years. We got the neo cons
Speaker 2: we're a social scientist. You got the religious right, of
Speaker 2: the seventies and then you got the populism under Trump,
Speaker 2: and so now what's going to replace all that? And
Speaker 2: I'm noticing that, you know, certain precincts like the nat
Speaker 2: Cons and people like Patrick Denin who don't like classical liberalism,
Speaker 2: people like Orain Cass say, you know, the New Deal
Speaker 2: is really pretty cool. We got to bring back a
Speaker 2: lot of that stuff. People are for industrial policy, which
Speaker 2: means government planning and Trump actually taking government stakes in
Speaker 2: prominent companies like Intel and others. One thing that I'm
Speaker 2: not hearing anybody say is, you know, we ought to
Speaker 2: go back to Milton Friedman and you know, free markets,
Speaker 2: and by the way, we got to talk about individual liberty, which,
Speaker 2: as I say, the post liberals are actually against in
Speaker 2: principle I think, and maybe in practice too. So I
Speaker 2: think those are a god awful mess and it's going
Speaker 2: to be interesting. But I would like to see the
Speaker 2: Conservatism five point zero actually go back to the old
Speaker 2: conservatism two point zero. And I don't care if that
Speaker 2: makes me a grumpy, old, stuck in the past person.
Speaker 3: That's all lucretia.
Speaker 5: You know, we spend a lot of time doing this
Speaker 5: what we ought to spend time doing is getting out
Speaker 5: there and.
Speaker 3: Uh oh yeah, okay, staring.
Speaker 5: Or how should I put this? We need to react to,
Speaker 5: we need to get in front of We need to
Speaker 5: be proactive because the Left is just controlling every part
Speaker 5: of the conversation these days. Somehow, somehow they are getting
Speaker 5: independence to believe that ICE is illegitimate and it's a
Speaker 5: Nazi organization and they're a bunch of fascists. And then
Speaker 5: by the way, they they kidnapped a five year old
Speaker 5: and you know, you know, just lie after lie after lie,
Speaker 5: and oh well, we don't need everybody knows that's a lie.
Speaker 5: We don't need to go up against it. We don't
Speaker 5: need to explain to people that, guess what, if you
Speaker 5: come to this country illegally, you are a criminal. A
Speaker 5: criminal by definition, you are not a nice, law abiding
Speaker 5: citizen minding your own business. You are a criminal, and
Speaker 5: you have every right to be deported. You can say
Speaker 5: that maybe I should be using their scarce resources to
Speaker 5: go after the worst criminals. I'm okay with that. But
Speaker 5: if they get the grandma, the umbuella who has been
Speaker 5: making tortillas in her kitchen for fifty years, I don't
Speaker 5: care if she didn't come here legal, and she's been
Speaker 5: here fifty years and she didn't become legal, then get
Speaker 5: her out of here. I'm okay with that anyway. I
Speaker 5: while conservatives and Republicans dither about these things, democrats are
Speaker 5: playing the right game.
Speaker 2: Well no, I look, I mean, I agree with the
Speaker 2: practical matter of what needs to be done. But on
Speaker 2: their hand, you do need to understand why you want
Speaker 2: to argue about what is the good life.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But by the way, maybe you I've seen the pictures
Speaker 2: of this. Guess who gave Tom Homan that you know,
Speaker 2: the head of Ice these days. Guess who gave him
Speaker 2: the Presidential Medal of Valor or something like that. A
Speaker 2: guy named Barack Obama. There's pictures of him putting the
Speaker 2: thing around, right, so in the recent Yet by the way,
Speaker 2: you're not seeing this in the media. And okay, so
Speaker 2: I they're lying, of course about the five year old.
Speaker 2: But my observation is going back to what I've said
Speaker 2: for years about double standards. Gee, I didn't see those
Speaker 2: people upset about when the immigration people grabbed a guy
Speaker 2: at gunpoint named Ellie and Gonzales.
Speaker 3: Remember that little boy and that famous picture.
Speaker 2: No, there was no outrage over that, although I will
Speaker 2: say that that photograph and the larger, uh you know,
Speaker 2: controversy around it, I think arguably cost Al gore the
Speaker 2: presidency because I think he might have won the state
Speaker 2: of Florida without that having been so poorly received by
Speaker 2: the Cubans and their friends in the state of Florida.
Speaker 3: So you know, there is some rough justice in the world.
Speaker 4: Well, we're gonna take a break, and when we come back,
Speaker 4: I will actually explain while you're both wrong.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm gonna look forward to this me too.
Speaker 3: Three two one.
Speaker 4: Well, I generally don't find opinion columns in the New
Speaker 4: York Times terribly enlightening in terms of making news. I
Speaker 4: kind of find them as sort of summarizing and restating
Speaker 4: things have been going on for a little while. And
Speaker 4: I think that's true here. We've been I mean, we've
Speaker 4: been talking on this podcast for years about the different
Speaker 4: streams of conservative thought and how Trump's disrupted them and
Speaker 4: whether they still make.
Speaker 3: Sense or not.
Speaker 4: So I didn't really learn that much from the column
Speaker 4: when I read it, which I don't read. I actually
Speaker 4: strangely read the New York Times for the news, but
Speaker 4: not the opinions, And I read the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 4: for the opinions and not the news.
Speaker 3: This drives.
Speaker 5: Do you read the Washington Post, John, And I.
Speaker 4: Read the Washington Post. Actually I read the whole thing
Speaker 4: just because I want to see what my friends are
Speaker 4: up to.
Speaker 3: But well, you.
Speaker 4: Know, one thing I thought is true that he said
Speaker 4: in his column, that I've been thinking for a while
Speaker 4: was that when Trump won election, he had the possibility
Speaker 4: of building a coalition, a broader based coalition than just
Speaker 4: this you know, mega and the demographics of it. And
Speaker 4: if he could build that broader coalition, I think he
Speaker 4: would be like a figure like Andrew Jackson, someone who
Speaker 4: had won a sufficiently large majority, that it would really
Speaker 4: change politics permanently, and that it would get solidified in
Speaker 4: a certain way. And this is a you know, political science, right,
Speaker 4: this is your field. This is a critical elections idea.
Speaker 3: But if you look at the.
Speaker 4: Polling, Trump's polling is really tanked since the election. I mean,
Speaker 4: he looks like he's back to where he was in
Speaker 4: the first term in terms of his public approval and
Speaker 4: in terms of his support amongst demographic groups. There's a
Speaker 4: story in the Wall Street Journal today about how his
Speaker 4: support amongst young people has really collapsed since the election,
Speaker 4: and how his support amongst you know, the groups he
Speaker 4: did very well with, you know, Hispanics and black men
Speaker 4: have also seemed to revert back to norm from his
Speaker 4: first term. If that's true, then I don't think he's
Speaker 4: going to make it cause us permanent change in American
Speaker 4: politics the way Jackson did or a Reagan did, and
Speaker 4: he'll be more like now. I think Biden didn't change
Speaker 4: it either, but he might. We're still, I think then,
Speaker 4: just living still in the age of Reagan, and that
Speaker 4: we're not seeing a fundamental, we won't see a really
Speaker 4: deeply fundamental, permanent change in American politics.
Speaker 3: But I could be right.
Speaker 4: But that's the police seems to suggest that you're reading
Speaker 4: way too much into Trump. You're reading way too much
Speaker 4: into Trump, and you're reading way too much into polls.
Speaker 4: I'll just leave it there, okay.
Speaker 5: Before you you closed out this episode. I know I
Speaker 5: got plenty of time on Virginia, but I do want
Speaker 5: to I put it in the thing. I do want
Speaker 5: to say two things. One, my new heroes are Blue
Speaker 5: Lives Matter and the guy who drilled Jack Smith's forty
Speaker 5: one year old whose name. I cannot remember. Young guy,
Speaker 5: smart guy, not a lawyer, who grilled Jack Smith and
Speaker 5: just embarrassed the hell out of him. So we need
Speaker 5: a lot more of what It's terrible that I can't
Speaker 5: remember his name. Can't you guys remember no I saw what?
Speaker 3: Yeah it was he really I don't know if you
Speaker 3: saw John.
Speaker 2: I forget his name now too, but he really tripped
Speaker 2: up Smith on the speech and debate clause of the Constitution,
Speaker 2: and right it was, Yeah, it was pretty good.
Speaker 3: The Blue Lives Matter.
Speaker 2: If you don't know what Lucretia's talking about, it's this
Speaker 2: group called Blue Lives Matter. I guess my stage some
Speaker 2: ice raids in the Minnesota fake ice raids and got the.
Speaker 5: Protest right better than that today. What they did was
Speaker 5: so what they've done is they've sent us. Originally it
Speaker 5: was to like off duty policeman, sheriffs and so on,
Speaker 5: but it's expanded much beyond that. They've sent out all
Speaker 5: of the links to the lefts. This is where ICE is.
Speaker 5: You can report ICE. You know the stupid people in Virginia,
Speaker 5: my stupid Adelita Grijalva. Oh, this is where ICE is.
Speaker 5: Go protest and stop them. Well, they're sending them out
Speaker 5: the links to all of these people, but in turn,
Speaker 5: these are because many of them are in fact law enforcement.
Speaker 5: They're also finding out who the protesters are and where
Speaker 5: they live. Have that hard to do, and so they're
Speaker 5: sending these protesters on these wild goose chases and then
Speaker 5: they end up at the protester's house. But today they
Speaker 5: reported on what they did yesterday. They sent them to
Speaker 5: a bunch of biker bars. I told them that ice
Speaker 5: was inside these biker bars. So, oh great, Okay, you
Speaker 5: guys can can debate all the philosophical theoretical things about
Speaker 5: nat coms versus integrollas and all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 5: I am cheering on the Blue Lives matters, guys, and
Speaker 5: Randon Gille, all right.
Speaker 4: Well, why don't we close out? We do have a
Speaker 4: few minutes, but I thought we should go in order
Speaker 4: to meet Steve's demand that we finished within an hour.
Speaker 4: Taking into account ads, I actually had topics, which might
Speaker 4: I always want the listeners to know where vetoed as
Speaker 4: stale and uninterested by my co host, Like Greenland. I'm
Speaker 4: really interested in Greenland. Like oh okay, I think President
Speaker 4: Trump could break the NATO treaty. What if Congress had
Speaker 4: passed that statute that it was very close to passing
Speaker 4: under Marc Rubio's sponsorship when he was in the Senate.
Speaker 4: That for big the president up from breaking the viole,
Speaker 4: you know, termining the NATO treaty. And then I had
Speaker 4: the other interesting question also thought. I thought, I'm sorry
Speaker 4: for the podcast about could president can the president on
Speaker 4: his own accept and incorporate Greenland into American territory or
Speaker 4: would Congress, because of his control over the property of
Speaker 4: the United States, have to consent in some way if
Speaker 4: any territory in Greenland were actually possessed by the United States.
Speaker 4: But I just love the listeners know these topics. My
Speaker 4: co host said, Greenland is old news, boring. Let's talk
Speaker 4: about other stuff, all right. I think Greenland's extremely interesting,
Speaker 4: But it does. And then what I was going to
Speaker 4: use it to taunt my co host by saying, is
Speaker 4: this not actually an example of Trump checking and out?
Speaker 3: Did not? It seem to me that nothing changed with
Speaker 3: Greenland is well played, well played, bait. John.
Speaker 2: I tell you what, the indulgence of our listeners to
Speaker 2: go into overtime just no.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, we're tod on no, no, no, when
Speaker 4: I can always end that down with we end on time.
Speaker 3: I love the Greenland story.
Speaker 4: Your little red light is going off because it's time
Speaker 4: for you to be quiet, counsel.
Speaker 2: I love the Greenland story. I think it's uh. I
Speaker 2: think it's Trump genius in action. And anyway, no bad
Speaker 2: question about Ken.
Speaker 3: Wait. I heard you want law talk talking about this.
Speaker 3: I think was that it that? That's yeah. I think
Speaker 3: the president can terminate Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think the President can terminate the NATO treaty because
Speaker 4: he can terminate any treaty. And I think it would
Speaker 4: be unconstitutional for Congress to pass the loss and you
Speaker 4: can't terminate a treaty. But on the other hand, I
Speaker 4: thought that if we were going to add territory to
Speaker 4: United States, like if we actually were going to take
Speaker 4: over Greenland, I think Congress would have to approve some
Speaker 4: kind of annexation or possession. Just but this involves the
Speaker 4: stuff I thought you interesting because it involves a question
Speaker 4: of the territories, which was the key to a lot
Speaker 4: of the things you guys like talking about before the
Speaker 4: Civil War. But instead Lucreati is drinking directly from the
Speaker 4: piggyback bottle.
Speaker 3: I noticed.
Speaker 5: I like Trump disinvited Mark Carney to the border peace.
Speaker 5: That was my favorite thing.
Speaker 4: Oh the whole Board of Peace thing is silly too.
Speaker 5: I mean, come on, who cares sillier than the UN?
Speaker 4: I think the President could terminate the UN treaty and
Speaker 4: kick the UN out of that beautiful Manhattan real estate
Speaker 4: and never turn it back to development. I mean that,
Speaker 4: I don't understand why he doesn't do that instead of
Speaker 4: this Board of Peace silliness. Just get right to the
Speaker 4: point and you know, pull the US out of the
Speaker 4: UN and kick the UN can get out of who
Speaker 4: but he pulled us out of all these agencies at
Speaker 4: the UN? I mean the UN is just a debating
Speaker 4: is an echo chamber, debating society for left doing marks governments.
Speaker 4: I don't know why we tolerate and.
Speaker 5: Then come and park and legally and never get tickets.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree, but we are we do have but
Speaker 4: we do have to stay within the hour. Uh maybe
Speaker 4: if we stay trapped in our houses during the snow
Speaker 4: arm again and we could tape another episode later this weekend.
Speaker 4: I don't know how to talk about these issues. Yeah,
Speaker 4: but I was forbidden to raise Greenland, so I before
Speaker 4: we turned to Lucretia's Babylon B headlines. Okay, there you go.
Speaker 5: Whoops. Trump reveals he's actually been thinking of Iceland this
Speaker 5: whole time.
Speaker 4: I hope not because I like you, I get all
Speaker 4: the time.
Speaker 5: No, no green in Greenland.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 5: Somebody got me on that. By the way. They sent
Speaker 5: me a picture of a of a small space of
Speaker 5: Greenland that was actually green, So I have to take
Speaker 5: it back. Trump to convert entire city of Minneapolis into
Speaker 5: a Saint Insin asylum. I like that one. But also, Trump,
Speaker 5: this is what you were saying. Trump tells EU it's
Speaker 5: time we start seeing other continents.
Speaker 3: That's good.
Speaker 5: Trump announces new round of terroists and anyone who doesn't
Speaker 5: on everyone who didn't laugh at his jokes and doggos,
Speaker 5: that's so good. All right, I'm gonna go ahead and
Speaker 5: say this because I have a lot of listeners out
Speaker 5: here who this is their sentiment. I'll put it that way.
Speaker 5: Pam Bondy says she has finally figured out what DOJ
Speaker 5: stands for?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, really, I want proof.
Speaker 4: I want to see the proof of that book.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, well, because she she I, actually that was
Speaker 5: a legal question, really quick, John, I was going to
Speaker 5: ask you, what what what recourse does Pam Bondy have
Speaker 5: with the Don Lemon situation? Uh, what kind of federal
Speaker 5: magistrate has the final say on that?
Speaker 4: I actually wasn't when I saw that story. I couldn't
Speaker 4: really understand what happened because magistrates don't get to block
Speaker 4: prosecutorial decisions. Now, prosecutoral decison may be on ways. You
Speaker 4: know that you could bring a case, but a judge
Speaker 4: could dismiss the indictment as unfounded and without it. Just
Speaker 4: that is such an unusual event though for the judge
Speaker 4: to Yeah, but I couldn't tell from the story what
Speaker 4: the magistrate judge exactly had done.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it was. It was not a lot of good
Speaker 5: reporting on it. I'll agree with that. Okay, Exhausted white
Speaker 5: liberal women clock in for another long day protecting migrant
Speaker 5: sex offender offenders. A little bit of not political. This
Speaker 5: will resonate with people. I know Apple engineers working feverishly
Speaker 5: to somehow make next iOS update even worse. Yeah, aging
Speaker 5: George show, hoping to ruin just one more country before
Speaker 5: the end, just to I like this one reminds me
Speaker 5: of that Don Henley's song Gleeful Weatherman excitedly announces dangerous
Speaker 5: storm likely to kill everyone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then this one.
Speaker 5: The only reason I know what this means is because
Speaker 5: I have a member of my household who is probably
Speaker 5: has an encyclopedic knowledge of Tolkien, and it is give
Speaker 5: me a second, Ussha, how do you say her name?
Speaker 5: Vance's wife, Usha Usha? I don't mean to mispronounce it.
Speaker 5: Usha informs j D. They will not be naming their
Speaker 5: child Thomas Bombadil Vance. But the funniest thing I saw
Speaker 5: was that the vice presidents of the Naval Observatory will
Speaker 5: now be housing more children than all all Somali daycares
Speaker 5: put together.
Speaker 4: Right, that's all right, Okay, Well, always drink your whiskey, Neat,
Speaker 4: buy more books and Steve, what new AI fancy do
Speaker 4: you have for us today?
Speaker 2: I don't have an AI fancy. I have a reader
Speaker 2: suggestion for the culinary menu for Kamala Harris when she
Speaker 2: runs for president in twenty twenty eight. It's ray short,
Speaker 2: and it goes as follows. We must appreciate the salad
Speaker 2: of words because words and solid form allow us to
Speaker 2: see the dressing of ideas unburdened by the croutons of reality.
Speaker 3: That's pretty good. That's pretty funny here saying that, right,
Speaker 3: I mean, is it is it made up? Or is
Speaker 3: it really her? Right? That's the whole thing.
Speaker 5: So all right, Uh, whats the best of the best
Speaker 5: line of the week was besince I actually think of
Speaker 5: Gavin Newsoen as a bronze source with a brain the
Speaker 5: size of a walnut.
Speaker 3: Oh. I thought it was something about some kendo a
Speaker 3: thing that he had going.
Speaker 5: That was the other that was good too, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, okay, okay, Well that's nice. Questions for next week.
Speaker 4: I hope everybody stays safe and survives the snow armageddon
Speaker 4: that's about to befall the entire United States of America,
Speaker 4: aside from the two colonies of Insanity in which my
Speaker 4: two co hosts live Arizona in California. Rye bye everybody, and.
Speaker 3: Thanks everybody who tuned in.
Speaker 2: So you probably next week we're all on the road,
Speaker 2: but we'll do something.
Speaker 3: So okay, there we go.
Speaker 1: So you worship Anthos proved.
Speaker 7: By your device, and I have your arrange for you
Speaker 7: to time to decide. So smile for me, like to
Speaker 7: smile for everyone else.
Speaker 3: It gets easy with believes that you never help.
Speaker 7: Got your rage I've got your rage a.
Speaker 3: Slide.
Speaker 1: It's a choice, any slide. We are free, and they
Speaker 1: started on us. For girls, say boys, I'll never be there.
Speaker 7: Because en
Speaker 3: Ricochet joined the conversation