If you keep this up, John.
I don't get it.
I'm honestly well.
Whiskey, come and take pains, all right, oh whiskey. Why think alone when you can drink it all in with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour. Join your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John You and the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia, where they slaps it opp and David, ain't you easy on the should taps? Gotta give me that whiskey? All right, here we go, folks. It's the three Whiskey Happy Hour,
our third time out on Substack. We're working on the lighting and the sound and all the other things, and you know, we're learning by doing and we'll get better. But joined as usual by Lucretia, the International Woman a Mystery. John You often an undisclosed and nondescript office somewhere in Texas. I think texts in Texas. I'm out here in California. Uh and uh so, first of all, John, Uh you know last week we talked about this ridiculous, reckless, frivolous
lawsuit against McDonald's on the McRib. But our friends in the Babylon Bee and here I'm jumping Lucretia's act. At the end of every episode they have an item out that McDonald's is going to offer unhappy meals to angry liberals, which I think what took them from?
Right?
What's the toy that you get?
A little uh, a little red communist book they like, one of these disappointing cheeseburger, single cheeseburger, small fries with no one is not enough for anybody, And then you know the communist manifesto.
Well probably or uh you maybe maybe you get a paroled hamburgler. I don't know.
Do you remember when you were god awful part of the country decided that happy meals were a bad thing, and they they stopped offering them in San Francisco, and then across said the country. You couldn't get French fries anymore, and you couldn't get sodia, had to get milk and apples. That I think you have a choice now, but could be I think, Michelle.
Well, now I know it's a toy you could get actually a real electric car. Since they're so expensive nobody wants them anymore. There's a big yeah, no offense Lucretia.
None taken right, So now I wish I paid so much. Sorry, go ahead, Steve.
I have to ask you John a cultural question before we get to our serious topics for the week. What people are still piling into the chat? In any case, have you had the misfortune of seeing even the trailer for the new Star Trek Starfleet Academy show.
It looks yet now?
Yeah, well really it's awful. It's just awful. I mean, I only watched the form minute trailer and I thought, if that's what you put in a trailer, it was four minutes long. The whole thing must be unwatchably bad. And apparently Paramount, which is producing a huge expense a stream but the opening episode for free on YouTube and it had a net of twelve hundred viewers. That's it.
That's fourteen, ste Well, we do better, I.
Know, well exactly, but it's kind of amazing that, you know, it's it's a Holly Hunter who are normally like her and most things she does, and the bad guys Paul Jamatti, and you know they have to cost a lot to get the two of them, and it's very produced.
Most of them are all sat Yeah.
Apparently, well here's here's a clue for you and listeners. John the Klingon, the lead Klingon character. His name is Jayden. How could a Klingon be named Jayden? I mean what, you know, what next We're going to have a governor named Gavin or something.
No humans should be named Jayden, not to mention Klingons.
Oh my god, No, I can't believe this. I can't wait to get our friend Ken green On, who's hated every single Star Trek pretty much since the very first one, the original series, right the goat. My theory is is that Kathleen Kennedy is responsible for this. She snuck in to ruin the other great sci fi franchise. Because it
wasn't enough to ruin Star Wars. She has to ruin Star Trek too, Right, Well, there is that There is that great scene in the Big Bang Theory that's off and on, you know, the the TikTok and stuff of Dean Norris, who's you know, Agent Schrader and Breaking Bad, where he plays an Air Force general and he's trying to steal something from the brainy acts on the show and he says, hey, man, it's not a big deal. It's not like a big way of the plans of the death Star from Star Trek and I can imagine
how that goes down? Right? All right?
You did? You did?
You didn't read the other babbel nbe about Star Wars star Sorry sorry, new star Fleet vessel unable to reach warp speed because Crewe is too fat.
Well, you know there is.
I know I'm the only lookers in person here.
But hey, the gory is up early.
Hey he was, yeah, okay, and it's eight in the morning. He already said, yeah.
Well, let's just add The last one was the South Park guys did a wonderful attack on Kathleen Kennedy, where you know, I forget what the characters are, right, but one of them says, so here's how I fixed Star Star Wars. You know, get a character, get a new character, make them gay about right? Good stuff? All right?
Uh?
Although actually our first serious topic does have an element of comedy to it. And is it is? Which was the stupidest moment or comment of the week? And I have three nominees and if you guys have more, please bring them up. The first one was the a spouse of the now deceased what's your name? In Minnesota who apparently said right after the shooting. Well whatever, that's what they call. The point is they said, well, okay, never mind that. The point is this. She said to the
ice agents, why are you using real bullets? This is they quoted right. The second one is this amazing moment in a Senate hearing where a doctor was testifying on behalf of transgenderism and Senator Hawley, not Senator Kennedy. Senator Howley said can a man get pregnant? And the woman would not answer, and he just kept asking and saying. I thought, we're supposed to go by science. What does science say? Does science say a man can get And she would not answer. She kept changing the subject and
then say I don't like these politically motivated questions. I mean it was pathetic. And then the third nine, oh no, no, Steve, Steve Waite.
Before there was even a better quote from that hearing, I thought, where she said, I know, these yes and no questions are designed to div and I was like, yeah, between yes and no?
Yeah, yeah, well you know yes and no, John, those are binary questions. You can't right, that's right, Well, I mean divide us. I mean, you know the polls show this is one of those eighty twenty issues, right at least, I mean, seventy of Democrats think you shouldn't have transgender women in women's sports. Right. That's actually the third item, which is I don't have a good quote because there are such long word salads. But it's sort of anything that Katanji Brown Jackson.
Said, Taylor, your remarks to that, Steve Taylor.
My remarks to that. Well, the common theme here is, you know, the left of leftist bubble is more impervious than we thought. We really do have two Americas. There
is a footnote to that Supreme Court argument. I don't know if we want to spend a lot of time on it or not, but one of the advocates for the transgender athletes brought up to Justice Gore such apparently, or at least he responded the fact that back in the sixties, the Supreme Court ruled in a case call let me find it here Boutellier versus Immigration Naturalization Service.
That's kind of funny. And what they said is that the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act of nineteen fifty two could exclude psychopathic personalities, which was clearly intended to include homosexuals. And I thought, and then she said, oh, you know, that wasn't your fault. That's not this court, and Justice Gorsuch I think blundered a bit and says, well, thank you for that, because I think what the advocate someone for the ACOU I think was trying to do
was two things. One, in a subtle way, try to appeal to the line of reasoning Gorsuch used in the boss Stock case that still has us all scratched in your heads. And second, I think there's a historicist document here, which is, you know, if you guys rule the wrong way, fifty years from now, historians are going to look back
on what bigots you people are. I think it was that that sort of progress presumption notion, and my response to it, and I think Justice Corsus's response should have been, was, well, you know, we keep hearing we should follow the science. Back in nineteen sixty seven, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental illness. So you wants to follow science. That was the consensus of the science fifty years ago. So why are you in telling
us now to follow science? What does science today's say? Maybe not a legal question, but it seems to me an embarrassment to that very unsubtle and I think weak argument.
It would be an embarrassment if you didn't have doctor Burma the face missus science, miss miss science. Sorry, like Fauci, miss science. She doesn't care what science says, and neither do any of those other minguella and sort of physicians. I want to point one about one thing about the Supreme Court hearings. And this is not original to me. I heard several people say it, including including Dana Perino, whom you know I otherwise cannot stand anything about her.
But she was right on this way. Oh stand voices like fingernails on a chalk bowarl anyway, but she was absolutely right about this when she said, you know what's wrong with this whole thing is why in the world is the Supreme Court taking up such nonsense. And you know, there's an argument to be made that the Supreme Court could have allowed those laws. They are state laws. They
could have just allowed them to stand. But you know, the idea that we're talking about CIS gender or CIS women at the Supreme Court, I mean, they should have just kicked those people out and said you're too stupid and irrelevant to be here. I'm done with this whole thing. I am not a CIS woman. I'm a woman. I'm proud of it. I can identify what a woman is, which means I am more qualified for the Supreme Court than you know who, Well, well there.
Are I don't know if you want to jump in here, John. I mean, there were a couple of astonishing moments in the oral argument. One is Justice Toledo with a you know, Mike drop moment saying, how are we going to tell? First of all, the asou lawyer says, what's your definition of sex? And he said, we do not have one for the court, and Liedo says sensibly, well, then how are we going to make a determination of sexual discrimination is taking place if we don't have a definition of sex.
Anybody who's ever read a statute knows you begin with a whole lot of definitions to make the application of statutes precise. And this is just amazing. I can only conclude that they brought this case hoping that there would be a wedge, because right, it's about Ah, here's the
other thing that's amazing to me. It's they're trying to say, oh, you know, the person in question here began hormone treatments, hormone suppressors, puberty blockers, I think at the age of eight, and I think the question should be why is the parent not being arrested for child abuse for doing something like that? Right, I mean, it's just astounding to me.
It wasn't the legal question presented there but that and the idea was, well, if someone has puberty blockers and they don't develop you know, sort of male musculature until they're teenagers, then shouldn't that person be allowed to compete in women's sports. They're trying to create this little exception that could then be expanded, I think, is what's going on. But by the way, I mean again, the science on this shows that newborn infants, you know, a newborn male,
will have like twenty five percent more rip strength. This must at birth over your average baby hurl. Right, So it's not something that just happens. Okay, I don't need to persuade you of these differences, but apparently you do.
Well, no, well, there's some very well another interesting.
Thing that everrose.
Well, so one thing is if you just listen to the oral argument by the government and the States, you could tell that the you know that these the transgender were going to lose. None of the conservative justices basically had any questions over the government, right, Like I can't even remember having asking any and they were all over of course the ACLU and but the other interesting exchange I thought was they didn't want to say that there
were differences between the sexes. So, if I remember correctly, under some of Justice Elita's questions, one of the advocates for the transgender students said, well, what really should matter is the testosterone level, right, So rather than separating athletes by sex, you should just group them I guess by testosterone, right,
and that every student should. It sounds like they would want every student who plays a sport to have a testosterone test to decide which league they get to play in, because it can't be sex that distinguishes, right the leaites. If you carry that logic to its natural end, you can't have men and women's sports at all. The theory would be there's they would want to say some constitutional
to actually have girls soccer or girls basketball. You can only have low testoster on soccer and high testoster right, that's what arguments yeah point whether yeah, And I wonder whether feminists from the you know, sixties through the two thousands would agree with this because it wasn't. One of their right great missions was to have you know, women's sports with integrity. That could have you that it would
be women competing like women. And I thought that was supposed to be, you know, because of title nine, one of the great achievements of Yeah.
All right, let's before you go on, Steve, I want to break I want to mess up your your big picture analogies here or whatever you called it, and say that I have one more addition to the stupid comment of the week. It might even take the cake, but it's very just appointing to me for reasons I'll mention in a moment, and that is Candace Owens has said that what's really happening with Charlie Kirk is that he is a time traveler, much like what happens in The Matrix,
and the Matrix decided something. Of course I didn't listen to it, and that accordingly, they decided to take him out because of something something. Anyways, I don't know if that makes if she's on the left of the right anymore. I don't know, but that has to be the dumbest comment of the week number one and on a podcast, and so number two Lucretia never gets to where a conspiracy theory had Again I'm a piper compared to Candace Owens.
Well, all right, let's take a quick ad break and we'll get on too topic number two right after these messages from sponsors. All right, our second topic today is Minnesota and the Insurrection Act. Some weird things have been happening. So first Governor Waltz and then Governor Newsom out here in California kind of walking back from the precipice of where they were seventy two hours ago. It was spitting defiance and all the rest of that. Trump may have
talked to both of them on the phone. There's some accounts of this. But a question for you, John, then is somewhat more theoretical because Trump did say, by the way, Friday morning, that he does not think he's going to need the Insurrection Act. So maybe somebody's blinking, I'm not sure, But the theoretical question is do you think the conditions
on the ground justify it? And then, more to the point, could Trump under the Insurrection Act direct federal marshals to arrest Governor Waltz and Mayor Frey of mini acts to their incitements and for their obstruction of federal operations.
So one just based on what I've seen on TV, I think this the conditions are satisfied. That doesn't matter. It doesn't tell us whether to use your guy's favorite word as a matter of prude and right where you should use that power. And you know, of course, when I say prudence, I really just may cost benefit analysis good board. The Insurrection Act, by his terms, says you know three it gives he says, you can the president. This is a power given to the president by Congress.
So it's not even Trump saying he has the constitutional power on his own to do this. It allows the president to call out the troops domestically for three purposes, an insurrection, an invasion, or And this is the part that is more open ended and I think fits these conditions, is when there are conspiracies or combinations or groups that are trying to block the enforcement of federal law. So it's called the Insurrection Act. But the third condition is
it can includes many more cases than just insurrection. And you look at the videos, there are people who are attacking federal LAWFA trying to kill them in some cases, you know, beating them with shovels. I saw on Fox News yesterday these groups trying to block federal agents from going in and out of the main immigration facility in Minneapolis, trying to prevent the agents from going out and enforcing
federal law. That seems to so usually, and this goes to your second point, you don't need the Instruction Act because usually state and local police make sure that people aren't attacking federal agents and are clearing the area where federal operations are going to occur. But here you have a mayor and a governor in a sanctuary state that
have withdrawn police protection. You see those videos, especially at night time, but even in the ones yesterday in front of the federal facility, there's no state I don't see any Minneapolis police officers. I don't see any Minnesota officers trying to prevent people from attacking agents or trying to block aid federal buildings. Seems to me that you've met the conditions for triggering the Insurrection Act. Second question about I don't know about arresting. Oh, go ahead, but.
Before you go on, will you please explain the a little bit of the history of the Insurrection Act. You did once before, but maybe not everybody. I think that's very very appropriate to our discussion of it, is to understand why and where it came from.
Oh yeah, I mean the.
Last use of it was the Rodney King riots in nineteen ninety two, but before that it was used quite often. I think I saw a figure that one third of all presidents have used troops under the Insurrection Act. And George Washington used troops under the Insurrection So the earliest version goes back to the seventeen nineties, and it was about calling out the militia and during conditions of not just insurrection and invasion, but refusals to obey federal law. And that was the Whiskey rebellion.
Right.
President Washington called out the malay to enforce a whiskey tax in western Pennsylvania. And I think it's still the only example where president as commander in chief led the troops personally into the field and Washington showed up and the rioters dispersed immediately when they heard Washington was coming.
But the major expansion of the Act comes during Reconstruction because the ku Klux Klan and other white Southerners were trying to take away the federal rights of freed slaves, and so while under President Grant's administration, Congress expanded this third prom of the Insurrection Act, where you can the
president can call out troops to enforce federal law. And then I think the most notable invocations were under President Eisenhower and Kennedy to enforce Brown versus Board of Education against and this goes to Steve's other question against Southern states and governors who are trying to stop integration from occurring. And so I think this is why I don't don't think it would happen, but I think, you know, I think legally you could do it, but I don't think
it happened. Is even those Southern governors who used their own state national guards to try to compeede racial desegregation, they were never arrested and charged for federal crimes, even though they were obviously committing an obstruction of federal law. But what Eisenhower did is he took over those national Guard units away from the state and turned them into national units, sent them back to their houses, sent them home,
and then used the US military right. He used one hundred and first airborne desegregated Southern schools under the Insurrection Act. So how one of the question is, rather should Trump go that far? Does he need to? But gosh, you look at the conditions of Minneapolis and you see people attacking federal agents and no state and local police officers to be found. That's what the Instruction Act is for.
Well, okay, so I mean, of course it'd be a political judgment about whether you should arrest Governor Waltz. But a hypothetical is this. I mean, I think you can find this in the newsreels. There's George Wallace. I think it was the local police. I don't know if it was Alabama National Guard, but standing in.
There was a national Guard. It was the national Guard.
Okay. But the point is is that when the federal troops showed up with the students, he moved and allowed them to proceed. So the hypothetical is what if Governor Wallace had refused and told his officers to not move and not allow the person in. Wouldn't then President Eisenhower have been substruction ordering Yeah, okay, ordering the arrest substruction Wallace's that's my Yeah.
So here's the thing about walt and this Guy Mayor Jacob Fry Fry, I think.
So.
I don't think it's a federal crime for them to say, you're on your own. We're not going to help you, We're not going to protect you. If the federal government wants to enforce immigration law, you know, good luck to you have at it. That's not obstruction. If they are actually, you know, using their police force and their resources to help these right these protesters, rioters, that could be obstruction. So is it anything I haven't seen any evidence to that yet.
Is there a difference then, between a standdown order which they have given to all of their local state and local police stand down do not help if these people are attacked, So what stand down we will not do anything to help ICE and actively joining the crowd against ICE. I mean that seems to be what you're saying.
I think that's the difference. Okay, yeah, I think that's I think that. In fact, I think the Supreme Court has said, and not in this violent of context, but has said states have the right not to cooperate with the federal government.
They have the right.
So these sanctuary cities, I don't think the cities and states can block federal agents, but they don't have to help the federal agents locate where aliens are either. They can just be passive.
Yeah, okay, all right, let's yeah.
I think that's really stupid by the Supreme Court, by the way, because I mean, think about in general terms. Try to sorry, try to think about it in general terms and say, do we really want Supreme Court opinions that encourage a kind of It's one thing to encourage the what Madison talks about in Federal's number fifty one. You know, this government that fights against this government and
that gives us, you know, protection from tyranny. It's another thing to say that law enforcement at the state and local level can fight against the military at the federal level, and that that somehow prevents some kind of denial of people's rights. I mean, that seems to me to be a recipe for civil war. But maybe I'm just being too Oh well, sure, I.
Think that's probably right, but too I mean, think about it in terms of your one of your favorite topics, you know, anti ballums, slavery, and so I think one reason that court says that you know, reaches this result. They look back at the Fugitive Slave Act and under their ruling. They're basically saying, you know, a Massachusetts and New York doesn't have to help federal officers catch fugitive
slaves and return them back to slavery. If a federal agent wants to do it, right, they connected to federal law. But states don't have to cooperate. They can if they will, but they don't.
Well, well, wait a minute, there's this distinction, John, Is that you know, as Lincoln pointed out in his first inaugural address, the original fugitive slave clause didn't say who had the responsibility for returning Was it federal worst state responsibility? The Constitution was ambiguous on this at best. Whereas as you like to point out, and when we used to flay you alive for this is when Governor Brewer in Arizona and also Texas, right, I said, no, it's a
purely federal responsibility. The court, there's pretty clear that the constitutional, the current constitutional reading of this is very much on the side of Trump and Ice and against Governor Walls.
Well, let me for a second, just saying, John explained that more than one occasion for which I probably received the most negative comments about you ever. By the way, John, but you did charge to.
Explain that's a race to the bottom, as we say, it was.
Very much so. And this one I couldn't defend you on because I don't still understand it myself. However, what you used you used to provide an explanation for the difference between a state deciding on a sanctuary city policy and a state deciding to be at least as proactive, if not more proactive than the federal government in stopping a legal immigration And I never understood your argument, but you did make it, and it's my fault I was.
I wasn't. No, no, I don't think I was making the argument. I was just trying to describe what Arizona versus United States says. And you know, Arizona versity United States is the decision that says states are not allowed to enforce immigration law, right.
Government can.
Well, is it not a failure to enforce immigration law? Then if you are refusing ice detainers, if you are refusing all of those things, is that if you are allowing illegal immigrants to be in your state and in all sorts of ways giving them sanctuary and the benefits of your society, are you not then actually enforcing or uninforcing immigration law. And how is that? How is that different?
So, so what the court has said is that state officers, and they do this to protect the sovereignty of states. In their view, is that state officers don't have any responsibility to carry out federal law themselves. They don't have to say don't. And they also say because if they do, the presidents can't control them. You know, governor can say I think federal law means this, so I'm going to enforce congregation law this way. There's no way the president
can control him or her. And so the court is also said, to preserve the president's monopoly over the take care clause, we can't allow anyone to enforce federal law who's not a federal officer. And that's what happened if Arizona started catching illegal aliens itself, and well, but here it's the border, then you have someone enforcing federal law who's not a US officer, is not under the control of the president.
I was trying to propose the inverse of that, which is as states actually impeding the federal government from exercising what has been described as their sole responsibility.
So that was okay, that's which I think sanctuary cities do, by the way, I do.
Yeah, no, I mean do.
Look, the good example for lucretia is that judge in Wisconsin who oh right, was hearing a case involving an a legal alien and then she she tried to you know, spirit the legal an away through a back door in her courtroom that and prevent federal agents from final That's obstruction by a state officer. And she's been properly.
Okay, well shot and freud for the lucreci Here for a moment, you guys, is buddy Paul Klement, who joined that legal team on behalf of that fat woman in Wisconsin, lost big time, goss, big time. Now, the funny thing is is that none of those big you know, TDS Rhinos attorneys out there did this pro bono, and they're out there begging for money from the public to continue their appeals process and to pay their past pay bills.
They just want some of that sweet sorrows money. Man. That's all. But we now are going to go to a quick break for our sponsors and move on to another topic because we can go on all day on every single one of these so listeners will be right back in a moment. All right, you guys, I am going to skip to what I put on our outline today as our fourth or fifth item with this heading, because it works for the ones I'm skipping over, and
that we might come back to. There's the famous saying of was the great Greek poet, that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad, which is my field theory explanation for why Trump derangement syndrome is so great. Right, Trump's driven them mad. But I have a very specific question that gets in our sweet spot of political philosophy. What does it mean for the left if America is in fact the best regime as understood by the classics. And let me explain what I mean by that. There's
this terrible book out right now. It's gotten a lot of press, a lot of reviews, a lot of attention from the Trump deranged in the media. It's Laura Field's book, Furious Minds, you know, making somebody mad. They're furious now. It's a book that, if you've heard about it is an attack on three elements of the sort of trumpy right, the national conservatives and that cons the post liberals, and we talked about post liberals was it just last week?
I think? And then finally, you know our peeps, the claire Monsters, although she calls them claire Monts, and she obviously doesn't know where claire monsters please, and several things about it. One of the things is I caught her
on a recent interview. I'm not going to read her book, or maybe if they give me a free copy, I might, but I caught her on one of her interviews saying, well, you know what, these Claremont people, like Harry Jaffa, they say America is the best regime and thus that there's like no room for change or progress. And I thought, well, that's comically wrong, first of all. Second of all, as Glenn, our friend Glenn Elmers has spotted in a very excellent review of the book, she made up a quote from
Jaffa that does not exist anywhere in Jaffa's work. So she's fabricated something. And by the way, I think there are other really alarming fabrications in the book. I'm going to save that from now. We can go back to it later. And so the point is, and I'm going to open up a lucretie on this is I say, is it bad news? For the left of America is the best regime, because the best regime does not mean utopia.
And for the left, they're all about utopia. And there you see again a very fundamental difference between the way serious conservatives think about politics and regimes and the way the left does so. Anyway, So, Lucretia, what you know when if you can summarize briefly for listeners and for us, and what did Jeff I mean by the best regime and why does it foreclose what the left wants when they talk about utopia.
Well, I'm gonna go sound like a little bit of a broken record, Steve, and go back to the point that first and foremost the founding fathers believed that there was a human nature, that human nature could be known with a reasonable amount of certainty, and a society and a government could be built, especially a government, around that
understanding of human nature. And one of the things about that human nature it's unchanging, but there are there's the rational element to the human soul, something that we and we partake in with the gods or God, the rational element, and then there's the passion, which always get in the way of our rationality. That's kind of the way to simplified view of human nature that I think informs the
Founding Fathers. But what I can't I don't have time to go into all the reasons that Jaffa says this is the best regime, and I'm not sure that it certainly was the best regime as it was founded. I'll leave it at that for the moment. The point is is that our Founding fathers put together a political system that recognized both of those elements I just mentioned in human nature in the human condition, and they accounted for them.
If you think about Madison's argument in the Federalist fifty one, if men were angels, there would be no need for government. If angels were to govern men, we would need neither external nor internal controls like government. When you have a situation where too men governing men, no angels, that's why you need protections against tyranny. So the Left comes along and they don't like these checks and balances, that's what Madison is actually referring to. Their they don't like these
checks and balances. They don't like the idea of individual autonomy or the maximum amount of freedom given to people until they interfere with the rights of others. They don't like this idea that there is a bit of an India's idiosyncratic definition of happiness, not entirely, but another day for that. And what they believe is that human beings are a not necessarily they have evolved to the point where they are no longer what's the opposite of angels, demons.
They can in fact be educated, thank you John Dewey, Oh God, to the point where they can become you know, good socialist members of society. Education to be all about turning them into these perfect little citizens, and ultimately these perfect little citizens become what would you say, propagandized brain lage. I don't know, to do whatever it is these wonderful elites who have only the good of society and this
utopian vision in mind. Our founding fathers never believed we'd find utopia because we would always be dealing with the faults of human nature. We could set up a system that tried in every way possible to I want to think about Jefferson's talk about the natural aerostory to allow the best human beings, the most virtuous human beings, and the most publican spirit, public spirited human beings to rise to the top and be the governors, the rulers over us.
That we would choose, that's important, that we would choose. But they didn't believe that there was any guaranteed, Like Madison says, enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm, and so all of those checks and balances, all those restraints on government that they built into the constitutional system. The progressives came along and said, we don't want any of those. We want to do what we want because
we're going to bring about utopia. Is that okay, Steve? Yeah, I mean sorry, really quickly back to the beginning of your question. I'll be quiet. Java thought it was the best regime because it took religion as a divisive force out of politics and as a which you might what's the right word, an authorizing force out of politics. Long story.
We promised to come back to that someday. But it was the best regime because for the first time, it was built entirely on the notion of the sovereignty of the people and.
Not on some.
Fairy tale version of virtuous elites who philosopher kings who would govern us?
Yeah, I mean, well, the point I mean, I guess we should add for listeners. I mean this kind of code speak for us to a certain extent, the best regime was always the best regime in speech speech, right, I mean that's the Republic's all about it. All right, you want a perfect regime with yeah, one justice, right,
you would do it this way. And I mean I think Leo Strauss did right somewhere that he said he did believe that the best, the simply best regime is a real thing, but unattainable for a whole bunch of reasons. And then I think maybe where the modification here is is so Jappas said, I'll do it this way in one or two sentences, and then John you can weigh in and help us or or ask us to clarify this.
I think he thinks this the best regime because it best solved the fundamental human political and social problems, and
no one was ever going to improve upon it. It did not mean there couldn't be progressed eaven material, moral, and social, and in fact, that's you know, Lincoln's famous line about dred Scott was, you know the or even if you take Martin Luther King that the declaration is a promissory note, that it was the basis for progress and spreading equal opportunity, for freedom and dignity of human beings.
Right, but you weren't going to get joate his career talking about what perfected it more, what got it better? Sorry? Right?
Yeah, So that's the point is is that it didn't mean you freeze it. I mean, Lord Fields seemed to think that Japa thought that everything was frozen in place in seventeen eighty seven or seventeen seventy six, And that's just comically idiotic, John, I.
Don't get it, you know, well, you know what I don't get is how you measure what's a better regime from another. So unless you're using some kind of consequentialist factors like population size, wealth, health, you know, power. So for example, if it was about achieving moral achieving morally just outcomes, well why isn't the British government, you know, regime superior to ours. They got rid of slavery before we did. They didn't have the Civil War over slavery
that we did. You know, from many periods because they didn't have segregation, they had a broader scope for individual rights. I would say for more of the modern period after our revolution than we did, right. I mean, we are history, you know had slavery. Our history had segregation. The British didn't have that after seventeen seventy six.
So how do you mention your how slavery?
I'm just saying, how do you just say conclude that why.
We'd No, no, no, I'm just want to explain that to me if you're.
Not finished. So your moral view slavery is bad?
Right?
So the British abolished it before we did. The British didn't have racial segregatey. Why isn't there was even better than our regime because they they just outcome faster and more broadly than we did.
John, John, John, So I don't understand. I'm remember in all these previous episodes where you ca used me Lucretia of being Anglo files, and now you're from No, I'm not very clever, guys are.
The Anglo files? Because your own test would you to think that the British were better than we were, which is when you guys secretly think anyway.
No, it's a very good regime, but it's not as good as ours. I'll just assert that, what why, why.
Is the British regime regime inferior to get this thing called the divine right of kings.
John.
They believe that that lovely gentleman, that idiot King Carls is king because God said, but they don't really believe.
But they don't really believe that anymore?
Why is he still king?
They just have these fake, fake ceremonial positions. The parliament is really sovereign?
Why why is parliament sovereign? Why not? No?
Under their constitution?
Yea, I know, But so what?
Why?
What are you judging these things bias? I guess what I'm asking you to tell me.
If you say.
No, I don't want you. I want you to judge them by yours.
I want you to tell me differently.
Okay, But let me ask you this question. If if and I'm a little I'm a little bit sad the way things stand right now, I'm hoping that it changes. But if in fact, the Persian people are finally successful with whatever help they can get from Trump et cetera, on overthrowing that god awful evil Islamic regime as I believe it. You don't believe Aslam as evil?
Do you care?
Is there by? What standards would you judge whether or not a re emergence of freedom and democracy in Iran would be better or worse by what standard? Would you?
So?
I would look at the traditional standards of national success, size of population, for capital, GDP, health, longevity. Right, I mean they're like the things I mean I would think, do we look at those?
I mean, so would you?
I guess this is I guess you would prefer a democracy which is poor and people live nasty British and short lives. Oh good lord, No, But I'm just saying, like those I would I would measure it on these as sort of objective standards of wealth and the prosperity of the people and their health and so on. Now, maybe that correlates highly with individual liberties, because people who have a lot of individual liberties, their economies are freer and they're they do better I think.
Materially too, John, you are a pyromaniac in a field of straw man right now, this is just the way you say. No, I don't.
I mean, that's why I'm asking you your But I'm saying, based on your views of how you should judge societies, Britain was earlier more successful than we were seen individual liberty. No one I mean one tiny point, slavery. I thought he was the most important because it's government by consent. They abolished slavery, but they don't.
Have They didn't have government by consent as the result of it. Well, the other thing is, for a lot of reasons, they had.
Almost no slavery in the homeland. If they'd had it in the same relative scale as we did, they would have had great difficulty getting rid of it. And they're the ones who abolished the slave trade, not us. Well, the British navy, correct, I mean they used to.
United Yeah, the British Navy had great costs to themselves.
It's more John, slave trade. I'll just make this proposition and then show it the remedy. I'm going to sentence you to a remedy. If you want to make the historical proposition that our institutions and safeguards of liberty owe a lot to the British tradition, such as their Civil War and the Revolution of sixteen eighty eight, that's perfectly fair. Our point is that we did it better than them, that's all. And ah, okay, so John.
But so how do you But well, let me ask you, how do you know that? Because if your view is the ultimate principle is government by consent. Then we had slavery right from seventeen seventy six to eighteen sixty five, and then we had segregation from ruffly eighteen seventy five to nineteen, I would say till the nineteen sixties. Those are two long periods where a huge portion of our population was basically governed without their consent.
Well they did well, first of all, yes they did. But leave that aside. Why did we get rid of slavery? John? Why did we finally decide that we were no longer going to have Jim Crow laws, that we were going to pass the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, in the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty four? Why why would we do that?
My argument is a comparative one.
I accept, Well, I don't want to make a comparative one. I don't want to live in England. They don't matter to me. I want to know how you would judge ours and why you think we got widow slavery exactly? What's the standards exactly?
So look, I'm saying, if I accept your standard, right, if your standard is the principal government by consent, is also that's derivative.
All right.
Uh.
The standard is is government based upon a fundamental understanding of unchanging human nature. And one of those one of those elements, I'll be done. One of those elements is that human nature is again uh god, no, just yes, it does, Yes, it does. I put it like this, If you decide to adopt a dog, John, and and then you expect the dog to act like a horse, how well is that going to work out for you?
That got to do with anythink.
Because dogs have a nature and horses have a nature. Run no, and humans have a nature. And the problem with human nature is that it is, in fact flood. Rationality is influenced more or less in any given person by the passions, which means that while human beings are capable of incredible excellence and virtue, they're not likely to
achieve that. All prior regimes that had that set some kind of lofty goal for themselves depended Plato, Aristotle, and even Cicero depended upon a version of human nature that believed in this kind of uh solid virtue that you could you could depend upon, and they that's why they all failed. In the United States, we want virtue, but we have all of these mechanisms to make sure that when virtue fails, we don't descended the tyranny. That's what makes it the best regime.
And all of those things that makes sense well back.
Anomalies or they were contradictions. They were not part of the what makes the United States the best regime, which is why those things ultimately could be gotten rid of.
So you're saying that the America is the best regime because it it's based on the idea that people are fallen, and so a government that's constructed on the basis of people have fallen is a better regime than one.
That is not. I didn't say that regardless.
Of the actual consequences or what it produces in terms of actual policies and the effect on the population.
Help me, Steve here, Well, I want to draw this segment to a conclusion to my proposition is that the United States is the best regime, both as a theoretical matter and as a practical matter. And John, if I have to, I'm not going to do it now because we're out of time. If I have to, I could use your empirical metrics to demonstrate that proposition between us and England as admirable as England.
I let me say, I think on empirical standards we are far superior country to Britain, but not because of it, you guys standards.
Well, I think you just contradicted yourself. But I'll I'll have to go back to the transcript. In the meantime, I have the remedy for you. I just got in the mail Harvey Mansfield's new book Aware they canna put it the Rise and Fall of Rational Control, And I thought this might be some new attack on progressives, and I think actually that it is in here. Turns out this book John was based on his course History of Modern Political Philosophies that he taught every other year from
nineteen sixty eight to twenty twenty two. Did you take this course, John? And if you did, nderstand it? Oh god, what I thought? No, I took the course.
I'm deep in the weeds of the many subtleties of Harvey Manstone, and I still haven't figured them all out.
Well, he's in large accord with our point of view here about America is the best regime. Didn't put the same terms as Jaffa. But okay, we will continue this some other time. But right now, I'll take a quick break and come back, and I guess we have enough time to talk very briefly about Greenland, and then we have to get out for the day, so we'll be
right back. Everybody, don't go away, all right. Continuing on the general theme of those whom the gods will destroy, they first make mad, let's just do one little thing about Trump. I'm a little worried that he might be heading into a sophomore slump. We don't have time to go through all the things that could bring up about that, so I'll just leent myself to Greenland. I'll say two things.
One is is that if, by the way, the polls show that like ninety five percent of Americans are opposed to invading Greenland, that includes ninety two percent of Republicans and most of the rest are undecided, there's almost no one thinks this is a good idea. I think if Trump literally did it, he could be successfully impeached and convicted. On the other hand, I actually think this makes this is such totally Trumpian art of the deal. And you
know what, it looks like it's working. I mean, it's certainly got the Europeans attention and everyone's upset about it. But I think and I can sort of go through the reasons why that this is because I can think of some examples of Trump's own business experience from forty years ago where this is exactly how he behaved and everyone came out the winner from it on both sides
of the of the of the equation. And so I kind of liked this whole greenland thing and the old fashioned way of doing it with patient She could we buy greenland like Harry Truman wanted to do. She wouldn't be nice if we paid more attention to gree No, I think Trump's method and this is absolute right, and I love it, but that, combined with other things, you're already is getting a little too overconfident from his first year's successes. That's my opening proposition.
Well, I no, no, but I think.
You know.
I wrote a piece about the National Security strategy that they issued, and this is what's going on as you're keeping with the national security strategy, and that right after defense of the homeland, the most important strategic goal of the United States should be controlled the western hemisphere to prevent our enemies from establishing beachheads of influence where they
can destabilize us, like Venezuela or Cuba. And if you look at a map of the United States of the year of the globe from the north, Greenland is an extremely important right placement in the world just by the nature of geography, and so you know, the United States needs to have basically unlimited use of Greenland in the competition with the in the Russians, and whether I don't think in the end, what's as important as whether we formally possess it, possess it as it is that we
have a limited right to use it as a base for a defense and for the military. And so I think that we already have a treaty that allows us to do that, but perhaps Trump wants to make it secure, and so he is this kind of way of you know, browbeating the other sides and to recognizing it. On the other hand, I don't think that we should invade, you know, attack Danty or whatever Denmark and seize Greenland because that's formally in NATO, and I think that would be well
for US. And taking over Greenland and establishing it's weird. It's kind of like he wants the legal title to it even though functionally we will have the right to use it as much as we want.
Well, wait a minute, I mean, let me do one thing and then I'll thro to you lucretia, which is uh. I think this is just defense. The mineral resources of Greenland are substantial and very advantage to everybody because being alternative China and even for oil and gas all the other usual places. And the case against owning it is this simple. It will be federal land if we acquire it, and federal land, as we know, gets preyed upon by
the bureaucrats. The first thing the Democrats do when they come back into power is declared a national wildlife refuge for bacteria and the iris and darn thing. Right, So that's actually a real worry, which is we'd be better off if we could reach a minerals deal with Denmark and our Greenland. If Greenland becomes independent, then necessarily owning it oddly enough, so that's why I I'd love it. If we owned it, then we'd have Canada boxed in,
which is much to be desired. But I could see, you know, the outcome of this looks to me like it might actually be pretty good. I mean, it's early yet.
But now look the Canadians we should invade.
But greenwell, of course, right, well, there's a lot there, John, there's a ton of good stuff there anyway.
Yeah, well, my dad used to say this, and I didn't realize until till fairly recently that it actually came from one of my dad ancestors, Eric the Great, the Viking, who named it Greenland as it.
He's an ancestor of yours.
Yes, as a matter of fact, yes it does. I'm very proud of it. But that there's no greening, as my dad used to say, he was stationed during the Korean War and in both Greenland and Iceland actually, and he said, there's no there's not as much ice in Iceland and there's no green in Greenland. And that's all I care about. I'm not going there. It's too cold, I hate And what Steve cut me off and wouldn't
let me say to John. If he keeps this up, he's going to find himself from this and unemployed in Greenland. I know what that's from.
No, what's from probably Dodge Princess Bride.
For the years, really keta once every five or six years. Just no, it's God no, it's it's actually one of the best. It's awesome.
It's like it's like a princess and knights and uh yeah, Lucretius right, it is canon and I am dere Lichton keeping up with the cannon.
All that it's But let's close. You've got some Babylon behind I do.
I don't know what to do about you. Guys NATO big US for emergency funding so they can defend Greenland from US. Yeah, Catangi Brown Jackson arrives at work an official SCOTUS short bus. Oh yeah, actually, you got to give them credit for that. I don't know what this one means, because you guys probably don't either, if none of us have little kids. But I'm sure somebody out
there might know. Supreme Court justices bring in miss Rachel, Miss Rachel to explain cases to Catangy Brown Jackson, or brought in to explain difference between boys and girls to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, that one's good.
That makes my I told you guys last week come much. I was really, uh sort of fascinated by the feminist angle of what's going on in Iran, and uh, one of the things that I steve you even liked it. I put on on X is that you know, this has been amazing to watch how braive these women are, you know the ones.
I love it.
They light their cigarettes with the burning pictures of the aetola is so cool. And uh, one of the things I'm absolutely amazed at is how beautiful the Persian women are. I mean, it's just some of the times you see them and you're like, they're dropped their gorgeous. So anyway, that being said, sorry I went off on that long tangent where to go United States offers to trade its liberal women for Oh.
Yeah, that's a good one, right all right? John?
You wait, wait, wait what what? Just one more? Sorry? I lost it. Now that's what you get. Democrats fear Iranian love of freedom could spread to America.
That is a good one. I saw that one do Minnesota? Yeah or Minnesota?
Yeah?
That's right.
Okay, So always drink your whiskey meat, buy more books. And Steve, how has AI seduced you this week?
Well? I asked AI to give us an outline of what Lucretia's indictment of mayor, sorry, Governor Waltz would look like under the Insurrection Act, and a long outline. I'll just give you one part of the outline and one sentence from the actual language of it. The bullet points were Lucretia's tone would be ice, not populist. It would be one dryly contemptuous, two intellectually scathing, and three heavy
on irony and understatement. She would write as if the case were already obvious and the reader merely needed to stop pretending otherwise. And so the beginning of it would be let us begin by dispensing with the sentimental confusion that so often cloud's modern governance. The insurress. The Insurrection Act was not written to flatter governors, nor to provide them with emotional support animals during moments of civic stress. I think, actually, look, we sho would do better than that.
But that's not bad for first try out by chat GBT. It's got a bit you can't you.
Imagine what I'd say to that retard. I'd say retard. I'd say you're a retard for retardless. Ye, That's what I would say.
That would be the most interesting federal indictment in the history of the bumper.
That's right anyway, Bye, everybody, thanks for tuning in. Yeah, Gora maybe someday in iceblell have a meet up, but I'd love to never.
I've never stepped on foot.
In isolated islands. Glorious John, it's not that cool.
Support, it's not it's thanks.
He's falling on the knife and criss cracks.
One Genmen join me here.
Here's my nice stride, pride, laps and full night.
I'm my brown. My double wots. He's falling on the icy rises cracks.
One Gemen join me here, my last pride.
Last a full night.
I'm not proud.
My double wants to pull me down. Ricochet join the conversation.