Speaker 1: All right, and joining us now is James Bouvard, and
Speaker 1: you can find his writing his links to where he writes,
Speaker 1: because he's published all over the place. He's got a
Speaker 1: piece on mesas dot org that we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about here that's excellent and historical context. I think you're
Speaker 1: going to find it fascinating. And but you can find
Speaker 1: him at Jimbouvard dot com because like I said, he's
Speaker 1: published in all different places all the time. Great to
Speaker 1: have you on, Jim. Thank you so much, Dana, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me back on. It's always always very entertaining
Speaker 1: to talk to you. And I covered this a little
Speaker 1: bit yesterday about the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of
Speaker 1: Concord and Lexington and Paul River's ride and everything that
Speaker 1: happened this last weekend. But you put this in an
Speaker 1: excellent historical context, and so I wanted to go through
Speaker 1: some of that and you talk about you begin by
Speaker 1: talking about Arthur Schlessinger. I remember this guy. He's like
Speaker 1: the phototypical fighting guy. I remember him, Yeah, yeah, and
Speaker 1: he was you know, he'd always have that pipe there,
Speaker 1: you know, and he's like the you know, the mister
Speaker 1: wasp guy of the Cia or whatever out there. What
Speaker 1: was it? What was his attitude towards seventeen seventy six
Speaker 1: the American Revolution?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean he had the same attitude that King
Speaker 2: George the Third had, so basically a bunch of upity peasants.
Speaker 2: There was there was a line that he had a
Speaker 2: few I guess twenty years ago before he pegged out,
Speaker 2: he said. Historians today conclude that the colonists were driven
Speaker 2: to revolt in seventeen seventy six because of a false
Speaker 2: conviction that they faced a British conspiracy to destroy their freedom.
Speaker 2: And you have to get rid of so much evidence
Speaker 2: in order to say it was a false conviction. It's
Speaker 2: kind of like, yeah, like the government was shooting blanks
Speaker 2: at Waco, you know whatever.
Speaker 1: I saw somebody that had an op ed piece Jim
Speaker 1: that said tariffs are what American freedom is based on.
Speaker 1: It's like what I think. Terriffs were kind of what
Speaker 1: they were fighting, don't you at that point in time.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was just taxes right when they said,
Speaker 1: you know, no taxation of that representation. They were talking
Speaker 1: about terrafs, weren't they, Well, I mean terrafs, we're part
Speaker 1: of it. Tarts were a major you know, it wasn't
Speaker 1: just a teriff, it was a blockade. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: because the because it wasn't like that they had to
Speaker 1: pay ten percent.
Speaker 2: More for their shoes that they imported from India. It
Speaker 2: was more like that the Brits were prohibiting them from
Speaker 2: making any kind of iron type goods, nails and stuff
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And they were just completely subjugated on the trade issue.
Speaker 2: That was a major issue in the Declaration of Independence
Speaker 2: a lot of people. That's not too convenient to remember
Speaker 2: at this moment, but it was. But there were so
Speaker 2: many ways that the British were so abusive and contemptuous
Speaker 2: of Americans. And it took a lot to get those
Speaker 2: farmers to get off early in the morning and get
Speaker 2: their gun, to go out and start shooting the British
Speaker 2: soldiers as they were running back from Concor to Boston.
Speaker 1: And as you point out, there were pretty good shots too.
Speaker 2: The British soldier. Yeah, I mean the British soldiers. There
Speaker 2: was a wonderful line from a history almost one hundred
Speaker 2: years ago. You said the British soldiers were there were
Speaker 2: shots in the world and they would not be able
Speaker 2: to hit a horse at ten yards.
Speaker 1: Well, you know that's something imagined. In those days, there
Speaker 1: were you know, not everybody had They were shooting muskets
Speaker 1: and things like that, and not necessarily accurate rifles. I
Speaker 1: mean we saw that in the Civil War. You know,
Speaker 1: these people line up and you know, once the first
Speaker 1: volley went off, there was nothing but a white cloud anyway,
Speaker 1: You couldn't see anything to even try to target anybody
Speaker 1: for the most part, and so you know it's just
Speaker 1: like you know, load and fire as rapidly as you
Speaker 1: can and hope that you hit something. You know, they
Speaker 1: did have sharpshooters that were operative both in the Civil
Speaker 1: War and in the Revolutionary War, and it was those
Speaker 1: sharpshooters that really took a toll on the British.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, it was the Daniel Morgan's men from the
Speaker 2: Winch to Virginia area. We're famous for that. I think
Speaker 2: it's Sarahtoga. They shot down a lot of their British officers.
Speaker 2: But there was there was a whole mindset. Okay, a
Speaker 2: lot of the Americans that have muscats like the British.
Speaker 2: But I mean it's a different incentive system if you're
Speaker 2: a government and if you're a government soldier, then you
Speaker 2: need to shoot close enough for government work. Whereas if
Speaker 2: you're a farmer and you're counting on your hunting and
Speaker 2: you need to be able to hit the damn deer
Speaker 2: you shoot at, you need to hit it. And the
Speaker 2: same you got a guy with a red coat there
Speaker 2: marching down the street. You know, Okay, it's not too
Speaker 2: hard to hit. So that's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, their ammunition is deer, and when they're going out
Speaker 1: to try to get the deer, say, they've got to
Speaker 1: make every shot count. They've had a lot of practice
Speaker 1: of that. As you point out, he had a great
Speaker 1: quote here he said, the calmist revolted because they're being
Speaker 1: bayoneted down the road to surf them, you know, is
Speaker 1: going back the hyak. And that's exactly what was happening.
Speaker 1: You point out it was it was a taxes, it
Speaker 1: was a terrace. And I've come across a lot of
Speaker 1: people like Arthur Schlessenger used to take the kids when
Speaker 1: they were younger to Colonial Williamsburg, which is a Rockefeller things.
Speaker 1: So they'd hire a lot of people try to downplay
Speaker 1: the American Revolution, you know, and they would always say,
Speaker 1: so why why did they why did they push back
Speaker 1: against this, you know, and they wanted me to say,
Speaker 1: no taxation without representation. I would say, because taxation is theft,
Speaker 1: and they would go, well, well, no, not really, and
Speaker 1: it's like, well no, really it is, you know, and
Speaker 1: then they give you their pat answer about what they
Speaker 1: want to do. But yeah, they'd kind of try to
Speaker 1: downplay it, and they would try to, you know, try
Speaker 1: to rework the image of the British a little bit
Speaker 1: there as well, without being without pushing down the Americans
Speaker 1: too much. It's been a long time since I've been there.
Speaker 1: I mentioned it. It's probably pretty bad, pretty bad now.
Speaker 1: That was back in the nineties. Yeah, that was in
Speaker 1: the nineties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's probably gotten a lot worse. Like same as
Speaker 2: Mono Cello. Yeah, I mean, I mean that's you know,
Speaker 2: that's a social justice tour at this point.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah. We took him on one year. We
Speaker 1: went we were up in Plymouth, rock uh for for Thanksgiving,
Speaker 1: and I couldn't believe how politically correct all of that
Speaker 1: stuff was. That was we did that about a decade
Speaker 1: after we'd been going to Colonel Williamsburg and it's like,
Speaker 1: this is crazy, you know, it's just this this self
Speaker 1: flagellating parade, you know, of beating themselves up. It was.
Speaker 1: It was crazy, but you know, still we could go
Speaker 1: and we could see the ships. I guess it was
Speaker 1: worth it for that, maybe, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's a same trouble with historical narratives
Speaker 2: in general. When I was I was up in Boston
Speaker 2: two summers ago, and I was curious because I've not
Speaker 2: been not knocked around Boston for quite a while. I
Speaker 2: used to live there, and I wanted to see how
Speaker 2: they were portraying the the the history, especially the American Revolution,
Speaker 2: and it was very much it's almost a myopic focus
Speaker 2: on the flight of the slaves, and the slaves were
Speaker 2: wars badly treated. Uh and in Massachusetts was one of
Speaker 2: the states, well the first states to get rid of slavery,
Speaker 2: but it was you know, it was the same puzzlement
Speaker 2: I had when I went to Richmond a few years ago.
Speaker 2: And I'd gone to Richmond quite a bit as a boy.
Speaker 2: I was a big enthusiast for the Civil War, and
Speaker 2: they had Civil War museums then and now, but nowadays
Speaker 2: the museums seemed to focus mostly on the plight of
Speaker 2: women and slaves during the Civil War. Yeah, and I
Speaker 2: was thinking, well, you know, actually there were also some
Speaker 2: battles you know when I what can I say?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, that's what the up at Plymouth Rock.
Speaker 1: And it was all about the Indians. And what they
Speaker 1: really kind of sloughed over was the fact that the
Speaker 1: Indians and the Pograms got along pretty well for a
Speaker 1: couple of decades or a couple of generations until they
Speaker 1: started having a King Phillips War and that type of thing.
Speaker 1: But they wanted to ignore that. But getting back to
Speaker 1: your op ed piece here and the lead up to
Speaker 1: what caused all this, you talked about the Sugar Act
Speaker 1: of seventeen sixty four. Tell us a little bit about
Speaker 1: that and what that was involved in.
Speaker 2: Okay, So, the basically what the British did with the
Speaker 2: trade laws and regulations was making it clear that Americans
Speaker 2: were completely inferior to the British and the Sugar Act
Speaker 2: of seventeen sixty four resulted in British officials confiscating hundreds
Speaker 2: of American ships based on mere allegations that the ship
Speaker 2: owners and captains were involved in smuggling. Once the British
Speaker 2: officials made that charge, it was up to the ship
Speaker 2: owned to somehow proved his ship had never been involved
Speaker 2: in smuggling. It was very difficult to prove a negative.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is kind of the same thing we
Speaker 2: have now at asset forfeiture laws. They've been so vexatious
Speaker 2: for the last forty years. But the philosophical I mean,
Speaker 2: what so many of the histories of the American Revolution
Speaker 2: do is ignore the philosophical aspects. And the Americans back
Speaker 2: then and could see the broader picture better than they
Speaker 2: do now. There was a act that Parliament passed in
Speaker 2: seventeen sixty six, the Declaratory Act of seventeen sixty six.
Speaker 2: It said Parliament had had, and of right ought to
Speaker 2: have full power and authority to make laws and statues
Speaker 2: of sufficient force to bind the qualities, colonies and people
Speaker 2: of America subject of the Crown of Britain in all
Speaker 2: cases whatsoever. That meant Britain could never violate the rights
Speaker 2: of Americans, because Americans had no right. And something I'd
Speaker 2: not realized until I was digating this right and the
Speaker 2: story was it was modeled after an Act of the
Speaker 2: same title that they the Brits had used on Ireland
Speaker 2: fifty years earlier really, and the British were notorious for
Speaker 2: treating the Irish as bad or worse than slaves.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh yeah, Well, you know what you do is
Speaker 1: you start out by saying that this class of people
Speaker 1: is somehow inferior, some human, and they're not really human.
Speaker 1: You know. You look at this and you can see
Speaker 1: this being repeated in Gaza or wherever. But also you
Speaker 1: know when, as you point out, it's very much like
Speaker 1: civil asset forfeiture. You know, I think that this ship
Speaker 1: was involved in smuggling and you just take it. You
Speaker 1: don't have to. I guess. I don't know if they
Speaker 1: would charge the people a crime or they just steal
Speaker 1: the ship. That's what they do today with civil asset forfeiture.
Speaker 1: They just take your property there and never even charge
Speaker 1: you with a crime, let alone convict you of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it says paperwork.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, you know it kind of It reminded me
Speaker 1: too when I saw that. I thought it was funny.
Speaker 1: You know, we had the Decoration of Independence came exactly
Speaker 1: ten years later, and it was a real response to
Speaker 1: this declaratory Act. I guess because the declaratory Act is
Speaker 1: saying you don't have any rights and they said, no,
Speaker 1: we do. And our rights don't come from government, they
Speaker 1: come from God. We have them innately as a human being.
Speaker 1: And so it was a direct response a decade later
Speaker 1: to this Declaratory Act. And I thought back, you know,
Speaker 1: to one of the movies that I watched as a
Speaker 1: kid that I really like because I like Patrick mcgow
Speaker 1: and I love The Prisoner, and I remember the Scarecrow
Speaker 1: thing that was done by done by Disney at the time,
Speaker 1: because Disney used to Walt Disney used to take a
Speaker 1: positive view of American history and of Americans and so.
Speaker 2: A long time ago, that was a long time ago.
Speaker 1: Things that really changed, haven't they. And so it was
Speaker 1: in that one the uh, he's got this this cleric,
Speaker 1: their pastor or whatever his title was, and he moonlights
Speaker 1: as the scarecrow that's doing smuggling. And so these guys
Speaker 1: are smuggling and it's all presented as justified in the
Speaker 1: British are the villains and everything, and the it's kind
Speaker 1: of interesting because they also show the press gangs. They
Speaker 1: were going around and kidnapping people and putting them into service,
Speaker 1: and of course that was a big part of what
Speaker 1: was happening at at this time as well. They had
Speaker 1: press gangs that were coming after Americans, not just after British.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that was part of what sparked the War
Speaker 2: of eighteen twelve decades later. No, I mean there was
Speaker 2: an attitude of complete contempt for anybody who wasn't part
Speaker 2: of the aristocracy, or didn't have this title, or or
Speaker 2: was friends of this person. So and that was part
Speaker 2: of the novelty of the mindset of the government that
Speaker 2: was created in seventeen In I guess seventeen eighty seven,
Speaker 2: it did not have that aristocracy. It did not have
Speaker 2: those legal privileges. I mean, the federal government claimed them
Speaker 2: pretty quick. It made a mockery of a lot of
Speaker 2: the ideas, but still at the start it was good.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, you mentioned too. And it was pretty
Speaker 1: much a universal attitude of contempt by the British. There
Speaker 1: were some exceptions, like William Pitt. You've got a quote
Speaker 1: here it is forbidden to make even a nail for
Speaker 1: a horseshoe. He was liked by Americans because he kind
Speaker 1: of leaned toward the American side. I was talking about
Speaker 1: it yesterday. In North Carolina. One of the oldest towns
Speaker 1: there is named after him Pittsburgh and they it's in
Speaker 1: the community Chatham County, which is you know, he was
Speaker 1: Lord Chatham and everything. So it seemed like he was
Speaker 1: held in UH in high esteem by them. But he
Speaker 1: did push back against King George to some degree, I guess,
Speaker 1: perhaps not enough.
Speaker 2: But there were yeah, and the same with Edmund Burke,
Speaker 2: one of the UH, a member of Parliament who later
Speaker 2: became a well known philosopher and writer. I mean there
Speaker 2: there were there were a lot of radical Whigs in
Speaker 2: England who recognized that that it was important to stand
Speaker 2: up to stop their stop oppression in the in the colonies,
Speaker 2: because the same precedents would echo back home eventually.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, and you know we look at all this
Speaker 1: and at the time, you know, of course the slave
Speaker 1: trade was still going and that did not that was
Speaker 1: not ended, you know, Wilberforce, I don't forget what time
Speaker 1: he started deposing it, but eventually he stopped the slave
Speaker 1: trade and then he stopped, you know, freed the slaves
Speaker 1: that they paid off the plantation owners and in the
Speaker 1: Caribbean that were under them. But you know, they had
Speaker 1: that attitude, as you point out, you know, this attitude
Speaker 1: they had about slavery. That wasn't just about African slaves.
Speaker 1: That was the attitude they had towards irishman. That was
Speaker 1: the attitude that they had towards Americans at that time
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Yep, yeah, yeah, and it was I mean, this is
Speaker 2: something that's hard for a lot of contemporary Americans to
Speaker 2: understand because they have, you know, they have this notion
Speaker 2: they they are looking backward and not recognizing how profoundly
Speaker 2: different the legal and moral atmosphere was back in those times.
Speaker 2: And the absolute swagger of the British I mean, I mean,
Speaker 2: in my dealings with government agents, I've often come across
Speaker 2: ones that had vast swagger, and I can understand how
Speaker 2: that would breed hatred and eventually, but if they rubbed
Speaker 2: too many noses in the dirt, it would lead to
Speaker 2: a violent revolt, and that's happened throughout history.
Speaker 1: But it wasn't so much racism based on skin color.
Speaker 1: They just equally hated everybody, right, well, yeah, dominate everybody.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was people who were inferior, and the
Speaker 2: Americans were inferior to British and especially to the British
Speaker 2: officials appointed by the Crown or the British military officers
Speaker 2: or even the the British customs officials who had a
Speaker 2: right to go into anybody's house and search to see
Speaker 2: if they had any property that they had not paid
Speaker 2: a terif on maybe you know, I don't hopefully this
Speaker 2: doesn't give anybody in Washington ideas right now, but this
Speaker 2: is this is I mean, it was the writs of
Speaker 2: Assistance which the government would give its soldiers or others
Speaker 2: and title them to break into anybody's house, search all
Speaker 2: their papers, search this search that. I mean, it was
Speaker 2: almost as bad as a NSA.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, because that's what they're doing all the time,
Speaker 1: whether you realize it or not. They're breaking into your
Speaker 1: house and they're looking through your papers and your private
Speaker 1: effects by going into your computer. That's I've talked about
Speaker 1: that people people say, we don't have a violation of
Speaker 1: the Third Amendment. It's like, do you realize what the
Speaker 1: government is doing with your computer? They're actually living in
Speaker 1: your house, whether you realize it or not, they're living
Speaker 1: there with you. You just don't see them. They're they're
Speaker 1: virtually which perhaps is even worse, I guess.
Speaker 2: But yeah, which is I mean, but it's just good
Speaker 2: that they're there to protect us from ourselves.
Speaker 1: Isn't it great?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I feel so much safer knowing that they're in my
Speaker 1: house watching everything that I'm doing. You talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about John Locke, and of course his Second Treatise
Speaker 1: on Government predated this stuff by about a century, but
Speaker 1: that really was a big part of the philosophical foundation.
Speaker 1: You know, these are people who are not watching Gilligan's Island.
Speaker 1: They were reading books, they were talking to other people
Speaker 1: who had read books, and they're debating these ideas and
Speaker 1: forming these ideas. There was a full century of you know,
Speaker 1: locking in philosophy that was underlying their pushback, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And there were some wonderful lines for lock here,
Speaker 2: one of which resume with a colonists was he who
Speaker 2: attempts to get another man into his absolute power does
Speaker 2: thereby put himself into a state of war with him? Yes,
Speaker 2: And if you look at that seventeen seventy six Act
Speaker 2: by Parliament, that's you know, basically proclaiming it's an act
Speaker 2: of war, that you're just that since you have no rights.
Speaker 2: And another one of my favorite John Locke quotes, I
Speaker 2: have no reason to suppose that he who would take
Speaker 2: away my liberty, would not when he had me in
Speaker 2: his power take away everything else.
Speaker 1: Was he around It sounds like he's describing twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Mean yeah, but he saw into the future like Master Damas.
Speaker 1: You know, he could see twenty twenty in the lockdown.
Speaker 1: But what we're talking about here is human nature. And
Speaker 1: that's one of the reasons why it's important to go
Speaker 1: back and to look at, you know, the the understanding
Speaker 1: of the nature of tyranny and the zero sum game
Speaker 1: here about who's going to make decisions about my life.
Speaker 1: You know, it's important for us to understand that because
Speaker 1: all these attitudes, as you point out, you run into officious,
Speaker 1: arrogant bureaucrats all the time. We all do, and and
Speaker 1: so it's important to understand how human nature plays into this,
Speaker 1: and it's important to understand that we have these same
Speaker 1: types of problems. I run into people all the time
Speaker 1: who say, well, you know that was back then. We're
Speaker 1: not at all like them, We're so much more advanced.
Speaker 1: I had one guy saying, what Thomas Jefferson, he didn't
Speaker 1: know anything. He wouldn't even be able to drive a car.
Speaker 1: It's like, are you kidding me, you know. So there's
Speaker 1: that kind of an attitude towards you know, they don't
Speaker 1: know anything because they didn't have televisions, you know, and
Speaker 1: it's like maybe they know a lot more because they
Speaker 1: didn't have televisions. So you know, there's this kind of
Speaker 1: the people in the past didn't know anything. But human
Speaker 1: nature doesn't change. And that's why it's so timeless to
Speaker 1: see the types of things. Is that Locke said, the
Speaker 1: way the government was trying to impose its authority on
Speaker 1: the Americans and how they pushed back against it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and what people don't realize. Okay, so Thomas Jefferson
Speaker 2: was not able to drive a corvette and he didn't
Speaker 2: have a television. But there has not been that much
Speaker 2: change in the nature of politicians and the nature of tyranny.
Speaker 2: And so you still have I mean, folks who are saying, well,
Speaker 2: things are different now, Okay, how would you judge the
Speaker 2: moral and intellectual caliber of the average member of Congress
Speaker 2: right now, okay versus two hundred years ago. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't see much improvement. Okay, they might get a
Speaker 2: little better they you know, they might have some you Okay,
Speaker 2: they got a law degree, they got this, they got that,
Speaker 2: but there's still weasels and it's kind of like, okay,
Speaker 2: so and they're still untrustworthy. And that was one of
Speaker 2: the wonderful things the Founding Fathers recognized. I mus, Jefferson
Speaker 2: was very eloquent on that don't trust any man with power.
Speaker 2: I mean, it goes back to the seventeen ninety eight
Speaker 2: was it the Kentucky resolution? Yeah. I think you might
Speaker 2: have that the key quotes on that closer to your
Speaker 2: memory than I do.
Speaker 1: But yeah, because I was just talking about the you know,
Speaker 1: the I see all this stuff that Trump was doing
Speaker 1: in terms of shutting down free speech on campus and
Speaker 1: about kicking people out summarily and everything. I say, this
Speaker 1: is like a reenactment of the Alien ins Edition Act.
Speaker 1: You know, this is history repeating itself, a rhyming, you know,
Speaker 1: at the very least, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah? And you know, there were good you know, part
Speaker 2: of the lucid and eloquent nature of Jefferson's resolutions and
Speaker 2: the same with Madison, was that they that they recognized
Speaker 2: how danger of power was once it's awful leash. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And it's frustrating to me because hell, I've been arguing
Speaker 2: that my whole damn career. And I was talking to
Speaker 2: a foreign gentleman a couple of days go, and he said, well,
Speaker 2: it looks like America's have some trouble the last couple
Speaker 2: of years. I said, yeah, well, actually, things especially got
Speaker 2: worse after nine to eleven, because I mean that was
Speaker 2: you know, nine to eleven turned into a grant of
Speaker 2: power to the ruling class. Yes, and they'd never and
Speaker 2: they'd never given that back. That's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, forget about declaring wars anymore. We have this authorization
Speaker 1: for the Use of military forces, gives us a blank
Speaker 1: check to do anything that we wish, and of course
Speaker 1: we can do anything we wish domestically as well. As
Speaker 1: they're rolling out the TSA and the real ID and
Speaker 1: all the rest of this stuff. You know, I'm going
Speaker 1: to start enforcing that next month. But you know, one
Speaker 1: of the things too, I think that is really key
Speaker 1: is the fact that, you know, the people in Washington
Speaker 1: now are setting on such an amazing pot of gold
Speaker 1: or actually a giant stack of Fiat currency.
Speaker 2: But that is, Yes, I was wondering where this was
Speaker 2: going to get.
Speaker 1: That is such a corrupting thing when you look at
Speaker 1: the amount of money that is there. And I always
Speaker 1: talk about the astronomical amounts that are being contributed to
Speaker 1: all of these campaigns. I mean, and even a congressman.
Speaker 1: You know, the amount of money that they're getting. I said,
Speaker 1: that is a direct metric of the level of corruption.
Speaker 1: And that is the amount of money that these people,
Speaker 1: from presidents to congressmen and even local officials are getting
Speaker 1: when they run for office. I said, you know, this
Speaker 1: is this is not a charitable thing. People are making
Speaker 1: investments in these guys. So that is a direct metric
Speaker 1: of corruption when you look at the amount of money
Speaker 1: that's donating these political campaigns.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and it's it's funny if you go back
Speaker 2: two hundred years, seventeen hundreds, I guess a lot in Britain,
Speaker 2: there was a lot of concern there about the about
Speaker 2: the ministers and the government getting somebody bribes some members
Speaker 2: of parliament to buy their support. And you know the
Speaker 2: same thing is happening now with federal grants to a
Speaker 2: certain district to get the congressman's vote. This promise, that promise,
Speaker 2: and the whole idea that the government could become that
Speaker 2: big in that out of control, and you can somehow
Speaker 2: keep it honest. Yeah, that's a real triumph of hope
Speaker 2: over experience. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, getting back to the tee and getting back
Speaker 1: to the tariffs on it. You know, the fact you
Speaker 1: mentioned to this, the fact that you know, not only
Speaker 1: would they confiscate ships, but they would also invade people's
Speaker 1: homes and use this arbitrary power to search everything that
Speaker 1: they had there. When you look at the response to it,
Speaker 1: one of the things I thought was interesting was, and
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you about this because I didn't
Speaker 1: have time to look it up. You say, Vermont patriots
Speaker 1: marched in seventeen seventy five against the British Army under
Speaker 1: a flag depicting a pine tree? Is that the appeal
Speaker 1: to Heaven flag that we see all the time?
Speaker 2: It is? I'm not sure. I mean I had not
Speaker 2: made that connection, but I think you're right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But what you say is tell people why you know
Speaker 1: it was about the pine tree and why that was
Speaker 1: such a sticking point.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So pine was an excellent material for building ships,
Speaker 2: and Parliament band cutting down any white pine trees, claiming
Speaker 2: every pine tree in the colonies for the British Crown
Speaker 2: without compensation. In eighteen forty six, historian Jonathan Seawall wrote
Speaker 2: that the conflict with Britain began in the forests of
Speaker 2: Maine and the contests of her lumbermen with the King
Speaker 2: Surveyor as to the right to cut in the property
Speaker 2: in white pine trees. Back in nineteen twenty six, history
Speaker 2: Robert Albion said the royal interpretation of private property practically
Speaker 2: rendered that term nugatory. So the pines were virtually being
Speaker 2: commandeered by the navy. They were especially good for the
Speaker 2: ship's mass.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's kind of interesting because we keep
Speaker 1: seeing these same types of themes coming around. I remember
Speaker 1: when Brexit was circulating around. One of the big griefs
Speaker 1: that the British had who wanted to leave the EU
Speaker 1: was they said, We've been fishing these waters for millennia,
Speaker 1: and now the EU is telling us how many fish
Speaker 1: we can take out of our own waters here, you know,
Speaker 1: So it kind of came back to the British. But
Speaker 1: because it's always about isn't about Britain versus every other country.
Speaker 1: It's about the nature of power, and so it's always
Speaker 1: going to come back that way. But I see parallels
Speaker 1: in that to a lot of this environmental you know,
Speaker 1: this aspect of the globalist and the environmentalism where we're
Speaker 1: going to tell you how much, you know, resources you
Speaker 1: can consume, We're going to track your carbon footprint, you're
Speaker 1: not going to own anything. We're going to the C
Speaker 1: forty Coalition says, well, we're going to measure all the
Speaker 1: meat that you have and the dairy that you have
Speaker 1: until we just completely cut it off. It's amazing to
Speaker 1: see this kind of stuff. And yet, you know, we
Speaker 1: see this throughout history. This is always again going back
Speaker 1: to what we just said, it's always a condition of
Speaker 1: the human nature. It's always a condition of power. How
Speaker 1: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts. Absolutely. We keep seeing
Speaker 1: this repeated over and over again. And yet people today
Speaker 1: don't seem to get the picture. They're so focused on,
Speaker 1: you know, the pines. Today, they would just focus on
Speaker 1: the trees and they wouldn't understand the general principle that
Speaker 1: was there. But the people in America understood the general principle.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I mean, the those pine trees were such
Speaker 2: a powerful symbol basically because it did capture the total
Speaker 2: expropriation of property rights. Those pine trees were some of
Speaker 2: the most valuable properties up in New England. So but
Speaker 2: you know, if you had them, you were out of luck.
Speaker 1: So that's a long tradition in Britain where they would say,
Speaker 1: you know, going back to the robin and stories and stuff,
Speaker 1: you can't go hunting unless we tell you that you
Speaker 1: can go hunting. Everything belongs to us, right and we'll
Speaker 1: tell you what you can have. You will own nothing
Speaker 1: and you'll be happier.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean Britain has got England has a
Speaker 2: long history of that, and that's part of the reason
Speaker 2: that that my ancestors and your ancestors probably came in
Speaker 2: this direction centuries ago. So mine were kicked out of
Speaker 2: France first, but that's a different story. They were kicked
Speaker 2: out of France, but that's another story.
Speaker 1: Well I'd love to hear that, but yeah, what it
Speaker 1: tells you that why were they kicked out.
Speaker 2: Of France Because they were Protestants.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know.
Speaker 2: My ancestors, according to family lore, a number of them
Speaker 2: were living in Paris in fifteen seventy two and like
Speaker 2: about half of them were killed in the Saint Bartholomew
Speaker 2: Days massacre when the King and the Pope tried to
Speaker 2: kill all the Protestants, and the survivors fled over to
Speaker 2: England and get their feet on the ground there. It's funny.
Speaker 2: I've been watching wolf Hall, the PBS BBC series on
Speaker 2: Thomas Cromwell and Cromwell's hell of a Rascal. But you know,
Speaker 2: thanks to him, perhaps my ancestors could find refuge in England.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, interesting, interesting. I had not heard of
Speaker 1: that program. I have to look at it and see
Speaker 1: that that might be interesting. Yeah, it is. And when
Speaker 1: you look at liberty, you know, religious liberty was so
Speaker 1: intertwined with everything, and we see it in our First Amendment.
Speaker 1: You if you tell people if we're going to try
Speaker 1: to control what people believe and control them at a
Speaker 1: very very fundamental level, that's controlling their speech, and it's
Speaker 1: policing their beliefs and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And of course that had been done quite a bit,
Speaker 1: and it would had been done because you know, they
Speaker 1: would have a close connection between these organized religions and
Speaker 1: the organized government, and so if you started to move
Speaker 1: in a different direction, that was a threat to them
Speaker 1: politically as well. So we see that's why they're intertwined.
Speaker 1: I think in the First Amendment, that had been the
Speaker 1: long history that people had seen, that kind of symbiotic
Speaker 1: relationship there between established church and a government that was there.
Speaker 1: But it is that was really the impetus for so
Speaker 1: many people coming here. I don't know my background exactly.
Speaker 1: I had my uncle looked it up at one point
Speaker 1: in time, but yeah, it came from England and been
Speaker 1: here longer than I can imagine. But I've never looked
Speaker 1: at myself to get the information.
Speaker 2: But yeah, yeah, there's there's a simple thumbnail which I
Speaker 2: used to explain how my family moved eventually got here.
Speaker 2: I mean, my family was kicked out of France because
Speaker 2: the French were biased against Protestants, and they were kicked
Speaker 2: out of Ireland because the Irish were prejudiced against horse thies.
Speaker 1: That's good, that's good. Talk a little bit about firearms,
Speaker 1: of course, because the Second Amendment is a big part
Speaker 1: of this as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean this here again, this is something
Speaker 2: which so many people try to downplay. But the you know,
Speaker 2: the the major shooting started when the British tried to
Speaker 2: seize the uh you know, gunpowder and cannons and firearms
Speaker 2: there in Concord and of course the British screwed it
Speaker 2: up and it was there was a funny detail and
Speaker 2: sent me some you know, details on Concord that I
Speaker 2: wasn't aware of April, you know. So the first shooting
Speaker 2: was in Lexington. British shot down a number of paid militiamen.
Speaker 2: It's unclear who shot first, but the British fire and
Speaker 2: the Vallian left eight or ten dead on the on
Speaker 2: the field there. And then the British came to Concord,
Speaker 2: and the British soldiers were just so damn ornery that
Speaker 2: they were grabbing people in the town and forcing them
Speaker 2: to fix them breakfast. Really like, oh this is this
Speaker 2: is a great pr yesure, you know. And as I
Speaker 2: said to my friend, you know, British soldiers didn't realize
Speaker 2: it was their last supper because hundreds of them got
Speaker 2: shot down as they fled back to back to the Boston.
Speaker 2: Because what happened was that that the British had overwhelmed
Speaker 2: greatly outnumbered the minute men who showed up in Lexington.
Speaker 2: But by the time they got to Concord, they were
Speaker 2: burning some various things around town. A lot of the
Speaker 2: the the local militiamen had had retreated outside of town.
Speaker 2: Then they came back to the North Bridge. There was
Speaker 2: a firefight there. The British took off running and then
Speaker 2: the the British eventually started to retreat back to Boston,
Speaker 2: but they had a lot of company along the way
Speaker 2: that was just picking them off almost every step of
Speaker 2: the road. Yeah. It kind of just got captured. So
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 1: An early example of asymmetric warfare, wasn't it. Well, we
Speaker 1: never learned the lesson. As Americans, you would think we
Speaker 1: had learned the lesson of asymmetric warfare. Yet we have
Speaker 1: ennighted the role of the British over and over again
Speaker 1: in my lifetime, haven't we.
Speaker 2: That is true, and it's I mean, you know, part
Speaker 2: of the lesson is don't piss off farmers with guns. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but the Britdige weren't that smart. And it was interesting
Speaker 2: how it played out because two months later the the
Speaker 2: a bunch of militia folks had come together and they
Speaker 2: seized Bunker Hill and Breed's Hill, and the British decided
Speaker 2: to teach them a lesson by putting their bright red
Speaker 2: coats some of their finest troops and marching them up
Speaker 2: the hill, and the American soldiers rose up and fired
Speaker 2: repeated volleys into that and broke the British assault twice.
Speaker 2: And then they finally ran out of ammunition mostly and retreated.
Speaker 2: But the American sharpshooters shot down, killed or wounded badly,
Speaker 2: wounded every British officer on the field, as well as
Speaker 2: the throne of the British troops. And that was a
Speaker 2: devastating blow against the British. They had a pirate victory,
Speaker 2: as their generals said, but that they could not afford
Speaker 2: any more such victories. And minor saying is that the
Speaker 2: British army at that point was that the soldiers were
Speaker 2: basically the enlisted men were maybe a little bit better
Speaker 2: than dogs, maybe treated worse than dogs, but they were
Speaker 2: very subservient to the officers, and once the officers got shot,
Speaker 2: they were kind of like, you know, what do we
Speaker 2: do next? Is that your oppression?
Speaker 1: I read an interesting book. I actually took a course
Speaker 1: on British history. When I transferred that they changed majors.
Speaker 1: I transferred different college and changed majors, and they made
Speaker 1: me take a bunch of core curriculum over and over again.
Speaker 1: So I said, all right, I'm going to take a
Speaker 1: course on British history and it's one of the most
Speaker 1: interesting books I read was The Reason Why, and it
Speaker 1: was about Lord Cardigan. What a pompous idiot he was,
Speaker 1: but he became the hero of the poem, right, the
Speaker 1: thin red line and ours is not the reason why.
Speaker 1: Ours is about to do or die and all the
Speaker 1: rest of and it was just this comedy of errors.
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't know whether the people that
Speaker 1: were with him knew what to do, but he certainly
Speaker 1: didn't know what to do. But he became a war
Speaker 1: hero out of the Crimean War and I always remembered that,
Speaker 1: and so I thought it was pretty funny. And as
Speaker 1: the Ukraine stuff was starting up about three years ago,
Speaker 1: and the head of the British military out of the
Speaker 1: British military, said, well, we beat the Russians in Crimeraa
Speaker 1: before and we'll beat them again. Okay, Well, why were
Speaker 1: the Russians in Crimea when you guys fought him a
Speaker 1: couple hundred years ago?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Because that was their territory. But anyway, that's another story.
Speaker 2: It's going back to the eighteen fifty four. Wasn't there
Speaker 2: a famous line in the Tennis on poem that got
Speaker 2: suppressed some damn full blundered.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's been a while since I read I read
Speaker 1: that when I was it's been let's see, about fifty
Speaker 1: years ago since I read that book, so that might
Speaker 1: have escaped my attention. I don't know. It was kind
Speaker 1: of focused on Lord Cardigan and what an idiot and
Speaker 1: he was. He was so beloved that when he came back,
Speaker 1: he had this this personal affectation of sweaters, and so
Speaker 1: everybody started copying his sweaters. And that's where the Cardigan
Speaker 1: sweater comes from, right, because he became a hero, but
Speaker 1: he didn't really know what he was doing. He had
Speaker 1: bought his commission because he was wealthy. He wasn't trained,
Speaker 1: you know, he was just he bought his way into
Speaker 1: into that thing, and he kind of took off on
Speaker 1: his own. So it was got an interesting book. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, I've only read the one book
Speaker 1: on it, so the guy might have skewed it to
Speaker 1: his political viewpoint, but it certainly was interesting.
Speaker 2: No, it's not like Cardigan deserved to be thrashed.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly, or key hauled, you know at the hall.
Speaker 2: There you go, that's a nice English tradition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, drag from one end of the vote to the others,
Speaker 1: from stern to from batistern or whatever, vice versa. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know, we have people that are very much
Speaker 1: like this kind of arrogance today. We have We've heard
Speaker 1: a whole string of Democrat politicians when it comes to
Speaker 1: the second medment. You think that's going to help you, well,
Speaker 1: you know Swallowell and Beato or Warke and Joe Biden. Also,
Speaker 1: we've got a military and we can You know, your
Speaker 1: guns don't mean anything, you know, And I've always heard
Speaker 1: that when I would talk to reporters when I was
Speaker 1: with a libertarian party, they'd say, well, you think you
Speaker 1: can stop the government. It's like, yeah, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: like asymmetric war. It's like mutually assured destruction. You certainly
Speaker 1: don't want it, okay, but it is a country where
Speaker 1: firearms are in the hands of the people. It is
Speaker 1: like mutually assured destruction. Certainly know, nobody but a fool nobody,
Speaker 1: but somebody like Eric Swallwell or Beato or Urick or
Speaker 1: Joe Biden would ever broach that idea. But that's what
Speaker 1: it would turn out to be. It would be just
Speaker 1: a horrific situation. But we don't have a good crack
Speaker 1: record on asymmetric war.
Speaker 2: No, but I mean going back the idea of using
Speaker 2: firearms who defend against an oppressive government. I was in
Speaker 2: the mountains of North Carolina taking a vacation with my
Speaker 2: wife at that point, just before nine to eleven, and
Speaker 2: I pulled up in front of this country store and
Speaker 2: this big old ball god comes out. He says, well
Speaker 2: part of Maryland, you froom? And I said, well, I'm
Speaker 2: from Rockville. And he started chatting me up real much.
Speaker 2: He was too friendly if something was wrong, and then
Speaker 2: he finally said he thought I was an undercover federal agent. Oh,
Speaker 2: And I was thinking, where in hell in life did
Speaker 2: I go wrong?
Speaker 1: That people were suspecting.
Speaker 2: Me of being an undercover federal agent. But so I said, well,
Speaker 2: why do you think? I said, well, you're driving a
Speaker 2: black car and you've got a Maryland license plate. I said, ah,
Speaker 2: you don't miss a trick, do you. I said, are
Speaker 2: there any other signs? He said yeah, These federal these
Speaker 2: undercover agents have got GPS tracking devices underneath the back
Speaker 2: of their car. I said, do you want to take
Speaker 2: a look under my car? Yeah? I want to do that.
Speaker 2: So he did that, he didn't find it, and then
Speaker 2: he shook my hand. He was from the reason I
Speaker 2: mentioned this is it because the reason he suspected me
Speaker 2: was that two years earlier, the FBI had flooded that area.
Speaker 2: There were hundreds of FBI agents going around because that
Speaker 2: was the area where Eric Rudolph was thought to be. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: and the and the FBI came in there. The FBI
Speaker 2: announced they were setting their best, the brightest, and they
Speaker 2: would find him in no time. FBI would show up
Speaker 2: at motels, they throw everybody out. FBI has taken over.
Speaker 2: They'd throw people out of restaurants, and pretty soon nobody
Speaker 2: would work with the FBI. Everybody distrusted them. And the
Speaker 2: FBI didn't find anything. And the reason I mentioned this
Speaker 2: is that the you know, the FBI thinks has got
Speaker 2: all this authority, but you know, you go into the
Speaker 2: mountains the west western North Carolina, you kiss people off,
Speaker 2: you've got no authority. That's right. Not only that, but
Speaker 2: if you think of something, I mean, you know, three words,
Speaker 2: the Barrett sniper rifle, two miles armor, two mile range,
Speaker 2: armor piercing, you know, you know.
Speaker 1: And what is it in there? In North Carolina. It's
Speaker 1: a sense of community, a sense of the community that
Speaker 1: a lot of the people with the FBI, who are
Speaker 1: living in an urban area where nobody knows anybody, right,
Speaker 1: they don't think about that. You know, everybody is divided,
Speaker 1: nobody is connected with each other. They're not sharing the
Speaker 1: stories of whiy water is happening, and so it's easier
Speaker 1: for them to go into a situation like that and
Speaker 1: to dominate everybody rather than to go into a community
Speaker 1: where everybody knows everybody else well.
Speaker 2: And not only that, but you should not make mountain
Speaker 2: people angry. I mean, this is something you I should
Speaker 2: have learned in Afghanistan. The point you were making was
Speaker 2: that people were people were people are still saying that.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden was still saying this after August twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: when the government in Kabul collapsed and the Americans fled.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know yet, you know they you know,
Speaker 2: the Taliban did not have any you know, major artillery.
Speaker 2: They didn't have tanks. They just had you know, AK
Speaker 2: forty sevens and other weapons.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, you mentioned in your op ed piece
Speaker 1: here the decoration of the causes and necessity of taking
Speaker 1: up arms. And I see that that was in July sixth,
Speaker 1: seventeen seventy five, is about a year before the Declaration
Speaker 1: of Independence. Thomas. It wasn't Thomas Jefferson's first rodeo to
Speaker 1: right the Declaration of Independence. He was co author on this.
Speaker 1: So the guy named John Dickinson. I don't know anything
Speaker 1: about John Dickinson a little bit of Do you know
Speaker 1: anything about John Dickinson?
Speaker 2: I know a little, but he was very eloquent. He
Speaker 2: had he had a very good line uh you know,
Speaker 2: eight uh seven years earlier and in which he said
Speaker 2: that the crucial question in Colinist's mind is not what
Speaker 2: evil has actually attended specific majors, but what evil is
Speaker 2: likely to attend them, So seeing the British actions as
Speaker 2: warning signs. Uh Dickinson. I think he was from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: I don't know if he supported the Declaration of Independence.
Speaker 2: I think he might have resisted that. But but I
Speaker 2: might be mistaken on that. But he was he was
Speaker 2: one of the best pamphleteers. Okay, not in the same
Speaker 2: class as Thomas Paine, but nobody was. But so, uh,
Speaker 2: this this is a very interesting you know to read
Speaker 2: that declaration on taking up arms a few weeks after
Speaker 2: Bunker Hill. It's fascinating stuff. It's it's bracing, and it
Speaker 2: focused a lot more on Parliament as a source of
Speaker 2: evil then on King George.
Speaker 1: That's interesting.
Speaker 2: So we have the.
Speaker 1: Declaratory Act as it was seventeen seventy five, where they
Speaker 1: say basically, you don't have any rights. Ten years later
Speaker 1: they have their Declaration of Independence say no, we do
Speaker 1: have rights as human beings. We have rights. But the
Speaker 1: year before that Declaration of Independence comes out, and it's
Speaker 1: after the Mincer Hill slid that you have the decoration
Speaker 1: of the causes and the necessity of taking up arms.
Speaker 1: And so we see this stuff kind of rolling out,
Speaker 1: and as you look back, it's came out kind of
Speaker 1: a logical sequence of building, didn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, it was important to go step by step
Speaker 2: because even as of seventeen seventy five, I don't know
Speaker 2: what percentage of Americans were ready to have a clean
Speaker 2: break with Britain. I think Thomas Paine's pamphlets helped a
Speaker 2: great deal on that cause. And it was important to
Speaker 2: frame the issues in a philosophical way, which is part
Speaker 2: of the reason that I was using the John Locke
Speaker 2: quotes here because this uh uh, this is the prism
Speaker 2: through which the Founders were seeing British action, and it
Speaker 2: was not everything in uh in isolation, it was more like, okay,
Speaker 2: you know, there's it's sort of like a snowball going downhill.
Speaker 2: How much further are we going to let the British go?
Speaker 2: And at some point, I mean so there was there
Speaker 2: was the after the Battle of Bunker Hill, you had
Speaker 2: the British commander in Boston, General Gage, basically wanted to
Speaker 2: make it treason for anyone who failed to turn in
Speaker 2: their firearms to the British and just to leave the
Speaker 2: Americans a complete abject dependence on their British rulers. You know,
Speaker 2: the British never had a chance to impose that, though
Speaker 2: they did that in some cities that they controlled. But
Speaker 2: that was how much power the British wanted, and that
Speaker 2: was that's why it was so important to to assume
Speaker 2: the worst of people that were trying to get absolute
Speaker 2: power over you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's why we say this Founder is saying
Speaker 1: over and over again, no free men will ever be
Speaker 1: disbarred the use of guns and that type that they
Speaker 1: understood that was going to be the lynch pin of
Speaker 1: their freedom. But they also understood that, you know, the
Speaker 1: pen was mightier than the stored in many respects. They
Speaker 1: had to through a series they have both, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: They've got to have both of them in tandem. And
Speaker 1: so they built over a period of time, they built
Speaker 1: this philosophical understanding of the nature of government, the nature
Speaker 1: of men, the abuse of power, and all the rest
Speaker 1: of the stuff. So they could see where this is going.
Speaker 1: And so you point out that, you know, you got
Speaker 1: quotes from John Dickinson that you know, it's the crucial
Speaker 1: question is not what evil was actually attended to a
Speaker 1: particular measure, but what evil was likely to attend them
Speaker 1: in the future. In other words, how they're going to
Speaker 1: build on this thing. This is just the thin end
Speaker 1: of the wedge, you know, and we understand that as well.
Speaker 1: You know, many times we will look at the principles
Speaker 1: involved and I keep going back to what I consider
Speaker 1: so far to be the worst despotism I've lived under,
Speaker 1: And that is what happened in twenty twenty. You look
Speaker 1: at this and it's like, okay, so how else are
Speaker 1: they going to use this? And since people in America
Speaker 1: just kind of walked away. You know, at some point
Speaker 1: it's like, Okay, I don't really believe this pandemic is
Speaker 1: going to kill me. What I'm going to stop wearing
Speaker 1: the mask and stop doing this, and that people just
Speaker 1: stopped complying gradually. Now that's great some places, Yeah, In
Speaker 1: some places, yeah, some places are still they're still tied
Speaker 1: up in knots on wearing masks. I still see that occasionally,
Speaker 1: but you know, for the most part, they just kind
Speaker 1: of stopped playing the game. But they didn't come back
Speaker 1: and say, you know, we've got to make sure that
Speaker 1: never happens again, and we got to hold these people
Speaker 1: accountable for what they did to us. And that's what
Speaker 1: I see missing in America today is that sense of understanding,
Speaker 1: the sense people are like, oh, okay, well that was awful.
Speaker 1: Now that's over with. No, it's not over with. It's
Speaker 1: not over with if you leave these people without any accountability,
Speaker 1: is it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well it's There are so many precedents from the
Speaker 2: COVID crackdowns and the lockdowns and the mandates, and most
Speaker 2: of these precedents have not been banished for throwing out
Speaker 2: the law books for their regulations and to see how
Speaker 2: far to see how far that the government lied. This
Speaker 2: is coming out a little bit with the exposing the
Speaker 2: lab leak, the cover up of the lab leak, But
Speaker 2: there was a story I did. I guess January twenty
Speaker 2: first on see.
Speaker 1: I even think let me let me give you my
Speaker 1: theory on this, Jim, because I even think that the
Speaker 1: stuff about the lab leak, I think that's an alibi.
Speaker 1: I think they're putting that out there to say we
Speaker 1: did our best, but when we were up again and say,
Speaker 1: everybody was going to die, so we had to lock
Speaker 1: you down, We had to vaccinate you with an untested
Speaker 1: genetic code injection, and we had to do all this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff because hey, we had this thing out there.
Speaker 1: And I think that that does two things. Not only
Speaker 1: does it hold them harmless, but I think that this
Speaker 1: this lab leak narrative that's being put out there are
Speaker 1: you got to ask yourself. I think why you now
Speaker 1: have the establishment hanging on this so heavily when they
Speaker 1: wanted to suppress that. They want everybody to believe this
Speaker 1: is an organic thing that's running wild. And now they've
Speaker 1: got a lot of different motives for pushing that. And
Speaker 1: I think one of the motives is that, hey, we
Speaker 1: may have to do it again. You know, we'll come
Speaker 1: up again, and this time the next time we'll do
Speaker 1: a little bit differently. Maybe we'll lock you down harder
Speaker 1: next time, because you know, the first time it didn't work.
Speaker 1: And I've already seen a lot of people talking about it,
Speaker 1: so I'm very suspicious about that. I'm a real cynic
Speaker 1: when it comes to viruses and pandemics, and I'm a
Speaker 1: real cynic when it comes to government. When you start
Speaker 1: putting these two things together, my BS alarms start ringing
Speaker 1: off the wall.
Speaker 2: Well, that's that's understandable. I mean, the one key for
Speaker 2: the lab laque theory to me isn't how it was suppressed.
Speaker 2: Was that if people had recognized early on that the
Speaker 2: that the COVID was financed by their tax dollars in
Speaker 2: a reckless way in China and then it got out
Speaker 2: of the lab by accident or otherwise, it would have
Speaker 2: been far more difficult for politicians to promenade as saviors.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's why they had to suppress it at
Speaker 1: the beginning. Yeah, you know, when it started in December,
Speaker 1: I remember looking it up and I heard this stuff
Speaker 1: about bats soup, and wait a minute, and then I
Speaker 1: saw that the only Class bio level safety four lab
Speaker 1: and China was in Wuhan. Right there at that spot.
Speaker 1: I thought, oh, okay, well maybe it is something that's real.
Speaker 1: What convinced me otherwise was seeing the fake videos of
Speaker 1: people falling down the street. I mean, you've seen those.
Speaker 1: It was just I've they need to take some lessons
Speaker 1: from some stuntmen in Hollywood if they want to take
Speaker 1: a fall. It was the fakest looking stuff I've ever
Speaker 1: seen in my life. And I've been in China, and
Speaker 1: I know when they showed the crowded hospitals and everything,
Speaker 1: it's like, that's the way it is normally, it's necessarily
Speaker 1: a different thing. Well so it's just kind of crowded
Speaker 1: chaos as the standard operating procedure and most of these
Speaker 1: places in China anyway, So I got really skeptical about it.
Speaker 1: But the thing that was real nail in all of
Speaker 1: that narrative from me was Dark Winter, you know, and
Speaker 1: again tied in with nine to eleven, you know, just
Speaker 1: two months before nine to eleven, and then they have
Speaker 1: the anthrax attack a week later, and then they put
Speaker 1: out the model legislation and practiced it for twenty years.
Speaker 1: So you know, I looked at all that stuff and
Speaker 1: I didn't believe a bit of it, you know. And
Speaker 1: I had talked about the danger of these biosafety level
Speaker 1: labs and gain A function experiments and everything. Back in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. There was an excellent series of articles that
Speaker 1: were done by USA Today and a reporter there, her
Speaker 1: name was Alison. I can't remember her last name, but
Speaker 1: she talked about how there's hundreds of these labs in
Speaker 1: the United States, typically attached to universities, and the bad
Speaker 1: safety record that they had. You know, they're playing with diseases,
Speaker 1: and they're playing with diseased animals, and they're getting exposed
Speaker 1: to stuff themselves. The disease animals are escaping the lab
Speaker 1: and all this other kind of stuff. So it had
Speaker 1: credibility with me at the beginning, but I just I
Speaker 1: got to the point where I didn't believe any of
Speaker 1: this stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean there were so many false statements, yeah,
Speaker 2: and it was a lot of that was concerted. So,
Speaker 2: I mean I was tiring the edge of cynicism myself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you look at what is happening now, you know,
Speaker 1: when you and this case of this guy that gets
Speaker 1: sent to El Salvador. I read your op ed piece
Speaker 1: talking about the the op ed writer who just gets
Speaker 1: whisked off of the street and had done nothing other
Speaker 1: than expressing her political opinion. That was not that the
Speaker 1: government did not like her expressing. But you know, when
Speaker 1: you look at the situation that's going on with this
Speaker 1: Garcia guy, yeah, there's some issues there, but they're manufacturing stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, and that's a key thing. When they start
Speaker 1: manufacturing evidence, they start spinning stuff that wasn't there before.
Speaker 1: When they say they made a mistake, and then the
Speaker 1: come back and they say, no, he didn't make a mistaken.
Speaker 1: Look he's got MS thirteen written on his knuckles, and
Speaker 1: they don't they don't annotate it. They show you a
Speaker 1: photoshop picture of it. You know, they're putting stuff out
Speaker 1: there like that. You know, it really does undermine it.
Speaker 1: They they can't help themselves. I mean, they've got to
Speaker 1: go the extra you know, they've got to keep adding
Speaker 1: stuff to it. They can't just leave it at one
Speaker 1: particular thing. And that's the key, you know, when we
Speaker 1: look at what happened with you know, the the tyranny
Speaker 1: of the British and everything. It was really about executive orders.
Speaker 1: And that's really the way that the Trump wants to operate.
Speaker 1: He wants to declare an emergency and then he's free
Speaker 1: to do whatever he wants and every problem that he sees,
Speaker 1: whether it's economic, whether it's about immigration, or whether it's
Speaker 1: about you know, so called pandemic or any the rest,
Speaker 1: it's all about I declare an emergency. Now it can
Speaker 1: do whatever I want to do, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It certainly worked out well in the past.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, I'd like the quote that you end
Speaker 1: up your op ed piece with here you say that
Speaker 1: they understood that in defining a tyrant, it's not necessary
Speaker 1: to prove that he's a cannibal.
Speaker 2: Yes, I love that line. That was from a Virginia
Speaker 2: senator John Taylor, who was a cavalry officer for George
Speaker 2: Washington during the revolution. Uh and uh. He actually wrote
Speaker 2: several books of a political philosophy. He did a wonderful
Speaker 2: book on UH, on trade and protectionism called Tyranny Unmasked.
Speaker 2: I think that's why that that book came that quote
Speaker 2: came from. But there were just I mean, it's it's
Speaker 2: a different writing style that people had back then. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I saw that line and I was just infantely
Speaker 2: charmed by it.
Speaker 1: It was a great Yeah. I love that because it
Speaker 1: is you know, somebody doesn't have to be thoroughly bad,
Speaker 1: in other words, a cannibal. Yeah right, it's just you
Speaker 1: know that you can this this one aspect here, they
Speaker 1: can go down that road. And that's why we have
Speaker 1: to look at what people do that are in power.
Speaker 1: We look at it at as a case by case basis,
Speaker 1: and yet that isn't the case today. The case today
Speaker 1: is that people who are caught up in this left
Speaker 1: right paradigm, the Democrats, Republicans, they will have to make
Speaker 1: a cannibal out of their enemy.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: There can be nothing good than that person, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And it ties into what Thomas McCauley said about how
Speaker 2: people at his in the early eighteen hundreds were viewing Charles,
Speaker 2: the Charles the First the King of Steward King, who
Speaker 2: was very oppressive. But Thomas McCauley said that that people
Speaker 2: in his time were viewing him well because he had
Speaker 2: a really nice beard.
Speaker 1: Must have been better than.
Speaker 2: Your yours, A ryne generate, a tyrant.
Speaker 1: I remember whatever, When I saw that line what came
Speaker 1: to mind about it doesn't have to prove that he's
Speaker 1: a cannibal made me think of Gilbert and Sullivan's pirates
Speaker 1: at Penzance, and there's a policeman lot is not a
Speaker 1: happy when they said, when a felon's not engaged in
Speaker 1: his employment, when he's not engaged otherwise in Asian crime
Speaker 1: or whatever, he loves his little innocent enjoyment just as
Speaker 1: great as any honest man, that type of thing. You know.
Speaker 1: So it's like, yeah, these guys, it's kind of as
Speaker 1: difficult as a cop because you know, we see that
Speaker 1: these guys they are they're human after all, and uh
Speaker 1: so we have to, uh, we have to hammer these
Speaker 1: guys even though we see their humanity. They don't have
Speaker 1: to be a cannibal in order for the police to
Speaker 1: be able to pull them up, I guess. But it
Speaker 1: still bothered them at somewhat and their conscience, or in
Speaker 1: the imagination of Gilbert and Sullivan, I guess they were
Speaker 1: they were kind of outside the establishment.
Speaker 2: I mean, most of you know over that that's.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that was that was the police as Gilbert
Speaker 1: and Sullivan would like to see them, you know, a
Speaker 1: kind of Gitler Police Force that was there.
Speaker 2: Of course it was also fifty four police.
Speaker 1: That's right, yeah, yeah, or are you? It's always great
Speaker 1: talking to you, Jim. Thank you so much, and the
Speaker 1: website is Jimbouvard dot com where people can find your.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having on. Thanks for its
Speaker 2: great to share some insights and some laughs here on
Speaker 2: Tuesday morning in these dire political times.
Speaker 1: That's right, and it's always great to go back and
Speaker 1: look at history and see how things are really not
Speaker 1: changed all that much. Thank you so much, Jim. Have
Speaker 1: a good day, thanks to Thank you folks, thank you
Speaker 1: for joining us. You have a good day as well.
Speaker 1: The common man, they created common Core and dumbed down
Speaker 1: our children. They created common past track and control us
Speaker 1: their Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing
Speaker 1: and the communist future. They see the common man as simple,
Speaker 1: unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity
Speaker 1: created in the image of God. That is what we
Speaker 1: have in common. That is what they want to take away.
Speaker 1: Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire
Speaker 1: to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
Speaker 1: It's time to turn that around and expose what they
Speaker 1: want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll
Speaker 1: find at the Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening,
Speaker 1: Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially,
Speaker 1: please keep us in your prayers. D Davidknightshow dot com