Speaker 1: Well whiskey, come and take my pain the honey all ry,
Speaker 1: Oh why don't why think alone when you can drink
Speaker 1: it all? In with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join
Speaker 1: your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John You, and the international woman
Speaker 1: of Mystery, Lucretia. Where this laps it up, it'll live it,
Speaker 1: ain't you? Easy on the should taps? Got to give
Speaker 1: me and let that whiskey blon. Well, Happy semi Quinn Centennial, everybody,
Speaker 1: and welcome to this special bonus episode of the Three
Speaker 1: Whiskey Happy Hour. I am joined as always by the
Speaker 1: sho hey Otani of the conservative legal movement, John You,
Speaker 1: and by the Anaka Nilis of the conservative podcast world,
Speaker 1: better known as Lucretia. And why is shaking your head?
Speaker 2: I don't know how Nick any Well, that's because you're
Speaker 2: drinking framerus quantities of Ram and.
Speaker 1: Scott by now I'm sure, Oh no, they The second
Speaker 1: one was was meant to be obscure because I know
Speaker 1: we will have listeners who will know the Anika Nilis
Speaker 1: reference even if Lucretia doesn't. And I was thought I
Speaker 1: was channeling John What the way? What's the name Troy
Speaker 1: Sinek used to always do those things about you, and yeah,
Speaker 1: that's good. You see. Well I actually suggested once and
Speaker 1: he call you the show. Hey Otani and Richard the
Speaker 1: Aaron judge of the conservative legal movement, and he never
Speaker 1: did use it because he and.
Speaker 2: They're not really They've got to be like Yin and
Speaker 2: Yank types, not two of the same. They have to
Speaker 2: be opponents.
Speaker 1: Well wait a minute, I guess not.
Speaker 2: I guess he would use like Abbot and Costello, and yeah,
Speaker 2: so they're more like buddy. They have be more like
Speaker 2: buddies but also kind of rivals. Yeah, but but but
Speaker 2: John enemy's frenemies. That's what uh look a women call it, right.
Speaker 1: I don't think they are commensurate because Otani can pitch
Speaker 1: like crazy and Judge can't. I mean that to me
Speaker 1: is uh what talks sports a lotherer time. What we
Speaker 1: want to do is talk about the Declaration independence of
Speaker 1: two fifty. And I mean We've all been writing about
Speaker 1: it a lot here all year, and then I'm going
Speaker 1: to keep writing about it. And what are some of
Speaker 1: the lingering issues? There's several wee can take up, and
Speaker 1: I've lost track of what we've talked about. Here because
Speaker 1: I've been doing these individual podcasts with authors, which has
Speaker 1: been fun. But John, your latest Peace Let's start with
Speaker 1: your latest piece on this. John, you wrote a nashew
Speaker 1: about how the Declaration of Independence is not I guess
Speaker 1: I see, on the surface, right as everyone thinks all
Speaker 1: those attacks on the king, the framers were against executive power,
Speaker 1: and we do know that, you know, having a president
Speaker 1: was a having a president at all was a controversial
Speaker 1: subject at the Constitution Convention, and there was no executive
Speaker 1: in the Articles of Confederation, right, So.
Speaker 2: That is the sort of yes, superficial approach which I
Speaker 2: had to say was in Justice Justice Soto Mayor's descent
Speaker 2: in the presidential removal cases, where she says something along
Speaker 2: the lines of, you know, giving the president this massive
Speaker 2: powers a violation of the spirit of the American Revolution
Speaker 2: and the Declaration. So she gives this kind of usual
Speaker 2: superficial claim you hear all the time against the president. Oh,
Speaker 2: we would never have had kings. That's a violation of
Speaker 2: the Declaration of Independence. But I think if you actually
Speaker 2: take a close look at that declaration, you read it
Speaker 2: in its historical context. The reason they attack the king
Speaker 2: over and over again isn't because they're against the executive power.
Speaker 2: In fact, as I point on my arcle, the Declaration
Speaker 2: talks about executive powers over and over again, like the
Speaker 2: veto power. They don't say there shouldn't be a veto power. Interestingly,
Speaker 2: they just say the King has used it to stop
Speaker 2: laws that advance the public interest. So it's interesting not
Speaker 2: only they knowledge there should be veto power, they explain
Speaker 2: when they think it should be used. So the reason
Speaker 2: why the Declaration is styled that way, I argue, is
Speaker 2: because the king, even at this time the King in England,
Speaker 2: did not govern as an absolute monarch. It was the
Speaker 2: King in parliament.
Speaker 1: So it was really a.
Speaker 2: Way to attack the idea of an imperial government because
Speaker 2: the king, under the way the colonists thought of it,
Speaker 2: the king was the real center of imperial governance. And
Speaker 2: so when you attack the king, you're really attacking just
Speaker 2: the idea that London gets to tell you what to
Speaker 2: do without your participation. And so then the other the
Speaker 2: second thing is the Articles of Confederation. People say, oh,
Speaker 2: it doesn't have an executive branch. Actually, when you look
Speaker 2: at what the Articles did, the whole thing is an
Speaker 2: executive branch.
Speaker 1: It's real fault.
Speaker 2: It doesn't have any legislative power, contax couldn't regulate. It's
Speaker 2: actually what happened in the colonies to the n degree,
Speaker 2: which is they didn't And this is the second last
Speaker 2: point I want to make about this, is they the revolutionaries,
Speaker 2: didn't take away executs of power try to redefine it.
Speaker 2: Their approach was to try to change the structure of
Speaker 2: the executive branch, make it responsible to legislatures, or give
Speaker 2: it strict term elaments. The Articles are a good example.
Speaker 2: They have a thirteen member executive branch. Each state gets
Speaker 2: to elect one person. But they didn't say, oh, you know,
Speaker 2: executives won't do this. Executives can't do that anymore. So
Speaker 2: the amazing thing I end by saying, the incredible thing
Speaker 2: is actually how the traditional notion of the executive which
Speaker 2: is really you know, we start talking about with Machiavelli
Speaker 2: and then is expanded on by Hobbes and Locke, how
Speaker 2: quickly it comes into full force again by the time
Speaker 2: of the Constitutional Convention.
Speaker 3: In large part because of the experience that they had
Speaker 3: over and over again with weak executives, weak limited plural executives.
Speaker 3: They were very quick to learn their lessons is what
Speaker 3: it came down to. They had the theories of law
Speaker 3: and so forth about executive power. They were worried about it.
Speaker 3: I mean, you do have all the debates at the
Speaker 3: Constitutional Convention between the anti executive's power people and the executive.
Speaker 3: The people in favor of a stronger, unified executive who
Speaker 3: was both responsible and accountable won the day, you know,
Speaker 3: and large part because of Hamilton, of course, and Hamilton's
Speaker 3: discussion of that and federalist hold on don't tell me
Speaker 3: seventy seventy and federalist number seventy. It's a real true
Speaker 3: to force in many ways to understand. So you started
Speaker 3: your article for what it's worth. I hope Steve will
Speaker 3: link to it by saying that people criticizing the slaughter
Speaker 3: case that just came out do so by their appeal
Speaker 3: back to the Declaration of Independence. And then you show,
Speaker 3: you know, absolutely brilliantly why they're completely wrong about that.
Speaker 3: But the other argument that they often make is that, oh,
Speaker 3: this president will become so ultra powerful, and oh aren't
Speaker 3: you worried if a democrat comes into office and starts
Speaker 3: exercising these same powers. You hear that from our side,
Speaker 3: even yes and no, we can hold them accountable when
Speaker 3: we know who to hold accountable. If you if you
Speaker 3: can be like that idiot Obama and say I didn't
Speaker 3: even know. I didn't even know that my IRS was
Speaker 3: targeting people. I read about it in the newspapers like everybody,
Speaker 3: you know. If you can get away with that nonsense
Speaker 3: because you have this dispersed executive power across all of
Speaker 3: these agencies not in any way answerable to the executive,
Speaker 3: then you have a problem. But when you can look
Speaker 3: at Trump and say, hey, what the hell are you
Speaker 3: doing in that around war? Agree with it, don't agree
Speaker 3: with it? Who's responsible for it? Even Trump will say
Speaker 3: I'm responsible. He's not gonna blame Haig Seth or JD
Speaker 3: Events or any you know. And that's how it's supposed
Speaker 3: to be. That's that's that's actual democratic or Republican I
Speaker 3: would say accountability.
Speaker 1: Well, let me offer an observation and then maybe a
Speaker 1: challenge or question for you guys. Uh. I've always thought
Speaker 1: that the list of grievances against the King and the Declaration,
Speaker 1: if you, if you look at them closely and think
Speaker 1: it through, you can see arguments for separation of powers.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: In other words, you can see a lot of arguments.
Speaker 2: For our other piece. I wrote that you guys.
Speaker 3: Didn't like Wait, no, actually I liked that part of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, uh, but it's long said. And even the
Speaker 1: Creatia professor Chaffa said a couple of times in passing
Speaker 1: that you know, it's a you know, why are we
Speaker 1: blaming the king when really it was Parliament passing all
Speaker 1: these taxes and Lord Norse administration Detory Act and right.
Speaker 1: But there's a there's a reason why it wasn't just
Speaker 1: it was rhetorically simple and just points to the contingency
Speaker 1: of events out you know, you and I in particular
Speaker 1: anything john to a certain extent, we look at the
Speaker 1: ideas and the principles involved for their intelligibility and their
Speaker 1: head agree. You know, Johnny already mentioned Hobbs and Locke
Speaker 1: and Mocky Valley and so forth. One reason the king
Speaker 1: became the centerpiece is and I learned this by talking
Speaker 1: to Ed Larson, whose book about seventeen seventy six I
Speaker 1: think is actually pretty good. He points out that what
Speaker 1: was the previous Jefferson broadside from two years before the.
Speaker 3: Rights of British America, British.
Speaker 1: Of British Americans right British and North America British North Americans.
Speaker 1: And it makes a pretty persuasive case that as late
Speaker 1: as the fall of seventeen seventy five, after hostilities have started,
Speaker 1: after there's a lot of shooting and killing going on already,
Speaker 1: that there's still some thought of reconciliation, that you know,
Speaker 1: we are loyal to the king, can remain loyal to
Speaker 1: the king if we're governed better. Then what happens. The
Speaker 1: King gives a speech that takes several weeks to get
Speaker 1: across the Atlantic, and it says, screw you American colonists.
Speaker 1: We're gonna crush you because you don't have any rights
Speaker 1: that I bound. And that infuriated the colonists and really
Speaker 1: was a tipping point because it happens. I think the
Speaker 1: chronology is Tom Paine's Common Sense is published on January sixth.
Speaker 1: It sells one hundred and fifty thousand copies, which adjusted
Speaker 1: for today's population, would be about twenty five million. No
Speaker 1: modern bestsellers sell that much. It was a huge sensation.
Speaker 1: And then the King's Speech is published a day or
Speaker 1: two later. Hayne rushes out a second edition a week later,
Speaker 1: and essentially, and that's when that's when George Washington writes
Speaker 1: to people saying, this is this is not now trying
Speaker 1: to vindicate a rights. This is now a drive for independence. Okay,
Speaker 1: And that makes sense then why you're going to attack
Speaker 1: the king for having the character of a tyrant in
Speaker 1: the declaration. So my last point is the contingency of
Speaker 1: events is if the king had been more reasonable, I
Speaker 1: don't know what had happened, or, as I've often said
Speaker 1: to many of our Claremont friends, being Devil's advocate, oh,
Speaker 1: the Hessians, you know, are already being sent over and
Speaker 1: that really infuriates people. Right, the British center largest at
Speaker 1: that point, largest navaling fleet had ever sent anywhere to
Speaker 1: put down the rebellion. And if the British military had
Speaker 1: succeeded in crushing the revolution, they hung George Washington, They
Speaker 1: would have hung Kong with Jefferson.
Speaker 3: John Hancock, Samuel Adams.
Speaker 1: But all those people and the declaration would today be
Speaker 1: a footnote in history.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, let John go first. But I do want
Speaker 3: to make you small.
Speaker 2: I was thinking, I think one thing that historians have
Speaker 2: have've written about this, I think the people who followed
Speaker 2: on Balen and Wood. That was interesting is that they
Speaker 2: said look at it and away from the British perspective,
Speaker 2: which to them this was a problem of imperial governance,
Speaker 2: and they screwed it up right after us. They changed
Speaker 2: this kind of commonwealth federalism, and you could say that
Speaker 2: the thing that really caused us to break away was
Speaker 2: a federalism problem. Everyone else talks about it as if
Speaker 2: it were a separation of powers that you which was not.
Speaker 2: We were rebelling because we had a view that Parliament
Speaker 2: and the King should be interacting differently, or there was
Speaker 2: no independent judiciary. Right that it was because the power
Speaker 2: of the center was too strong over the you know,
Speaker 2: the periphrase, which is a federalism issue.
Speaker 3: And you even pointed out in your piece, John that
Speaker 3: the colonists had some claim on the interests of the sovereign,
Speaker 3: where they all had almost none on the claims of parliament,
Speaker 3: because Parliament actually represented people that were not them, whereas
Speaker 3: the King could in some ways have been said to
Speaker 3: represent all of them, all of the British subjects.
Speaker 2: What do you guys think of this, because I've come
Speaker 2: across this in some of the things I've read, is
Speaker 2: that the Declaration actually is not and it does not
Speaker 2: attack monarchy in and of itself.
Speaker 1: Ah important point.
Speaker 3: There's a long debate about whether a monarchy, anarchy monarchical
Speaker 3: system could be consistent with the Declaration. So maybe can
Speaker 3: I just.
Speaker 2: Bring back That's why I want to ask you guys.
Speaker 3: It's a little tough if it's a constitutional monarchy limited maybe,
Speaker 3: But I want to go back to something Steve said,
Speaker 3: because on the one hand, he's right about the summary
Speaker 3: view of the rights of British America. At the same time,
Speaker 3: I want to point out that nothing in the language
Speaker 3: of what Jefferson wrote there was intended to be anything
Speaker 3: other than an early declaration of the rights. And just
Speaker 3: forgive me but just two lines, that these are our
Speaker 3: grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with
Speaker 3: that freedom of language and sentiment, which becomes a free
Speaker 3: people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of
Speaker 3: nature and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Speaker 3: For all of those people who claim we were just
Speaker 3: you know, claiming our rights as British citizens is just hobwash.
Speaker 3: But anyway, let those who flatter excuse me, Let those
Speaker 3: flatter who fear it is not an American art to
Speaker 3: give praise, which is not do might be well from
Speaker 3: the venal, But blah.
Speaker 2: Blah, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: Those who are asserting the rights of human nature. You
Speaker 3: the king are not sovereign. We the people are the
Speaker 3: sovereigns because of our natural rights. Now come back and
Speaker 3: give us the rights you give to other British subjects.
Speaker 3: Maybe we'll lay low for a little while. But basically,
Speaker 3: the rights of the Summary review is the first declaration
Speaker 3: of independence from the king.
Speaker 1: Right, No, the consequent logic is obvious there, and it's why,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think this is probably right. It's why
Speaker 1: Jefferson was picked to be the principal drafter of the
Speaker 1: declaration because that that's some review that was you know,
Speaker 1: pain is more retorted. Jefferson's is more theoretical and philosophical.
Speaker 1: But he was such a good writer that that's why.
Speaker 1: And how old was Jefferson when he wrote the declaration
Speaker 1: thirty three?
Speaker 2: I thin thirty two or thirty three?
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is thirty one when he wrote this.
Speaker 2: Wels, Madison and Hamilton are in their early thirty when
Speaker 2: they're writing the Federals.
Speaker 1: Papers, right right, Yeah, as pretty but you know they
Speaker 1: had better educations than thirty one yearls or twenty one
Speaker 1: year olds these days. Yeah, I will no, I won't.
Speaker 1: There's a certain Irish born statesman whose name Lucreatia bridles
Speaker 1: At so I won't mention it, who was always hoping
Speaker 1: for reconciliation and said, you know, Jefferson, these guys they're
Speaker 1: making a pretty good case, and kept a resolute silence
Speaker 1: about the declaration, which I know he did not like,
Speaker 1: but he kept he held his tongue about it. You
Speaker 1: all know who I'm referring to, right, Yeah, of course, Okay, I.
Speaker 3: Can't believe he'd bring that up on a two hundred
Speaker 3: and fiftieth semi centennial.
Speaker 1: I just do it that fun. Before we go to
Speaker 1: our first ad break here, John, you're raising what's become
Speaker 1: known as the no guidance hypothesis about that second paragraph
Speaker 1: of the declaration. I mean a second paragraph, a very
Speaker 1: elegant lot to it, but really concise. But it says,
Speaker 1: you know, the object of government is to secure our rights,
Speaker 1: and whenever a government fails to do that, it's our right,
Speaker 1: our duty to set up new forms of government that
Speaker 1: we think will better assure our safety and happiness doesn't
Speaker 1: say that government has to be I won't say constitutional.
Speaker 1: I think it's implied. There will come to your other
Speaker 1: art about this in a minute, maybe, but the point
Speaker 1: is is that if you could trust a monarch to
Speaker 1: secure your natural rights, would that satisfy the conditions of ceration?
Speaker 2: And yeah, this is the part we were talking about before,
Speaker 2: because you guys also said one of the key parts
Speaker 2: of the naturroids and the declaration is consent by the government. Yeah, right,
Speaker 2: and so with a monarch you don't get to consent.
Speaker 2: It's hereditary.
Speaker 3: Presumably it's a subject ship, yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it wouldn't be the case then that if
Speaker 2: you thought that the you know, the natural rights language
Speaker 2: and the second paragraph declaration is really controlling, then it
Speaker 2: would have to exclude a monarchy or even an aristocracy,
Speaker 2: wouldn't it.
Speaker 3: I would think so based upon the arguments that we
Speaker 3: hear again about that in the federalist papers, I mean,
Speaker 3: I think that they're very compelling, one of which is
Speaker 3: that you can trust executive power not to become tyrannical,
Speaker 3: if it is limited, if it is not hereditary, if
Speaker 3: it you know, all of these things that it really
Speaker 3: defines what it means to be a monarch and says
Speaker 3: those things mean you cannot trust executive power. I would
Speaker 3: go so far as to say you can't even have
Speaker 3: a parliamentary system of government and have a genuine consent.
Speaker 3: But that's that's a discussion.
Speaker 2: But you will luck them like, there's no election for
Speaker 2: aristocrats and monarchs, so just by definition, wouldn't they be
Speaker 2: excluded as possible forms of government under your guy's view
Speaker 2: of natural rights?
Speaker 1: Well, and I just say that the subject of consent
Speaker 1: is a really serious and deep one, and I hope
Speaker 1: you will both right now consent to a brief ad
Speaker 1: break so.
Speaker 2: We can let our sponsors wow walk at that Segmentay,
Speaker 2: very nice.
Speaker 1: Hi everybody, it's Steve here to introduce you to a
Speaker 1: brand new podcast on the Ricochet Family. It's called the
Speaker 1: Future Freedom Podcast. So what if political disagreement didn't have
Speaker 1: to become political warfare? Well, that's the idea behind the
Speaker 1: Future of Freedom Podcast. Each week, two liberty minded thinkers
Speaker 1: tackle a major issue from different perspectives, one con two viewpoints.
Speaker 1: No yelling, no dunking, no debate stage theatrics for that,
Speaker 1: You've got to stay here with us at the three
Speaker 1: Whisky Happy Hour. I think the Future of Freedom podcast
Speaker 1: just aims to have thoughtful arguments presented in good faith,
Speaker 1: giving listeners the chance to weigh the evidence and reach
Speaker 1: their own conclusions. In the media environment build for outrage,
Speaker 1: the Future of Freedom podcast is built for curiosity. So
Speaker 1: please listen to the Future of Freedom here on Ricochet
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. And now back to
Speaker 1: the three Whiskey Happy Hour. Well, all right, I mentioned
Speaker 1: the consent as a naughty subject. I don't want to
Speaker 1: get into it here because I'm too rusty at it.
Speaker 2: Pout.
Speaker 1: There's also some lingering issues I think. I know that
Speaker 1: Lucreatian and I have talked about this a lot many
Speaker 1: years ago, but one of the things that well, let
Speaker 1: me put it this way, I'm not sure that we're
Speaker 1: getting any closer to the bottom of the matter about
Speaker 1: what is meant by all men are created equal, how
Speaker 1: equality is supposed to be understood the declaration. My modern
Speaker 1: version of the division between left and right is this
Speaker 1: the conservative view or the founder's view. Classical liberal view
Speaker 1: is that justice is rooted in freedom or liberty, and
Speaker 1: the object of government is to preserve your freedom in liberty,
Speaker 1: The modern leftist view is that equality means egalitarianism, which
Speaker 1: means forced redistribution, force rearrangement of power. That means compulsion.
Speaker 1: Antagonistic too, so their justice is rooted and antagonism to
Speaker 1: human freedom. Right, that seems to me the divide. I
Speaker 1: don't think we're ever going to sort that debate out.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to argue about that forever. But
Speaker 1: I do think that debate needs to be aired out,
Speaker 1: especially these days with billionaire's taxes on the ballot and
Speaker 1: things of that kind, and democratic socialist running rampaging around
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. Right now, we'll come back to that
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit. But what should we add into
Speaker 1: all that. It seems to me that that discussion has
Speaker 1: not been has been too muted in this semi Quinn
Speaker 1: centennial season.
Speaker 3: This is the this is the thing.
Speaker 2: So people who believe in some kind of equality of
Speaker 2: result or some kind of Marxists or socialists, do they
Speaker 2: really think that they're consistent with the Declaration of Independence?
Speaker 2: I don't really think so. They might like the rhetoric
Speaker 2: of it, but they have to think that they're really
Speaker 2: The Declaration of Independence is focus on negative government, right,
Speaker 2: This idea that the government should get out of the
Speaker 2: way or just protect us in our own enjoyment of
Speaker 2: our natural That's just fundamentally inconsistent and at odds with
Speaker 2: what they want to do. So it seems to me
Speaker 2: they want to They deny the declarations principles, but they
Speaker 2: do like the rhetoric because when you use the word equal,
Speaker 2: its could be so malleable.
Speaker 1: Right, So that's why I think of it. That's true.
Speaker 3: But I also I'm much more sinister about it than
Speaker 3: you are, John, and that is that they actually don't
Speaker 3: want real genuine equity equality about come. They want the
Speaker 3: ability to manipulate society so that they can give the appearance.
Speaker 3: I mean, Tokfield talks about this, give the appearance of
Speaker 3: equal outcome, when of course they remain in this particular position,
Speaker 3: in this particular.
Speaker 2: Position, over and above running a zoo back there, I see, like, yeah,
Speaker 2: check this out.
Speaker 3: It's a fireworks night and it's a fountain for a while. Wait,
Speaker 3: this is this. This is the best thing at the
Speaker 3: Lucrecia Compound. The tank battle. So you light these little
Speaker 3: tanks and they both ends, and you see who wins.
Speaker 3: There's there's a dozen of them in here, okay, really quickly,
Speaker 3: just to prove what I said was true. AK forty
Speaker 3: seven and last but not least, there's a whole bunch
Speaker 3: of these so that you can have lightsaber fights.
Speaker 2: You got nerds like that, fireworks come out of it
Speaker 2: while yeah duel.
Speaker 3: Yeah exactly. Anyway, there's there's there's three more bags of
Speaker 3: them out.
Speaker 2: There, but sorry, three more bags.
Speaker 1: Ok. People are listening. Lucreas is just showing off for
Speaker 1: fireworks is going to set off here on the fourth.
Speaker 3: So that's well, we're not really trying to show off.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to make you guys jealous that you're not here.
Speaker 1: To be jealousy.
Speaker 2: I mean, in Oakland, they'll have real a K forty seven.
Speaker 2: Does that count?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 3: Did you guys remember though back during COVID, uh that
Speaker 3: I don't remember if it was La it probably was
Speaker 3: La County that forbid the use of any kind of fireworks.
Speaker 3: And then on fourth of July during the height of COVID,
Speaker 3: and then there were all these great videos. There was
Speaker 3: just there were so many fireworks going off all over
Speaker 3: the entire city of Los Angeles that they couldn't actually
Speaker 3: find and prosecute anybody you know if you so anyway,
Speaker 3: So see there's still there's still some of that American
Speaker 3: we those who who let those flatter, who fear, we don't.
Speaker 3: We don't give it damn what the government tries to
Speaker 3: tell us to do. That's what I love about being Americans.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, equity, Well I was, yeah, i've' going a
Speaker 1: long time about this. Uh, I will I'll just briefly
Speaker 1: refer and maybe try and link to it in the
Speaker 1: show notes. I think that a lot of this is
Speaker 1: just sanctified envy. That's something Tomsul has been saying for years.
Speaker 2: But yeah, you guys wrote that piece about article which
Speaker 2: is caught on a little bit.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a great piece of work.
Speaker 2: That was a good piece, you know.
Speaker 1: But then but then I always play.
Speaker 2: And it even boils down to fireworks in this possession exactly.
Speaker 3: But I would go one one step further with it
Speaker 3: in this contact Stephen say when I interrupted myself that
Speaker 3: there is now the attempt by the left to use
Speaker 3: envy as their tool, uh to convince, to convince people
Speaker 3: that you know, you could take away you take away
Speaker 3: Elon Musk's money. I may never see a single penny
Speaker 3: of it. You know those great stories about how the
Speaker 3: janitor's working for SpaceX are now millionaires.
Speaker 2: And so on.
Speaker 3: It's not about that at all. It's it's not about
Speaker 3: redistributing money to people. It's about punishing those people. That's
Speaker 3: what envy really teaches you.
Speaker 1: That's Jim Pearson, I think came up with a phrase
Speaker 1: that's punitive liberalism. That's a great friend, but a great phrase.
Speaker 1: But then what was the point is gonna make about that?
Speaker 1: It's uh oh, John, I always point to Federals number ten,
Speaker 1: where Madison says the first object of government is the
Speaker 1: protection of the unequal faculties of acquiring property. In other words,
Speaker 1: it's it's not just Madison, I think of an essay
Speaker 1: on property and and lock for that matter. The point
Speaker 1: is is that a regime of equal rights property understood,
Speaker 1: has to respect and expect unequal results.
Speaker 2: And I'm learning your Straussian chit chat now, because this
Speaker 2: is an example of how America is a low country
Speaker 2: or whatever, a modest but solid country, because that is
Speaker 2: just the pursuit of self interest and not based in
Speaker 2: classical virtue. See, I learned this stuff. But I think
Speaker 2: that the American system think God doesn't have classical virtue.
Speaker 2: That needs classical virtue to work because people don't have it.
Speaker 3: Is that aside, people are prosity.
Speaker 2: For acting their self interest.
Speaker 3: I mean, come on, yes and no. But but it's
Speaker 3: one thing. It's one thing to say that I that
Speaker 3: the government should protect the diverse faculties for acquiring property.
Speaker 3: It's another thing to recognize that when you do that,
Speaker 3: you do indeed end up with the Elon Musks of
Speaker 3: the world. Where Steve and I at least take advantage
Speaker 3: of some of some amazing things that that Elon Musk,
Speaker 3: in his creativity and innovation has has developed for the
Speaker 3: world we live. Go back to Locke, you know, the
Speaker 3: day labor in England because of the protection of the
Speaker 3: rights to property lives better. Is clad better and his
Speaker 3: house better than the King of the Americas, where there's
Speaker 3: no respect for private property. Understand that capitalism means prosperity.
Speaker 3: That's an important thing. Back to what Steve was saying
Speaker 3: at the beginning, I don't think that this debate is
Speaker 3: being properly taken up. It's being taken up by those
Speaker 3: DSA people. It's being taken up by the people who
Speaker 3: want to get you know, have rent control, who want
Speaker 3: to take away the property of all the rich, redistribute it,
Speaker 3: do all of those things. And they do exactly what
Speaker 3: John was saying, and that is they appeal to the
Speaker 3: rhetoric of the Declaration it's equality without understanding even the
Speaker 3: first iota what it actually means.
Speaker 2: Well, But this, think about this on the two fiftieth,
Speaker 2: is that Justice Thomas gave that speech at Texas. We
Speaker 2: talked about that. I saw that he does make this point.
Speaker 2: But think about this though, It's that there's nobody else
Speaker 2: even giving great addresses about their declaration right now. I mean,
Speaker 2: I go, I was thinking about this. He't think of
Speaker 2: anyone else who gave a speech like Justice Thomas is
Speaker 2: even on the other side, but at all, no one's
Speaker 2: out there giving these kind of great sort of public
Speaker 2: addresses of the style that you know Lincoln or that
Speaker 2: used to be common.
Speaker 3: And press today.
Speaker 2: He was nice as a child. He's written as actual
Speaker 2: children's illustrated book about the Declaration.
Speaker 3: I know they also a piece speech.
Speaker 2: Come on, but why don't people give these addresses? And
Speaker 2: you know, why don't we have a great speech I'm
Speaker 2: giving one Arnie Sanders about why the Declaration actually means
Speaker 2: we should be more equal than we are against inequality.
Speaker 2: We don't see any of that anymore.
Speaker 1: First of all, John Lucretia, of course it's wrote that
Speaker 1: children's book for justice. Jackson. Just let's just a technical
Speaker 1: point here. It's an economics but it's always it must
Speaker 1: doesn't have any money. I mean a lot of stock
Speaker 1: in this company.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, that's it.
Speaker 1: And acid is not present value of future expected returns.
Speaker 1: We could liquidate a lot of that. He probably raised
Speaker 1: two hundred million dollars in cash, but actually you cannot
Speaker 1: convert that value into actual cash. If you tried, you
Speaker 1: would only get a third of that value. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna explain why that's the case, But are literally people
Speaker 1: who think he has a trillion dollars and one dollar
Speaker 1: bills in a bank bolt.
Speaker 3: Somewhere, and all he has to do is buy the
Speaker 3: McDonald's and fix the ice cream.
Speaker 2: But I wish he did, Yeah, I wish. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: know he doesn't bother McDonald's.
Speaker 1: And that was a technical point, and I only no, I.
Speaker 3: Know, Steve, if they don't understand.
Speaker 2: There was.
Speaker 3: Some sort of survey of young people who all claimed
Speaker 3: that they loved socialism. They were socialists. They understood absolutely
Speaker 3: nothing about what that meant. I mean absolutely nothing. So
Speaker 3: if they don't understand the differ ference between socialism and capitalism,
Speaker 3: do you really think that they're going to understand the
Speaker 3: difference between owning shares of a company with future value,
Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera. No way, Sorry, they probably got
Speaker 3: their economics degree from the same place.
Speaker 1: AOC did well or Mondami so Mondami. I just saw
Speaker 1: this video that was just amazing because he said, it's
Speaker 1: only fifteen seconds long, but he says, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, there is the economists, and he called him
Speaker 1: Friedrich Hayek.
Speaker 2: You know, wrote why is he even mentioning him at all?
Speaker 1: Well, because I think how to manual that's him to use,
Speaker 1: because he said, you know, we socialists, we've learned from
Speaker 1: the strength of the capitalist previous era. He's combined to
Speaker 1: literacy with uh, with with historicism. I thought what Cretia
Speaker 1: was actually opening up and was about to start up.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, I wish I could. It's not safe.
Speaker 3: This is this is this is what the tank looks like.
Speaker 3: So you light this end and then it shoots out
Speaker 3: the back end and they they've got little wheels on them,
Speaker 3: so it shoots out the back end, so you can
Speaker 3: and so the aim is to catch your opponents on
Speaker 3: fire and destroy them before they destroy you.
Speaker 2: Listeners, And and there is about to take a pictured
Speaker 2: is about to invade Mexico with fire works. Sorry, all right,
Speaker 2: you guys, it has to be fun.
Speaker 3: It's the this is the this is the greatest day.
Speaker 3: This is so great.
Speaker 2: I know, it's the greatest day in the history of
Speaker 2: the modern world. Is it not?
Speaker 3: Probably close to all worlds?
Speaker 2: Maybe?
Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe the let's let's tree resurrection.
Speaker 1: Let's try and get back the business completely overtakes us.
Speaker 1: Uh So, John, you asked me a question, why are
Speaker 1: more people giving It turns out if you go back
Speaker 1: to the seventy six centennial, no one gave very good
Speaker 1: speeches then either. I mean, you know, Jerry for gave
Speaker 1: you sort of raw rob Is in America great speeches,
Speaker 1: but he was never great, right.
Speaker 2: But you know who gave one, oh No. Seven nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty seven, Thurgood Marshall gave the famous speech that was
Speaker 2: like pro to wocism. Yes, I know, yeah, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: so there were people who have given speeches like this,
Speaker 2: but they don't anymore. I know for this, I mean
Speaker 2: I find I mean, there are people giving speeches important things,
Speaker 2: but not about decoration.
Speaker 1: I think the absence of them now is significant for
Speaker 1: this reason. I just have an article out right now
Speaker 1: at the Daily Wire. You have to subscribe to get it.
Speaker 1: But then you have seven hundred thousand subscribers, So great, Wow,
Speaker 1: I subscribe.
Speaker 2: You do.
Speaker 1: Oh well, you can find my piece and maybe I'll
Speaker 1: try and post some of it on substrate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, I will look for it. I had no
Speaker 3: idea of Steve.
Speaker 1: I thought I sent you guys, I don't subscribe. So yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: what I point and now it is. In nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: there was a left wing attempt to try and hijack
Speaker 1: the by Centennial. It was called the People's bi Centennial Commission.
Speaker 1: It was run by Jeremy Rifkin, then a young anti
Speaker 1: war guy later is anti technology that he's still now
Speaker 1: basically yea. And what they did was very clever. They
Speaker 1: tried to connect Tom I actually quote some of the
Speaker 1: things they said. They tried to connect Tom Payne and
Speaker 1: John Adams and especially Benjamin Rush who they had completely
Speaker 1: wrong with, Jay Guavara and Lenin. In other words, they
Speaker 1: thought it was important to try and use a connection
Speaker 1: or embrace the patriotic clothing of the American Revolution to
Speaker 1: justify their anti capitalist revolution. They called the bi Centennial
Speaker 1: the Beam a centennial by centennial right, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: who then ran the Judiciary Committee held a two day
Speaker 1: hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee to expose the People's bi
Speaker 1: Centennial Commits for being a bunch of left wingers who
Speaker 1: are really radicals, anti Kapalists, really anti American. Now, first
Speaker 1: of all, imagine Democrats today if they ran Congress having
Speaker 1: a hearing on a group like that today, instead with
Speaker 1: the hearing on the sixteen nineteen project right, which was
Speaker 1: the the updated version of it. My point is is
Speaker 1: today and I'll skip over this now, but the Nation
Speaker 1: magazine has its July for issue out, and you can
Speaker 1: just imagine what America is terrible. It's just, you know,
Speaker 1: it's awful. The founding was terrible. It'll hit and they
Speaker 1: don't even try now to embrace the American founding, even
Speaker 1: in a perverted and completely insincere way. Now, it's straight
Speaker 1: to the founding was terrible from beginning to end. That's
Speaker 1: what the sixteen nineteen project was all about right. And
Speaker 1: I know I've said this before. Lucretie gets mad when
Speaker 1: I repeat myself, but if Kris were president, we will
Speaker 1: be having slave shit.
Speaker 3: It's worth repeating. It's worth repeating, Steve, I want to
Speaker 3: I do want to talk about a couple of minor
Speaker 3: examples of what you're saying. So the first one is
Speaker 3: I told Steve I believe it or not, especially after
Speaker 3: John told me told us I think it was the
Speaker 3: last time we met that he's a presidential library of
Speaker 3: fictionado and he's been to many of them, which led
Speaker 3: Lucretia and mister Lucretia to say that one of these
Speaker 3: days we are going to go on a presidential library
Speaker 3: tour from one end of the country to the other,
Speaker 3: and just even the ones we've already done. But that
Speaker 3: being said, so we talked about the Obama Presidential Library opening.
Speaker 3: I don't think we need to revisit that. You know,
Speaker 3: it looked like a dusk star. Obama has been really
Speaker 3: vile about everything ever since then. But again, leave it aside.
Speaker 3: Everybody knows, everybody who listens to this podcast knows how
Speaker 3: bad Obama is. But yesterday on July first was the
Speaker 3: opening of the Teddy Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota.
Speaker 3: I don't even know the name of the town is
Speaker 3: so small, And just the difference, never mind this lovely
Speaker 3: patriotic everything Teddy Roosevelt did to make America great and
Speaker 3: all of these wonderful things and the sufferings he went
Speaker 3: through and why he was in North Dakota, and it
Speaker 3: was just it was fabulous. But just to see the
Speaker 3: difference between the Obama monstrosity library and the Teddy Roosevelt
Speaker 3: sort of reminiscent almost of Frank Lloyd Wright. A lot
Speaker 3: of these places, especially built up in Scottsdale, just built
Speaker 3: into the environment. Beautiful, gorgeous, that's what this is. It's
Speaker 3: sort of Teddy Roosevelt's love conservationism and so forth. It's
Speaker 3: almost it's this beautiful thing built into the side of
Speaker 3: a hill, kind of like a modern hobbit, you know,
Speaker 3: sort of thing. And I just think it was the
Speaker 3: credit to Trump because he went there. He flew in
Speaker 3: his new air Force one that got from Qatar, and okay, okay,
Speaker 3: and I had to turn off his speech because it
Speaker 3: was a little much even for me. But that being said,
Speaker 3: there is a difference between the way the right wants
Speaker 3: to celebrate our history and the way the left wants
Speaker 3: to do so. And even if you look at the
Speaker 3: National State for whatever it's called put on by the
Speaker 3: newer Freedom two fifty, I think it is the you know,
Speaker 3: ten states decided to do nothing but put up basically
Speaker 3: a banner, and it was supposed to be a showcase
Speaker 3: of all fifty states, and some of the territories and
Speaker 3: the left wing states decided it was too trumpy in
Speaker 3: and so they weren't going to do it. But as
Speaker 3: a matter of fact, it turns out that all the
Speaker 3: people that went to visit this thing just loved it.
Speaker 3: They loved they loved the feeling of patriotism. They didn't
Speaker 3: think it was partisan. Even CNN and MSNBC and others
Speaker 3: had to admit that. And I just think it's I know,
Speaker 3: it's a very mundane kind of exemplary of what Steve
Speaker 3: was talking about, but I think it's very real that
Speaker 3: we're actually seeing a difference.
Speaker 1: Well it's it's not just an architectural contrast, which is
Speaker 1: important and real. By the way, I'll put a picture
Speaker 1: of it on substack and on Rick Jay or listeners
Speaker 1: who is typingly like crazy? Is that you, John?
Speaker 2: Or yes, that was me. I'm just telling people to wait.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean the rosa. I'll come back with this.
Speaker 1: Roosevelt fits in with the landscape where it is. But
Speaker 1: that's an even bigger point than just an architectural one.
Speaker 1: You could say I'm being mischievous. Now Obama fits in
Speaker 1: with the landscape too. It looks like a giant trash
Speaker 1: can on the south side of Chicago. So maybe, yes,
Speaker 1: that's very clever. I couldn't help I don't want to
Speaker 1: go visit it.
Speaker 2: I mean, it looks interesting. I want to see it, even.
Speaker 1: Though yeah, I don't see how bad it is, but.
Speaker 2: Yeah, how bad the inside is.
Speaker 1: Especially here's the contrast. I mean, look, John and I
Speaker 1: at least and probably I think you too, appreciate we
Speaker 1: all have lots of critical things to say about Teddy Roosevelt.
Speaker 1: His progressivism was was pretty bad in a lot of ways.
Speaker 3: He he.
Speaker 1: He was a spark plug for changing us and bringing
Speaker 1: us the modern presidency. That's really not good in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways. But you know what a what a
Speaker 1: contrast between Obama. So why is it in that look
Speaker 1: Dakota as I recall the story, I think I remember this.
Speaker 1: I read a you know, Roosevelt biography a couple of
Speaker 1: them thirty years ago. But as I recall, he moved
Speaker 1: out to Dakota's after his wife died.
Speaker 3: No, his mother and his wife died on the same day.
Speaker 1: So what does he do. He goes out to North
Speaker 1: Dakota and ranches for a while, right, And you know
Speaker 1: he right, you know, he hurts cattle and you know,
Speaker 1: in other words, I could say he was a community
Speaker 1: organizer of cattle. You know that does He wasn't real? No,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'll be crude about he was a real
Speaker 1: goddamn human being in the right into that phrase.
Speaker 2: Right, But I don't think he deserves to be Mount Rushmore. Frankly,
Speaker 2: I do think his cousin does. I mean, I do
Speaker 2: think FDR should be on Mount Rushmore, although the New
Speaker 2: Deal was a terrible mistake, I think, But I think
Speaker 2: he deserves to be there because of World War Two.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I think you know this, John, Two
Speaker 1: big fans of Franklin Roosevelt include Army Mansfield and Harry Gaffer.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you really I didn't know that.
Speaker 2: Of course, you don't, well, I'm just interested in their ideas,
Speaker 2: not I don't study every little josh tittle of their
Speaker 2: lives like you guys do. For some hidden insight.
Speaker 3: I read Edmund Morris's Is That Right? Two volume? It
Speaker 3: was like reading a novel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's at absolutely, but I think that Teddy Roosevelt's
Speaker 2: life was like kind of like a romantic, like a
Speaker 2: not romantic, but like a romance era novel. He was
Speaker 2: so dramatic, and there is a I can see why
Speaker 2: Trump would like him, just for the superficial reasons.
Speaker 1: But also there was the famous line from the British
Speaker 1: ambassador to America in nineteen oh six, You know the story,
Speaker 1: John or whoever it was, and he in the Oval
Speaker 1: office and Roosevelt all forced a grandchild around or something
Speaker 1: like that. Maybe it was one of his own kids,
Speaker 1: only forty five when he's president and spring Rice sends
Speaker 1: a kl back to Washington and he says, what you
Speaker 1: have to understand is that the American president is six
Speaker 1: years old.
Speaker 3: Actually did Trump give Trump a one more piece of credit?
Speaker 3: So he went there and he took with him from
Speaker 3: the Roosevelt room. Teddy Roosevelt's Congressional Medal of Honor, which
Speaker 3: he then they placed in the library next to Teddy
Speaker 3: Roosevelt Junior's Congressional Medal of Honor, the only father and
Speaker 3: son in history to have both earned the Congressional Medal
Speaker 3: of Honor. And he said, I just he says, I
Speaker 3: took it out of there. I thought it belonged here.
Speaker 3: I heard that part of his speech. It was it was,
Speaker 3: you know, I love that sort of thing, and you
Speaker 3: know Trump, give Trump some credit. He gets how he
Speaker 3: gets how popular that sort of thing is with everybody
Speaker 3: but the left, who be.
Speaker 1: Going too far to say that.
Speaker 2: The answer also about why there aren't enough of these
Speaker 2: is at the left because they fundamentally think the founding
Speaker 2: was corrupt and evil. They don't want to celebrate it.
Speaker 2: I mean, they just would be going through the motions.
Speaker 2: I was wondering, like I'm trying to remember, like did
Speaker 2: Obama do anything on July fourth? During the times he's present.
Speaker 2: I don't remember any kind of grand celebration, any great
Speaker 2: speeches by well, can any of them?
Speaker 1: Can you remember any memorable uttered vis of Obama? Ever?
Speaker 3: This?
Speaker 2: You know his convention speech in the.
Speaker 3: Two and four?
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, yeah, we we want to go to
Speaker 1: a break here, but we have a comment here mentions
Speaker 1: that you know, Conrad Black, who Lord Black, who we adore,
Speaker 1: is a big fan of FDR and H. Lucretian and
Speaker 1: I did a whole podcast with him about his FDR book.
Speaker 1: It was great fun. I mean, well, then there's a
Speaker 1: few parts of the book where he says, yeah, Roosevelt
Speaker 1: was full of rappy. Didn't put that way, but anyway,
Speaker 1: that is a funny part about FDR, about Conrad Black,
Speaker 1: who I'm a big fan. But let us have a
Speaker 1: quick break. We'll come back and a close.
Speaker 3: Hey, Robert, I'll I'll say is if you're Canadian, FDR
Speaker 3: doesn't look that bad by.
Speaker 2: Comparison, nice saved their asses. If you're a British.
Speaker 1: Make an earlier segment, you know, British Empire. Try this
Speaker 1: for a horrifying idea. If our revolution sety six had
Speaker 1: not succeeded today, we would be Canada.
Speaker 3: That I was specifically going to turn my air conditioning
Speaker 3: down to an even lower temperature to make sure that
Speaker 3: people in Paris suffered even more. Yeah, to get the reference,
Speaker 3: remember that the reason that they in England and in Paris,
Speaker 3: throughout Europe they're going they're arresting people for using their
Speaker 3: air conditioning. They're making them turn them off, they're making
Speaker 3: them take them out, and it's because air conditioning causes
Speaker 3: global warming. They've never had a heat wave in Paris
Speaker 3: before except eighteen ninety s. But it's all American's fault
Speaker 3: because we're all so we're so pathetic using our air conditioning.
Speaker 3: It's ninety six here today.
Speaker 1: I remember the big energy crisis of seventy nine when
Speaker 1: in Texas there was a popular bumper sticker that said
Speaker 1: drive fast, freeze A Yankee's all right, you guys, it's
Speaker 1: July fourth. What are you guys doing to celebrate the day?
Speaker 1: And can you say semi quinn centennial. After several drinks.
Speaker 3: I can't say.
Speaker 2: Before John, I'm going to go to the local yacht
Speaker 2: club and have an old fashioned July fourth menu of
Speaker 2: hot dogs and hamburgers and Barberie chicken, nothing fancy baked
Speaker 2: beans that to means July fourth. And then we're going
Speaker 2: to go to a friend's house who has a house
Speaker 2: way up in the hills. Because I don't know if
Speaker 2: you saw this, but for the first time, the second
Speaker 2: time in history, they're going to actually shoot the fireworks
Speaker 2: off the Golden Gate bridge itself.
Speaker 1: Whoa to celebrate the two fiftieth.
Speaker 2: So usually they're off barges. I mean, I don't know
Speaker 2: if they're barges or they're homeless people doing it, but
Speaker 2: they're shot off like you know, down near the waterfront
Speaker 2: in San Francisco, And usually this time of year a
Speaker 2: huge bank of fog comes in by then, so you
Speaker 2: can barely see any fireworks. This is typical, you know,
Speaker 2: progressive governance, which was it was just the intenth behind
Speaker 2: it that mattered, not whether you actually carried out the
Speaker 2: fire So this year, at least, if they shoot them
Speaker 2: off the Golden Gate, most people in the base should
Speaker 2: be able to see them. I think, wow, wow, So
Speaker 2: that'll be fun. So Hamburger's, hot dogs and fireworks.
Speaker 1: Well, Lucretia, you already showed us all the ordinance you're
Speaker 1: going to set off.
Speaker 3: That's late late, you know, but I live in a
Speaker 3: small town, and you know, I know everybody in the town.
Speaker 3: And my good friend, who is the commanding general for
Speaker 3: what Chuka, is about to retire. So you'll be giving
Speaker 3: a speech. I'll be at church. I'll be giving a
Speaker 3: speech I'll be doing those.
Speaker 2: But well, you're giving a speech about you what are
Speaker 2: you going to say?
Speaker 3: Well, it's I did I said it earlier, but you
Speaker 3: guys missed it. It's about the fourth and about you know,
Speaker 3: the usual stuff. Yeah, in church, but it's not in church.
Speaker 3: But it's an ecumenical, community wide patriotic music and I
Speaker 3: just you know, so it's very non denominational. But it's
Speaker 3: about it really ties into the idea that it was Christianity.
Speaker 3: Jesus I've told you, guysus before, Jesus going to the
Speaker 3: Samaritan woman at the well and and set and offering
Speaker 3: her salvation, which of course is the beginning of the
Speaker 3: idea that Christianity and even you know Roman, the Roman world,
Speaker 3: that that human equality actually is what would you call it,
Speaker 3: I don't manifest for the first time with Jesus in
Speaker 3: in uh with a Samaritan woman.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right, it's a Christian idea. It takes a long time
Speaker 3: to become a part of the political situation. But anyway,
Speaker 3: enough of that, nobody cares what I have to say
Speaker 3: about that. I will tell you there will be massive
Speaker 3: amounts of barbecuing of meat at the Lucretia compound. But
Speaker 3: this is when you probably worse even than Christmas. So
Speaker 3: my my world famous bourbon being cherry pie in the
Speaker 3: vodka buttercrust, and it was and the Kiwi strawberry white
Speaker 3: cake in the middle with whipped cream frosting in the middle,
Speaker 3: and then the top of it, of course is an
Speaker 3: American flag. It's good, it's good. You need it, John,
Speaker 3: I promise you. I've seen you. He deserts before you
Speaker 3: need it.
Speaker 2: My homemade Why you need why are you trying to improve?
Speaker 2: I just go to McDonald's to get a soft serve. Jesus,
Speaker 2: he's put all this strange foreign fruits in there.
Speaker 1: The machines are broken.
Speaker 3: The machines are broken to Elon won't buy. He's just
Speaker 3: so selfish. Damn him. Anyway, everyone this this happy, happy
Speaker 3: fourth of July. You are amongst the most fortunate people
Speaker 3: have ever lived in the history of the world because
Speaker 3: you live in this country. You know.
Speaker 2: I had a similar thought. It was on a panel
Speaker 2: last week with a bunch of Straussians like Hadley and Samuelson,
Speaker 2: and we were arguing about whether they're whether natural rights
Speaker 2: and Janice Rogers Brown. It was a panels four of
Speaker 2: US in Washington, and it was filled with all the
Speaker 2: young people who are there for college internships. It was
Speaker 2: like a two standing romolent. It's like one hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy five. It was really great just to hear Pan
Speaker 2: on the declaration. And so I did my usual thing
Speaker 2: where I said, hardly proved to me that natural rights,
Speaker 2: you know, exist even though they're you know. So of
Speaker 2: course I was taunting him. But then at the end
Speaker 2: they said, what do you want to say about July fourth?
Speaker 2: And I said, you know, of course we should always
Speaker 2: argue about why, but it shouldn't take away from the
Speaker 2: descriptive fact that we live in the greatest country in
Speaker 2: the history of the world that has reached unparalleled heights
Speaker 2: of not just prosperity and power, but freedom. And so
Speaker 2: we should always try to figure out why, whether it's
Speaker 2: a national sovereignty or the creed of the Declaration or
Speaker 2: some kind of combination. But it shouldn't, you know, young
Speaker 2: people should realize how they have received such a great
Speaker 2: patrimony announced their job to carry forward improve it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so I am going to steal those lines Lucretia for
Speaker 2: your speech.
Speaker 3: If I do, I will give you credit.
Speaker 2: John but I'll never give credit when I steal ideas,
Speaker 2: those are the best ideas. So I gave I had
Speaker 2: this great line about Judge Silverman. I had to give
Speaker 2: a speech about his when he passed. I said, Judge Silverman,
Speaker 2: the one thing about him is he you know, he
Speaker 2: loved ideas because he always thought that they were all
Speaker 2: the best ones were his.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean right, okay, uh all right, So
Speaker 1: I will be spending the evening out in Pacific Uh sorry,
Speaker 1: Pallas Berty's Peninsula.
Speaker 2: We get another fascist encampment that. Let just tell the
Speaker 2: other ones you're visiting, what are you telling you about?
Speaker 2: You're a fascist world?
Speaker 1: What are you talking about? You don't even know where
Speaker 1: that is, do you.
Speaker 2: I've been there. There's this fancy hotel Tyrannia.
Speaker 1: That's there.
Speaker 2: A conservatives have conferences there. Yeah, that was a big
Speaker 2: That was a big David Horowitz conference place. That's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that used to be we we got to go yeah, right, okay.
Speaker 1: But so I've been doing an event actually for Pepperdine
Speaker 1: University for some of their donors, and supposed to talk
Speaker 1: about gratitude on the fourth of our two fiftieth anniversary,
Speaker 1: and I think I think I may well put it
Speaker 1: this way. You know, I remember Harry Jaffa's book about
Speaker 1: bi Centennial fifty years ago, where he began with a
Speaker 1: very pithy line typical of him. He said, you know,
Speaker 1: in seventeen seventy six, America was nothing, but it promised
Speaker 1: to become everything. And now this is fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: Having become everything, we could become nothing again. And and
Speaker 1: of course the argument from there is it really was
Speaker 1: Lincoln's argument. He went a different direction. But I think
Speaker 1: I'm going to bring up Lincoln's Lyceum address, remember that one.
Speaker 1: He's twenty nine years old, and I think that one
Speaker 1: is really a very appropriate one for now, even though
Speaker 1: it doesn't address the force like some of us later speeches.
Speaker 1: But he said, look if look, we can't in nineteenth century, right,
Speaker 1: we can't be invaded. Maybe the's two big oceans. There's
Speaker 1: no way anyone could conquer and subdue this giant country
Speaker 1: if we are going too right. Well, I mean, their
Speaker 1: missiles could never mind that. But the point is, he said, look,
Speaker 1: if we are to be destroyed, it will be because
Speaker 1: we will be the authors of our own destruction. And
Speaker 1: why will that happen. It will be if we abandon
Speaker 1: the ancient faith of our fathers, meaning our founding fathers.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I think that's still exactly true today as it was then.
Speaker 1: And you know that's the one. I think I'm going
Speaker 1: to start signing that to students again because I usually
Speaker 1: do the later speeches because there's so much you do, right,
Speaker 1: But I think I'll do something like that, and uh, okay.
Speaker 3: So before we go completely off, I want to say
Speaker 3: something that reminds that John reminded me of this. On
Speaker 3: X somebody had a picture of Amy Cooney, Barrett Containe,
Speaker 3: Ge Sodamayora and Kagan and said, can we please stop
Speaker 3: putting women on the Supreme Court? And I had to
Speaker 3: write back and we have to say, did you see it? No,
Speaker 3: Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown, And they would have
Speaker 3: equalled Clarence Thomas had they been nominated and confirmed to
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court. They would have been as good in
Speaker 3: the court. Just in case they're happened to be listening,
Speaker 3: I'm not sucking up. I believe that in my heart
Speaker 3: of hearts about those two wonderful women who should have
Speaker 3: been on the Supreme Court instead of Catanji. Okay, back
Speaker 3: to something a lot more elevated, please, John Steve.
Speaker 1: Well, actually, I think I think we're done for this week.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll have an episode next week because with a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of subjects we didn't get to. But for now, everybody,
Speaker 1: enjoy a spectacular semi Quinn centennial. I can't believe say
Speaker 1: that and stay tuned Upstack. Oh sorry, last announcement. I
Speaker 1: am going to be running a special subscription, lowest possible
Speaker 1: subscription price on Substack if you would like to become
Speaker 1: a generous supporter of the Substack, I'm going to lower
Speaker 1: to thirty dollars for a whole year subscription. That's the
Speaker 1: lowest Substack will allow. You know, most people charge a
Speaker 1: hundred or something, So this would be the weekend to
Speaker 1: express your appreciation.
Speaker 3: I'm just grateful you listen.
Speaker 2: I think, Steve, Steve, what of you paying people to
Speaker 2: listen to him? The idea.
Speaker 1: We owe these jooths to be subevident.
Speaker 2: I'll created equal.
Speaker 3: They are wizard unleenable runs.
Speaker 1: That a party are lote liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Speaker 3: That's your security rights, governance.
Speaker 1: Are It's the duty ricochet join the conversation