Well Whiskey coming fame by Paine's Brains Don't let Me Go. From Powerline blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot Com. This is the Three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and Powerlines International Woman of Mystery Lucretia's gotta give me and let that whiskey blow where you're being in love down and Lowell. Welcome everybody to another episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
I'm joined by I'm John You, and I'm joined by my partners in crime, which has new meaning with the Trump indictment, which we will talk about shortly. And I'm joined by Steve Hayward Word and Lucretia, the International Woman of Mystery. Say Hi everybody, and my John. Hi John, It's wonderful to see you. And as usual, so one old tradition we're going to keep up and then we have a new tradition for everybody today. So the old tradition is what are you guys drinking today? Ah? Well,
you know I've got a nasty bug again. It's kept me in. I don't know, I keep getting you know, I had I didn't get sick at all for during the whole COVID two and a half years, and now I'm getting one bug after another, and so I'm just having Lefroig because it's going to help me get through all this. However, the keys will anything you have will die die under the rivers of Lefroig going down your throat. Well true, but because it's not only Easter weekend but also passover. Right,
I do have a bit of whiskey news. The twenty twenty three World Whiskey Awards were just handed out here recently, and the number one single malt was called Let's see if I got the title right, it's it is rarely whiskey no by some company called M and H. Used to stand for Milton Honey, but and and they aged and sherry casts kosher sherry casts from Spain. And anyway, it's uh sixty five dollars a bottle if you can find it. I'm still trying to find the name here. It made us be
M and H. I'm not sure that's got to be a first. Yeah, M and H elements, that's the name of it. And yeah, and it's who knew that? The so Lakhan to our Jewish friends observing passover with the best of whiskey in the world. So wow, that's cool, Lucretia. I in honor of my friend Lances Zumi who Steve and I know, yeah, okay everybody specific research institute. Yeah, yes, he was here on my turf this past week, and so uh, in honor of
Lance, I'm drinking sun Tory hippie Japanese harmony whiskey. I've had that. That's very good, very good. Although our friend Lance doesn't drink it. He finds the stuff vile, even though he's an expert on the subject. Vile. It's character less usually in too smooth. No, no, all whiskey, in fact, all whiskey. Yeah, no, he doesn't drink and I mean, but he is an expert, I mean, a renowned
expert in whiskey. I don't even know how that works. But including Johnny tells a fabulous story about how when World War two broke out, there was, as it often is, an ours some nativism, a nativist sentiments in Japan to end the drinking of whiskey because he knows the British and horrible people, and it was the Japanese Admiralty that said, no, actually, we
want to keep whiskey available for our sailors was very sensible of them. So well, they didn't need to have very much for very long given how World War two went. They're the Japanese name, so I'm having I'm still working now on my one and a half Leader Kirkland brand bottle of Kentucky Straite Bourbon whiskey, which is made by Barton Distilleries. Barton says it goes back to seventeen ninety two, but God's going to take me weeks and weeks to get
through this amount of bourbon. But I'm doing my best these days. It's
not as hard as you think. And now listeners also just to let you know what the new tradition is going to be, which we'll say for the end of the show, which is we're going to have a semi permanent philosophy corner segment where we are going to ask our resident to philosophers to what political theory question is on their mind these days, and devote a little bit of time to make sure we don't forget the origins of this podcast, which was
Lucretia's schooling Steve on the finer points of Strauss and Jaffa and Western philosophical tradition, so that's guaranteed to drive a But in the meantime, John, in the meantime, to start us off on the right foot, I am going to brag once again about being not only a Tesla solar system for the house and a Tesla charger, but a Tesla charger that serves my Tesla model s The reason I'm so proud of it is not because I'm a greeny, not
because I give a damn about the environment or the climate change. But I am so proud to have supported Elon Musk. Did you hear what he did? He called he designated for Twitter, He designated NPR, a state affiliated media. They are having true an infantile temper tantrum breakdown over there, but over the whole thing real, which is just wonderful. Oh yeah, oh yeah. They're doing by the government. Well, they're doing the usual above
talking point. We only get one percent of our funding from the federal from it, which it don't take any If it's exactly the problem, You're to give it up, will you? Although I mean the NPR story I followed this week or last week was they just laid off one hundred people because contributions
are way down. All they talk about is the stupidest things. Well, yes, but I understand something that that for NPR, CNN, CBS News, they all desperately want Trump to be president again because it's good for business. They won't admit that to you, but it's true. Anyway, they laid off a hundred people. They had a Zoom meeting with this funneled employees being laid off were yelling and screaming, and the CEO said, can we
please keep this conversation civil? And then someone gave the typical college talking point, which is civility is a tool of white supremacy and oppression by the man. Anyway, my first toast is to Elon Musk because whatever else you know, the whole story is, it's just great anyway you look at it, right, right, right, right. What do you got for us this week? John? Okay? Well, anything going on this week? It seemed like a quiet newsweek. But of course we've got to start the podcast
episode off by talking about the Trump indictment. Just briefly, for those of you who have been living in a cave in Antarctica, there was an indictment of President Trump for the first time not of President Trump, but first time
in American history a former president was charged with a crime. And in this case, the District Attorney for New York City, Alvin Bragg, elected by the residents of New York City to about a year and a half ago, and he charged President Trump with a misdemeanor thirty four misdemeanors for misrepresenting his effort to pay Stormy Daniels one hundred and thirty thousand dollars for a non disclosure agreement. But he turned it into a felony by claiming that this book keeping miss
representation was an aid to cover up some other crime. Problem is if you read the indictment, and I did, Unfortunately every thirty four times brag make this made this charge. He did not tell anyone what this other crime was and refused at the press conference this week to say what it was. So, guys, what do you make of this? What do you think about the legality of Oh, go ahead, I'm just gonna say I live.
I really listened to I listened to our podcast today as I was driving somewhere from last week, and both of you said, I'm not I'm not trying, I'm not trying. This isn't a got you, but it really isn't. But both of you said that you believed if if Brag actually brought an indictment on what we're at the time believed to be probably spurious charges with all of the political, constitutional traditional issues that are brought to bear in this,
that a higher court would step in and do the responsible thing. And I didn't challenge you. I shouldn't say it like that. I didn't even ask you, guys at the time, how would that work? What would be I mean? Would Trump have to appeal immediately the indictment. There isn't even a legal mechanism to appeal an indictment, is there? Well? Can I to ask for the case to be dismissed? Sorry, go ahead, Steve, that's the question. Let me give you my theory, John, on
this peculiar business. And since you actually know the law, you can tell me if I'm on the right track or not, which is, if Bragg had specified a federal crime, you know, the campaign finance violation or what was thought, you'd have an instant appeal to a federal courts to throw it out. By not specifying, I'm not sure if I'm narrowly speaking or broadly
speaking, right about this in either level. But if you don't specify federal crime, what are you appeeling the federal There's no federal question yet, is there. I mean, it's it's very cynical, but very clever. It's not a certain way I think. In other words, seems can find at all the state claims and he's trying to seal off an immediate appeal to the federal courts. Although you can drive why it might still work. So what do you think, Well, Steve, you've failed the bar. That's why
I said. People right, it's actually really there's actually I think actually goes back to the founding and federalism is that, um, the founding fathers did not want people to be able to start a case in state court and then to have it dragged immediately over to federal court on appeal. So it's very
interesting. This is actually called the Madisonian compromise because there were states rights people who didn't want to have any federal courts at all, and then there were kind of nationalists like Madison and Hamilton who wanted to have a federal court system. So they basically left it up to the first Congress to decide, and
so the first Congress and then we've lived under this rule ever since. Basically, once you pick whether it's state court or federal court where you start, for most cases you have to go all the way up that system because they didn't want federal judges sort of watching everything state judges were doing all the time. So Trump does have an avenue, but he can't jump right over to
the federal court system. In fact, the main way he does it is he has to go from he has to make a motion we call a motion, you know, when you make a claim that the law doesn't provide for his prosecution. He said he could say, even if everything you say is true, factually there's no law of which I'm guilty, and then he can ask the judge here, the child judge, to make a rulling on that right away, and then he could. He didn't not yet, He's going
to do it by the end of the summer. I think he has the right. You know, the judge and the lawyers come up with what we call briefing schedule, you know, the timing of when you're allowed to make certain objections and claims. Then that could go to the up through the New York Court of Appeals, the sprint New York what they called the Court of a strangely they don't call the Supreme Court. Could go up to what is there, right, Yeah, that's like the a Court of Errors or something.
As they got to court these quarter appeals, and then from there you could go to the US Supreme Court. Now that might be the New York to our Supreme to the US Supreme Court. That's the only time you can jump from the state system to the federal system to the federal review right away,
aside from a criminal case. So Lucretia's right that what's really vitally important is when does Trump get his hearing in court where he gets to say these are these charges are a flimsy the facts don't bear it out in some one The other thing, actually, Steve's point does actually bear on a different constitutional issue Trump has at his disposal, which is prosecutors. You're right, you could say, oh, Bragg's being tricky here, not you know, showing
his hand too early. But that's unconstitutional because a sixth Amendments says you have to be fully informed of the charges against you. And actually there are some cases going all the way back to this case called Crukshank right after this yeah or yeah, where the courts said you can't just say someone violated the statute. You've got to actually have more description in your indictment of what the person
actually did. And because you have to be put on notice to be able to put on a defense, otherwise how to keep it on a real defense? So actually Bragg, I don't think Bragg's trying to be tricky. I think they can't figure out what to charge him with, and so it's terribly embarrassing. It may well be that Trump even wins just on that that the indictment doesn't tell him enough about the crime. But they how far up. I don't know anything about the New York a Pellet judicial system or who's in
it, or how biased it is. It's obvious that this judge is very biased. But above that, I don't have any idea how far if you guys have any notion of what the rest of the appellate system in New York looks like? Are there any decent judges? Are there any? So it is an elected judiciary And you might have remembered we didn't talk about, but there was a story I think about two months ago where if you remember the governor, Governor Hokel tried to nominate someone to the state highest court and he
was rejected for being too moderate by the state Assembly. So it probably gives you an idea what the tenor of the judiciaries. But the other pointing, it's an elected judiciary, and oh goody, So when did that has always been? I mean that seems to be more of a progressive it is, it is a progressive well actually, but I mean New York's one of the original. Did they change the system? I think, I believe now it's almost three quarters of the states now have some combination of elected judiciary. I
think I got a double check. I thought. What happened is most of the states did not until Jackson, and this was very much a product of Andrew Jackson. And after Jackson, a lot of western states added it, and then it just kind of swept the country. Yeah, I mean California system, of course, is you're appointed by the governor, confirmed for a term, and then face confirmation elections. And that's how Rose Bird was tossed out in nineteen eighty six. It's very rare that that's exercise, but it
has happened sometimes and three others, two others, two others. Right, Yes, that was fun, that was great fun. Yeah. So I'm just I'm just looked it up. I correct myself. So the judge of the Supreme Court New York is called the Court of Appeals. Those are done and then those are not elected. Those are done by the but the what they call the Supreme Court of the State, which is the trial that's I don't know why that's those are elected, those are those are those are run
by elections. So that that so you know, that's blue. Yeah, right, what's like California, We elect a lot of our judges at the lower levels, right than you know what the superior courts and the rest. Okay are you so anyway, so before you what do you go, Lucisia, Let's start with you. What do you think about the law or maybe even more part of the politics of this prosecution Trump. I'm going to go back to what I said last time, um a little bit here, because
I think it bears repeating. The politics are obviously obvious and in your face and and abysmal. But I'm I'm I'm much more concerned about the the bigger picture. Which is, we have with this destroyed any notion that the United States cares about equality before the law, about the rule of law, I mean. And the worst part of it is is the smarmy, sort of hypocritical comments by people on the left, No one is above the law. Well, of course we know that's not true. Hundred Biden's above the law.
Nancy Pelosi's above the law, her husband's above the law. You know, you go on and on and on and on and on about the left being above the law, and I fuzz above the law. But the real point is is that how much across the across the globe others are making fun
of us. Others are looking at us and saying, yeah, the United States has now descended into Chiquita Banana Republic, and there are you know, I saw something that we have joined seven other corrupt nations that have indicted a political opponent, that the opposition, that the ruling party has indicted the someone from the opposition. You know, that's the stuff they do in places like Venezuela and now Brazil, and you know, and the Soviet Union, and
you could go on and on. That's the problem. And there were some really interesting comments actually last time, John, because you might remember, I pose the question what's the right thing to do here? Steve suggested that that DA's across the country should go after Hunter, and I didn't disagree with it, and I don't know that I do, But that means that we have
given up on our constitutional system. We have given up on what I think, in many ways is a legal constitutional principle that set us above the rest of the world and made us the great country that we are. That's equality before the law. The law is not a respector of persons that you know, the whole idea of the fourteenth Amendment, the whole idea of juries of your peers, all of those things that were built into our constitutional system and
our judicial systems to assure that you know, it's never been perfect. But this is just such an egregious violation of those principles that I don't know that there's any coming back from it, especially because we haven't seen the Nancy Pelosi's of the world. And I mean one Williams. One Williams got kicked off of NPR and just shows you how bad MPR is because he is such a vile human being. Oh, it's not the Democrats fault. Trump's the one
who had an affair with Stormy Daniels. So it's baseball stuff like that. I'll be quiet, Steve, go ahead. Yeah, So I actually wasn't going to anything, John, except lucretia has provoked me. I think the shorter lucretia is America no longer exceptional if we accept this. I actually think that, in an ironic way, maybe the left has done us a favor by making it so explicit, because I don't think this is brand new. Some of my data points go all the way back to the way Franklin Roosevelt
persecuted Samuel Imsol, a name entirely forgotten in the world. He was the head of what became con Edison, and Roosevelt hounded that guy, put him on trial, and he was acquitted by a jury. By the way, that's a great story, but that was entirely political. Also Andrew Mellon too, right, Andrew mellen that's right, and investigating Black, Oh yes, comrade Black. And then Michael Milcomb people have forgotten from the eighties. I
got to meet him once and talked to him at some length. He was a boy, what a smart guy, obviously, but He was very candid about how you know, he coughed up what a six hundred million dollars fine. That was real money even in the eighties, not anymore. And you know what he told me. Anybody also said this publicly. It's not secret knowledge. He said, I was the only person ever charged with some of
the crimes the federal government charged me with. And I might have been able to prevail a trial, but it would have taken me forever, cost a lot of money. He was easier to cut a deal and go to jail for eighteen months. Okay, that was a political prosecution because he's a rich guy. Watch for the Biden administration to go after Elon Musk when may come back to this. We talk about the Clarence Thomas story at the end here.
I you know. So the point is is that more and more Americans say, oh, yeah, this really stinks, which some survey days suggests they do. Maybe now we can raise some of the points Lucretia raises about what's happened to our justice system. Okay, that's end of my spiel about the matter. Let me ask you, I think this is interesting. We're not alone. A lot of people, even on the Trump hating left or even on the Trump painting right criticized this. Right. Yeah, I saw
comments by Mitt Romney and Jeff Bush saying that this was outrageous. No, friends, I'm sorry. Even Ian Millheiser Center for American Progress, even he said this is a defective prosecution. And when a lot of media on the left but not a lot of left politicians, well no, because but just the tiniest bit of courage on their part would have made all the difference in the world. And how do you not have that courage? Oh? Sorry
to laugh at no, but I'm serious. Do we just assume that every politician on the left and many of them on the right, are just such despicable excuses for human beings. They have no character, they have no integrity, they have nothing to recommend themselves. I mean, that's a horrible position that we're in. If that's the case, we have lost. I Mean, I'm the way who argues that's the case all the time. I get it, But every now and then I think maybe there's got to be a
little hope, and there's just not. Well I miss Pat moynahan speaking of whiskey drinkers. Okay, sorry, And what happens if they do go the other way like Tulsea Gabbard, or you know, they become exiled, and you know, all of that kind of stuff. But this seems to be a pretty pivotal moment to me, where this is where there should be some courage on the part of the left to stand up and say enough is enough and this can be turned against us. They probably just all think that Republicans
are the pussies that they are and never will do. So. Let me ask you about the political impact of the indictment. I've seen people speculate on in various places that this actually has the effect of helping Trump. I got tweets from people in the media when the indictment came out saying Trump has just won the Republican primary for twenty twenty four and lost the general election and lost
the general election. Do you think it actually has that effect? Well, it will depend how this plays out, because it seems like it's too early for that. You what do you want to do? It would be in the summer, when Republican presidential debates presumably will start, or in the fall, or when the primaries start next winter. Now maybe, but that's when all of this is going to come to a head. Well maybe, I mean we'll see. That's that's that's that's when the all of the trial proceedings
are in is in January. Well that could be right, I mean, maybe it works out. It is, right, Steve, I'm giving you facts, not a period. Yeah, I love you have facts about the future. Okay, I'll just file that. Well that's I mean, that's what they planned. Well okay, right, we'll see how it goes. Either the first hearing I think is planned in December, and you know, I think they you know, if that's the normal, then they might try to start courtroom activity and mark about a year from now. Yeah, a
year from now. But what do you but do you think about that? Do you think that this will have a positive effect for Trump by the time of the primaries or I think by the primaries there's no doubt. The real question is, and this is what Democrats are hoping for obviously, is the but this will because here's here's the issue right now. Biden is such a disaster. You know, Joe Kennedy, I get it, We're not what's his not joking? Yeah? Right? They all they're all the same to
me. But anyway, except he doesn't like vaccines. What I was gonna say, he's got some lucretia like views. Oh that's a more complicated anyway. Um, but here it's it's the suburban soccer moms and you know the middle, it's the middle. What are they going to think about this?
Are they going to take you know CNN's uh version of this story that you know, this is just one more evidence of Trump that corrupt whatever and refused to vote for him or you know, that's what that's what the Democrats, that's what political came out and said, Um, that's what they're counting on. I'm not entirely convinced because you know, what we're not talking about right now are all of Trump's what shall we say, um, Trump's faults, I guess is the best way to put it. His his weaknesses, his
his liabilities. We're talking about the fact that he personifies the little man against the state as a big man. Well that but that may okay, but that backfire. You're right, Well, here's where I think Democrats may have miscalculated, which is, I mean, we know about Trump's self regard and in discipline. Look, what are what are Americans upset about right now. They don't like inflation, they don't like, you know, go down.
The last prices are going to go through the right now. But if Trump is making the campaign about himself and how he's been shabily treated and how the twenty twenty election was stolen, I think that doesn't we're I mean, the faithfood will go along with that, because I say, damn right. But I think that what a lot of your swing voters want to hear, and a lot of Republican primary vers want to hear, is what's the problem.
What are you going to do to fix it and change it? And that's where a clever opposition to him, whether it's de Santis or someone else, can exploit that that's not automatic. But it seems to me that Democrats may have been too clever by three halves. I would give Trump more credit though here for the fact that he didn't necessarily address those things directly in his speech at Marilaga the other day is not indicative of what he might do on the
campaign trail. He had to. He had to outline the corruption of the government cases against him in that speech. He had no choice. But I do think he'll have a positive message going forward, and I think that's where they really have screwed up. I think he did. I think he did play it right in New York City. You know. I think that Democrats were hoping he would come out on the courthouse steps say something crazy and spark another riot. But actually he acted somber and dignified, and he was kind
of like he was the martyr. And so I think he did well for himself in New York City. Don't know about his speech and mar Lago, but to be continued, this is actually go Our next topic actually picks up on Lucretia's comment about soccer moms, because we've got we had Otherwise these would beat top stories if it weren't for the Trump indictment. We had two elections this week, and in both I don't know, it looks like the soccer
moms are slipping away from the Republican Party. In Chicago, Brandon Johnson, the favorite of the Chicago Teachers Union, in fact, a former official of
the Chicago Teachers Union, defeated Paul Vallas. Both are Democrats, but Vallis had run and had been head in the polling, but had run on a pro public safety platform, increasing spending on the police, and trying to take I think a tougher line with the teacher union, whereas Brandon Johnson has said the problem is we have too many police and that we need to fund more social programs. That's the first data point, the second data point. And
I apologize in advance. I am sure I am going to miss pols this name Wisconsin that we had, Yes, we had an election for Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin on a court that is split three to three, and the winner, Judge Jennett Protests which one significantly yes over the Republican candidate Dan Kelly. I was significantly what was the percent? Why? Ten points? How many of those were purchased with the two hundred and fifty dollars worth of gift
cards? Hold that for a moment. Was she made the election about abortion basic, about abortion, about overturning Scott Walkers public union reforms essentially, and about over turning the last district map that was drawn up by the Republican legislature and Wisconsin. She won a resounding victory, and normally no one would care right about a state Supreme Court race in a single state, but both Republicans and Democrats really focused on this election, poured a lot of money into it.
So let's start lucretia this time. Does this actually show that liberals are back on the upswing, that maybe the twenty twenty two mid terms we're not disappointing because of Trump's intervention, but actually the electorate is actually becoming more liberal or more democrat. I don't think there's any doubt that in Wisconsin and Chicago that's probably the case. I don't think it's indicative of what's happening across the whole country. I you know, I don't understand. I have no comment
on how pey book can be so damn stupid. I really don't. Can we do Chicago first, John, Yeah, go oud to Chicago first. So first of all, and Brandon Johnson is to the left of Lori Lightfoot. That is shocking. Second, Brandy, oh god is he's an articulate moron. He can't get a sins out? Sorry, okay, But the other thing is Brandon Johnson. What part of Let's go Brandon? The Chicago
voters not understand. But here's the third thing. So you know, you mentioned I think John that vallis Paul Vallas was a hand in the polls by yes, solid five points. Yes, I actually think those polls were correct, except it was a low turnout election. The turnout model from the posters was wrong. It was a thirty five percent turnout, which isn't very good. But but like school board elections, why do we have these? By
the way, what does the left talk about elections voters suppression? Why do we elect school boards in New York and Los Angeles in like January and February of off years. Why are we electing the mayor of Chicago here in April of an off year Because you won't get if you In other words, if you'd have this mayor's election attached to a general election, I'm pretty sure Vallis would have won. That's not gonna say that this isn't a disaster. M No, I think it is correct. I think no. I don't disagree
with you. At the same time, that's the I'd like to think that the stupid voters are the ones showing up at the polls, right if they're voting for those people. Remember also that in the case of the Wisconsin judicial election, eighteen percent of that woman's money came from inside of Wisconsin. And the rustin outside, and nineteen percent of the what's his name, Vallas's money
came from outside. So you had huge amounts of money targeting the stupidest voters in Wisconsin and getting them to the polls with the stupidest kinds of incentives. But the point when you have a low I mean, school board elections in LA and New York often get less than fifteen percent turnout of eligible voters. Those fifteen percent, I'll bet fourteen percent or fourteen or that fifteen percent our teachers union members. That's on purpose. Where is everybody else? Why are
they so dumb? Why aren't they voting? Well? Because you know here, No, we don't. Well, actually they don't. They don't. I mean, they don't well, I don't know. You know, John and I were in conversation here three weeks ago, You'll know who I'm talking about, John, with someone who is a significant real estate investor, developer, office space person in Chicago and other cities, and he was saying,
I don't know that Chicago can survive the mayorship of Brandon Johnson. I'm gonna want to check in with him and see if he's leaving, like so many people are now Wisconsin similar story. Although one of these interesting things about Wisconsin is um there were several other ballot measures on One of them was an advisory vote. Should there pretty advisory there no law attached to it. Should there be work requirements for people who were on welfare? It got eighty percent eight
zero yes vote. There are a couple of others. There was there a couple of soft on crime measures that voters rejected handily, you know, you know, no bail and some of those sorts of things. So the point is this is a little bit like California, where conservative ballot measures have often
done much better than the Republican Party has done going back forty years. Now, this is junction between opinion and how people vote for individuals and certain other things is you know, annoying and frustrating and hard to understand, and but we still see that. But then the final data point, though, is is that a very solid Republican district had a special election. The Republican won, but just barely in a district that ought to be a layup. And
so Wisconsin's very worrying. This is a state, This is a state that seven years ago voted for Donald Trump. Yes, and the years before that put Scott Walker right. So in Lucretia's explanation, there's some truth to these already liberal places Wisconsin and Cargo. Their population doesn't care they or they agree with these policies. But Wisconsin at least wasn't so liberal so long ago.
Well it was and it wasn't. Yeah, And I think John at when you write your book that you mentioned last week that why are Asians so stupid? I'm going to follow on with the sequel, which is why our voters so damn stupid. I think someone's written that one. Someone's got to have written that one several people, and you know, I hate no actually, I mean, look, I know the rational choice people who oh god,
well yeah, I just liked them intensely and at that. But their fundamental point is that, you know, for a person's personal life, doesn't make a lot of sense to vote. It just takes too much time, too expensive. I don't know what the weather is like in Chicago this week, but for somebody, I'm sorry, well, but it doesn't take that because
you know what the problem is that we don't have Civics education. We don't understand a direct influence that those politicians, those elected officials have on our lives.
And it's all incremental as they take more and more of our liberty away, as they take more and more of our security away, et cetera, et cetera, and we are I mean, you know, I like to think the three Whiskey Happy Hour does its small part in educating the problem is, you know what, most of our listeners are already just as smart on these things as we are, and so we do end up a lot. That would be an interesting question for the comments would be what is the voter
turnout of the three Whiskey Happy Hours? And last our somebody was just so disgusted with the whole thing they refuse now to vote. There's not a single listener amongst the three Whiskey Happy Hour. I'd be willing to bet who doesn't vote because it is too hard. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. It's it's I'll skip the raffle. I've never missed it.
It's one voting in person to single election. So there's two is opportunity costs of going to vote and it is not worth And then two their argument is any single individual if their acting rationally knows their vote doesn't matter. Yeah. So you know here in my county in the last election there was a very left wing supervisor. He got re elected by twelve votes. Oh wow, and I've been beating up my kids to see if they voted for the
right person. Anyway. Okay, well, you know what, We've got so many other great topics, Like I just say, John is one sentence that having said, I missed Pat moynihan when it comes to Chicago. I missed the old Richard Daily. Yeah. By the way, the first time Jesse Jackson went to see Richard Daly and sometime of the sixties, daidly threw
him out of his office. That's one reason I like him. So I just a small anecdote I am was that this one of these Washington dinners and I got sat next to ex mayor Daily, the recent one, oh the Richard Daily Junior. Yeah. Yeah, this was almost ten years ago. Maybe yeah, and uh, but you know there is the typical Washington dinners. There's like a head table up on some station. Then there's you know,
like thousand people having an intimate dinner in the audience. And it was he was such an uninteresting humorless, characterless guy, and he spent most of the dinner that I could overhear complaining about why he wasn't at the head table. Of course anyway, So moving on to our next topic, There's just so many different things going on on the issue of transgender and diversity. I know we talked a little bit about it before in the last episode, but
since then to big developments so far. One, the Supreme Court today actually refused to intervene in lower court decisions handling West Virginia's transgender in sports law. This is a law passed recently where West Virginia says you can only play in boys sports if you were born genetically a boy, and you can only play in women's sports if you born genetically a woman. This was challenged by a young boy who wants to who is transgender and wants to participate I believe in
women's track in a girl's track in field. The trial judge upheld the West Virginia law, and then the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal circuit that includes West Virginia, without opinion, stayed that so that his the childish's initial decision does not go into effect, and then the Supreme Court decided not to get involved at this point, which means that you might very well have a trial actually about this whole question. So that's one development. Sorry one,
Okay, go ahead. The CREATI I'm just going to say, if you read them, it's actually quite interesting to read the Child judge is Um opinion in that case, because you will get a very nice, succinct explanation of how the equal Protection of clause applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of a whole bunch of different things, and how they fit into you know, racial classifications and compelling state interests in all of that. And it was
actually quite well done. I was a little bit surprised that nobody on the Supreme Court decided to step down and say, yeah, I mean, could they have done that? Could they have just overturned the stay and put into effect? Actually Justice yeah, Actually, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented without very very much in terms of writing, but said that they should the Sprint Courts should have intervened and let West Virginia's law go into effect and then have
And that's really the question. Do you let West Virginia laws go into effect while you're having this trial or and this is the way it will turn out. Because the sprin court didn't get involved, the law stopped. Yeah, the effect, so West Virginia and wall has been blocked from going into effect, and the uh the young plaintiff can actually start participating in sports. And all I can say is that person's mother must be the most odious, awful
human being on the planet. It talks about how at the age of three, Oh, I saw that that was took purity blockers and all that I was just google good good word for it. Boy, do I have a lot of team. I won't say a lot about this. And I know you want to get to uh as I'm calling a bud light and the loafers. Well, that's the third development I have. That was you killed my joke going to that one. Well, I had two developments and I was going to spring the third one, Steve, but go ahead, West Virginia
case. You know, just a couple of things. And I won't go on too long, but you know, so when I'm in the high school way back around the time of the Boer War, and I went to high school with a really premier cross country program, and then if I think my junior year, four or five girls said we want to run cross country. Well, there wasn't a girls team. There was no girls cross country.
They ran with the boys. Howple of them were really good. They were able to beat about a third of the boys and the two Steve probably no, No, I was one of the you know, I was one of the top ten guys. One of them. By the way, John later went on to be an All American and the ten thousand meters at UC Berkeley. In the early age, we dated for a while and she always kicked
my ass and anything longer than two miles um. And that probably wasn't the way time she was kicking ass, But go ahead, no, that was okay. I will say no more about all of that anyway. UM. But the point is this that there's no demand that you know, we have
a But they were on the boys team. They did fine. And by the way, it was while I was in high school they started saying, okay, let's have a girls team, let's have girls cross country races, and that one fine, and a lot of our summer races that we do it. Because the program went year round. We were all just in it together, and you know there were, like I say, some of the
girls competed very well. Up guys, maybe we're coming to a point where we just abolish the general differences entirely for some sports, and that won't work out very well for a lot of these folks. Steve, can I throw that actually directly leads it to the second development? No, no, let me just throw it out and then no, no, let me throw it out there, because I think this continues your point, and then Lucretia should
comment. Which is another development in this whole transgender thing, is that the Biden administration just put out notice today that it's going to issue new Title nine regulations about transgender and sports, and it says that schools will not be able to have the kind of blanket bands on transgender participation sports of the kind of West Virginia's trying. But they did say, and this goes to your point, Steve, that states and schools could actually keep transgender transgender athletes out of
certain sports on a sport by sport basis. So it sounds like, I don't know, nobody's sure what this means. Maybe Steve's solution is right that you will not be allowed to keep transgender sport athletes out in places where you could compete together, like a cross country running I would think maybe tennis, non yeah, whereas but the Biden administration does seem to conceive that women transgender
are going to be playing football anytime soon or wrestling. But nobody's sure exactly how you would go about proving this, what kind of evidence you would need. But that happened today too, at the same on the same day that the Supreme Court made this announcement about bless virgin Yeah, yeah, yeah, Lucretia, what are your thoughts about the Biden I'm almost afraid to ask this question. What are your thoughts about the Biden administration and it's transgender policies.
I don't understand this other than it is an absolute attempt to go one step further and destroying nature's nature's guidance about what human beings are and how they ought to how they ought to act, how they ought to behave, how they ought to conduct themselves to find true human happiness. I think that the thing that bothers me absolutely the most about this celebration of transgenderism is the celebration of what is seriously a found set of mental illnesses that are cumulative and build upon
each other. I you know, I understand there are people and have been since the beginning of time or a transgender I'm not, but why why is it necessary in such a short amount of time to go from Oh, all we want is four days to be able to marry too. If you do not allow your three rolled to explore his or her gender and choose his or her identity and then get surgery and take puberty blockers, and if that child wants to do it and you don't want to tell the parents, if you
object to any of that, you are a profound bigot. How did someone like Biden? I mean, is he just so brain dead that he will spout that bs because he's told to do so? Well? Where did this come from? How did we get here? It's violent, disgusting and the fact that we're even discussing it as if it's serious is it's mind blowing to me. I will see and raise Lucretia on this. If you always come
back with something, oh yeah, there's always said I was gone. I said I was gone, and raise Okay, let's here, let's hear this at some future point, and it might not be longer than twenty years. It might be sooner. We're going to look back on this whole period right now as a kin to the enthu sasm for eugenics seventy five years ago. And by the way, Lucretia, I've never stopped our enthusiasm for eugenics. Correct. You can draw a straight line between the thinking that went behind that
and to this moment that actually should be written about more. What is that connection? What is that connection? Well, it's the idea that there, you know, a human nature is doesn't exist, it's malleable. Well that's actually that's two second point, which is on title nine directly title nine. Let's do a little history. This Title nine was put in place under Nixon.
He was for all this, so he shouldn't discriminated against women in education and okay, and universities, by the way, you know the guy who worked us out and you know, of course, as Chef Melnick. Well, by the way, John, do you know what Chef Melnick's doctoral dissertation was on? No, what the Clean Air Act? Oh? How did that? Did I answer my question? Steve, I don't give a damn
about Cheff melnick Ers who nobody that's coming to it. I just had to do it, John, because he walked into that, right, I did. Well. The chef points out better than anybody that what colleges did was say, how do we comply with this? We don't know? Oh, I know, let's do sports. That's somebody we can measure football teams and basketball teams to get all the money we got to spend equal amounts of money
on women's sports. Okay, fine, let's promote women's sports. It did mean that a lot of low revenue men's sports, like wrestling in particular, where the US used to be very strong and act has been completely decimated by all this. Okay. The point is now, Lucresia, and you should be happy with this conclusion, is that this new interpretation put out by BIDING today essentially says, yeah, Title nine is protect women, but we no longer know what a woman is. That's really what it says. It's I
know, I don't want to make jokes about it anymore. I want to say it's not a joke. I mean, that's serious, right, I mean, I mean, Lucretia, I think rightly pointed out. This opinion is quite good. It's worth reading. Um opinion. Yes, yeah, judge by, Yeah, obvious, but under the circumstances no, I get you guys, you know, make fun of me for how sometimes lawyers obfuscate things with all our standards and tests and balancing and all the intermediate scrutiny.
But you know, this opinion was pretty good by explaining, you know, he he starts out with what Lucretia says, like, there's a difference between men and women, and it's a chromosome there. It's just like you don't So he said, there that is unchangeable, and he said, what does change can be how society treats gender. But then he said that how's their discrimination going on here? Right? It's that no one's being prevented from playing
sports. And he said the society has an important interest in saying there's going to be women's sports and there's gonna be men's sports. And he almost thinks
it's so obvious it doesn't really need proof. And I thought he actually did a pretty good job explaining it in a way that should make sense to most recent And he didn't engage in any kind of dictum about you know, we really shouldn't as a society be celebrating this ridiculous idea of transgenderism, which I don't know how I could have avoided it, but he didn't, and he stuck to the legal arguments, and he did a very good job of it. You're right. What I want to say about it is is that we've
got to stop acting. Is this as if this is something legitimate. Yeah, we have to stop at the very basic level and say done. No, no more drag Queen story hour, No more celebrating, no more putting your damn pronouns in your email or on your Zoom persona. No more, do not force me into playing you in your ridiculously mentally unstable world. I'm not doing it, and I'm not going to allow you to do it to other children. I'm not going to allow you to do it to my children.
I'm not going to allow it to happen in schools, and I'm not going to allow it to happen anywhere. Well, part of what's going on is the Biden proposal is attempting to pre empt all the states that are I think Tennessee just voted this week to say no more drag Queen Story hours in
public schools and other sorts of things. It does raise something that should have been brought up in the last election campaign, but now can be brought up in very direct and acute form, which is in a debate, somebody needs to ask President Biden that fees the nominee, how many genders are there? That's the free part question. That is the free part question of time. Remember the free part question from Lincoln and Douglas, right, how many genders
are there? And watch Democrats be completely incoherent because I think that, well, I don't need to say more about that. But here's here's what I think is really interesting. You know, I've told you before that I support gays against groomers. I think you know that the stance they take, but it's becoming. The funny thing is is that people most willing to speak out
against transgenderism and all of that are in fact traditional gays. Yes, And why because they recognize that this is not about openness, intolerance and all those other things. This is about destroying society from the bottom up. And and and they want to remove the T and the Q from the LGBTQ and the plus you know, and say, okay, we had a fight. You know, there was a long time where um, you know, until very
recently, it was socially unacceptable to be openly gay. That's not true anymore, not to any of us, and most of us don't even consider it problematic in any way, shape or form. We all have gay friends. It means nothing to us. Right. There is a difference, however, between acceptance for gay marriage and gay lifestyle and all of that, and accepting of the name the man boy love us, the band may love whatever it is, nambla. They've been around for so you mentioned lucretia a little while
ago. How do we go from Burger? How do we go from Burger felt a change genderism By the way, it only took about five weeks. And the irony here is is that the people before Burger felt we're saying, you know, if we pass this, then polygamy is going to be next, and in fact we leap frogged over that to this whole business. Right, But somebody has also pointed out and this want to be you know what did LGBT originally stand for? It so lesbian, gay, bi sexual,
and then t for transitioning. You're you're you're changing teams as our switching teams, as I put it, But what does B imply a binary? Yeah, so, by the way, eventually the B is gonna have to be eliminated by all these folks. But be community is saying, no, it's it's true, you know, because as a matter of fact, gay men are being told, yeah, you have to accept this transgender man. You know, they're not attracted to a woman anyway. It's it's I have to
intervene. And just so, I've lost track of all the different words and their meanings, right, I don't think I ever knew them before. But but let me just like throw up this third example of how this issue has hit our news this week, and to show you the hidden, hidden, hidden similarities between Lucretia and a singer known as kid Rock, because what also came out this week was that bud Light released a series of commercials starring a man who masquerades as a woman, if I if I have that correctly,
and who cuts videos, apparently well known videos where he dresses like Biden interviewed her. Yeah, yeah, sorry, I did not know that. So oh yeah, so apparently bud Light even released hands of Beer with his because he's a gay man dressing as a woman. I had to do some research on this too. As a woman. That's that's what I would know. That's what I was described in the mainstream press. So apparently this has caused
great outrage amongst the usual community that drinks bud Light. And wait a minute before you go on, John Ahead, I saw a T shirt I could have. I didn't actually see her. Good buy it, but the T shirt said we now have a final definition of a woman. And it was some you know, some some biological thing was the first thing. In the second was anyone who's willing to drink like bud Light. Well that's a battle
on bee headline says fake beer finally finds fake woman to endorse it. But then the last, the last, the last example of you know, the average Americans attitude or response to all this was yes. Kid Rock then released a video of himself, I believe, with an AAR fifteen shooting up cases of bud Light out in the field, which, given Lucretia's brandishing of weapons
on the last episode of the podcast, I made me think. I made me think she must have been doing the same thing this week now, Because first of all, in my lifetime, I have never ever once drunk or purchased what bud Light And you've never had bud light? God about just straight budget. I think I've taken a taste of it. It tastes like piss. Sorry, excuse me language, sorry, family show. It's last thing
on the planet. And a light beer in the in and of itself is that's you know, that whole thing to convince men to drink light beer. That what a major disinformation operation that was. But anyway us men do, but bud Light has anyway, But I've never I can't boycott it because I've never purchased it. I never would, and that only makes me upset. A couple of stray observations. I can't resist this just because we all know
him. Someone who used to be able to recite the Budweiser, not bud Light, but the Budweiser labeled it was like this paragraph a bus quality yet history. And someone who used to be able to recite that from memory it would do someone very dramatic fashion at parties. Was our pal John Eastman really was back in the eighties. But still we can humiliate him with That's where he found the extra words for the twelfth Amendment. The well Budweiser is now
using cows identifying as quisdales. Know, I have tried not to give oxygen to this person who has been you know, celebrated and as you know, has got millions of views, because if you don't see John and really you're quite But never mind. I mean, I think I think our listeners understand where we stand Luke creation in the moral, political, and philosophical and psychological aspects of it. It does seem like every week the news does produce something
you could not have made up but just a year ago. But what bud Light? What is Budweiser thinking and doing this? That makes no sense? I mean the people that you got to imagine that, the people who are the main consumers of bud Light are aghast at this. I expect we're going to see huge. I've got to think some adults in the ruin but at Annaheuser Busch are saying, who did this? What the hell? You know? Some marketing person has already been fired. Yeah, somebody's already been fir.
You're gonna get Yeah, I don't know. Nike got as much. Nike did the same thing they did. They offered some big contract to that thing. Yeah, and this person I don't know. I mean, are you look at his videos? You look at someone who's really I don't know, reached out and celebrated its birthday. And I mean that this is the most popular thing in America right now. Is that I have often pointed to the example from the eighties. I don't remember this Lucretia John's too young.
Maybe remember that young ten year old girl named Samantha Smith who wrote to Gorvichov, I'm all for abolishing nuclear weapons. They made a big pr stunt of inviting her to the Soviet Union. Well, you know, she and maybe even his big celebrity. They made a movie about her end up dying in a plane crash. Now let's not directly connected, but the point is as they made her and I think, by the way, Gretath Thundberger is going
to end up the same way. She's been exploited for marketing purposes by the Climatistas as I call them, and this Dylan mulvaney person I predict, And by the way, I think there's a decent chance that this unfortunate person is going to come to, you know, trouble in life, and at that point the Left will abandon her. Oh yeah, of course some time. Yeah, and you know that will just do you mean like they did Sam Brittain, Yes, right, who I met several times, but I don't
know who that is. Thank you. Let me oh, yes, I I try to block clears out of my memory, but Lucretia won't let me forget them because I'm worried about this. John. You know. Let's let's um we only have it from this left in the podcast. Um, let's wrap up with I hope our new feature to the podcast, which is going
to be I think of it as the philosopher's corner. Although as I said to both of you in the in the but as I said to you when I was suggesting this to you in your little philosophy world, I bet there are no corners because everything seems to circle around endlessly to me when you guys talk. Okay, so I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Let me starts.
So let me just started to listen to The idea is hopefully every podcast so often we can talk about at the end some kind of political philosophy of political theory, issue of the day, either the contemporary relevance or something that Steve and Lucretia have come across I want to discuss, and so Lucretia is volunteered to go first in our inaugural Philosopher's Corner on the Three Whiskey Happy Hour podcast. And I chose my subject today because this is Easter weekend, it's passover
also. But what I what I want to put out there just for your consideration, and believe it or not, it's not entirely unrelated to what we've just been talking about. I'll make that connection momentarily. But one of the things I find the mist fascinating about the United States of America and its commitment to equality is where that notion of equality actually comes from. And if you look at history, where you find it is not an Aristotle he didn't think
people were right. No, mostly, but it's it's a little more complicated. But but where you actually see equality. This is my simplest example of it is in the Samaritan Woman at the Well, when Jesus walks up to the Samaritan woman at the well and asks her for a drink of water. That seems to us this is a proof of of of the success of that
idea. To us, it seems okay, he asked a woman for water, except that Jewish men did not speak to women, unaccompanied women, unaccompanied women who are obviously women of um discredited women, shall we say, And they certainly didn't speak to women who were not Jewish and all of those other things. As a Samaritan woman was not. But Jesus speaks to her as if she is an equal in the conversation in the Gospel. That idea that we are all made in the image of God, and it's also you know,
it's part of Hebrew lore. We are all made in the image of God took a long time to we might say, become politically feasible or viable. But that is what makes that is what makes the United States of America,
or did at least, so extraordinary. Is this idea that all of us, whether we look at it as being equal in the sight of God, made in God's image, or just from a purely more secular political point of view, you know, the Creator didn't make us, or we weren't created, or we didn't evolve in such a way that there were natural rulers among us. We have so much to be thankful for in the sense that we were the inheritors of that great traditions as it sort of played itself out
over two thousand years to the point where today we are. We live in a society, we live in a constitutional system where we can still look at the things that are wrong with it and have a place from which to a point of departure to say, what's wrong with what happened to Trump? What's wrong with this commitment by the leftist Biden regime to promoting transgenderism, is that we are denying what is good and beautiful about human nature, which starts,
in my opinion, with the fundamental equality of all human beings. And on Easter weekend, that's something I'm going to choose to celebrate. Steve, do you think that human equality is really the result of Christianity and not political philosophy? Yes, I was going to say, Hobbes my soft box plain. Well, you know, for me, you should mention that I'm going to pond for this week, because the great thing about political philosophy is it has a long shelf life, and I've got something to but I can say,
we'll keep. On the other hand, I do think John that we haven't. I haven't. I'm I'm showing listeners that awesome. I'm showing a little sort of tent cardever you call it, for the program John did on Hobbes Leviathan with Michael Knowles for Preger University and have a chance to listen to yet. But I'm going to and then of course correct all your mistakes and the rest of that till next week. So you no comment on mine, Steve, Yeah, comment on crime and he did. Agreement. I can't.
I hate that. I don't hate to say that, of course, but I hate and I understand when I say that there's nothing exclusive about it in the sense that it doesn't exclude people who are not believers, doesn't exclude people who believe in a different religious tradition like Judaism or Muslim or whatever. That's not the point. Well, but what go ahead, Steve, Well and let me kild it this way, and this is you know, five volumes
to follow, John. But the point as when you have a teaching that is a universal b that your relationship or your religious piety religious obligation is disconnected from your political obligation to the regime you live in. That's dynamite stuff. It points to liberalism rightly understood, and it took more than fifteen hundred years for people to start to figure that out. Like I said, my big story, that's my two questions. Then maybe these will be teasers for our
discussion of Hobbes for next week. It sounds like we're going to have one is if that's true, why did it take them seventeen hundred and seventy six years to figure it out? You now, why did it have to come along for America? What about all the countries in the Middle Ages and there early in the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, they didn't put these principles into practice? Why did they overlook the central teaching of Christianity? And then second,
I always oh, I'm not finished. My second point is I always thought it was Hobbes that was the person who said, no, all people are equal, because in the state of nature you can equally harm each other. And that's why that was taking the just the idea of all equal, all human beings being equal before God and making it lower and political, so that that that you know, you don't have to have that high falutint way of looking at it. That's it's much too simplified. But the first thing you
said. The first thing you said about how did it take all this time? Peter Paul in the in the in the Gospels, I really if if you, if you read the New Testament, you very much get the sense that they expected Jesus to the second coming of the Messiah to happen in their lifetime soon any day now, you know, And so um, everything that Paul and Peter say in the Gospels is obey, obey the Emperor, obey the political authority. Be you know, live as a free and good individual,
but obey the authority. Because every authority that's there was put there by God. Okay, and it takes much too long, because Steve's going to kill me if I keep talking in this way. But but that it took a long time for the idea of that all powerful authority put there by God to kind of morph into this idea than of the divine right of kings. What And we know that human beings are evil or they have a capacity for
evil and envy and not virtue and all those things. And for the longest time Christianity's evolution, along with Roman history and then you know, all of Western civilization, it took us a long time to get to the idea that somehow these people in positions of authority, even if they were put there by God or somehow no better than anybody else. I'm really trunk hating this explanation. Yes, sorry, Steve, what's right you have? I mean,
can I add one additional layer to Lucretia just said? Which is the question you raised? John? And how come people didn't figure this out? Sooner raises the profound question of how human consciousness evolves, and it raises the very
difficult problem of historicism. But I'll just end with this are on this point, our great teacher Harry Jaffa like to say that the two I think he put it this way, almost Lucretia, the two greatest breakthroughs in human consciousness were Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the tablets and announcing that God is one, the unity of God as opposed to polytheism, the plurality of God's the unity of God is important and that has all kinds of difficulties itself.
And then the second was okay, so Moses announces the unity of God, declaration of independency, said, announces the unity of the human family. Right, that was a br and new idea. It was implied in you know, two thousand and least years of twenty five hundred years of learned thought, but it wasn't until it's crystallized in someone's break Both of those were he thought
breakthroughs in human consciousness. They take place at historical moments, but they're rooted in what's that first sentence, right, the laws of nature and Nature's God, the reason we're supposed to obey our rulers, and because they're placed there by God, not that they're just rulers. That that that was not part of the syllogism. It was not a syllogism. You know that, you
know that the no one thought that those rulers were just rulers. But because God is the author of nature and the creator, they have to be there, because they're part of God's order of the universe. And it's up to us to figure out how to sort that out now. And then going back
just quickly to us, you ask Jod about the evolution of consciousness. Jefferson tells us that it is monkish ignorance and superstition that has kept us from recognizing, as he puts it, that all mankind is not that some of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs and the others booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God. So, according to Jefferson, this is an absolute truth that has been true since the beginning
of human history. But monkish ignorance and superstition he blames for that lack of consciousness to the truth of the matter. And I will find that I may go on forever, but I will add John that you can't Hobbs can't do what he did without Machiavelli, whose approach to this, it's very indirect, is paves the way for it, because Christianity created a lot of problems along the way. Let me leave it at that. Yeah, Christianity created a
lot of problems. Belly first addressed, You're I was what I was hoping for. I had the idea for them. We've done such a poor job that nobody will ever listen again. Yeah, it's what you do. Have you've been drinking with you? Yeah? All right, we want to say a little bit about the Clarence Thomas story. I think we've run out of time. We're gonna have to defer that the facts are still developing on that
right now. Okay, So okay, my stupid person of the week, I hate to say it, since you're not gonna let me have a Briden Biden administration person has to be that new mayor of Chicago who is by all accounts not a racist. His entire his entire campaign was run on an anti white platform, and um, the result of that is going to make, as we talked about earlier, the city of Chicago just a horrific place to live, even more than under Lorie Lightfoot. So he's my moron of the
week. By the way, he says, this is about black labor versus white wealth. That's what this battle is about. I mean, how does he get away with that? Anyway? Steve provided a pretty good log post on that on Power Line that everybody should take in. That's my idiot of the week. And you have a camelism. Yeah, let me close with our usual goodbye and so always drink your whiskey, kneat, Let's go Brandon.
And as many of you know, our vice president was on a tour of Africa where apparently she felt free and liberated from the prying eyes of Washington and really let her hair down and enjoyed herself. So we're still getting quotes that we didn't know of from her trip. Here's a little tidbit. She was speaking at a joint conference with the President of Ghana. Well, there are a number of things on the issue of the economy as a whole that we must do, and a lot of that work is the work that I'm
here to do on the continent. So there you have it. Next week, everybody, Ricochet joined the conversation.