Well with the coming pain, my pain, the money, my ray.
Oh why think alone when you can drink it all in with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward, John Yu and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia.
Where it stopped it up and David A.
Beb on the show tap out a giv.
Welcome everybody to the new and approved three Whiskey Happy Hour, now sponsored by the Civitas Institute of the University of Texas at Austin. Henceforth, we'll be adding Texas barbecue to our list of culinary obsessions along with the new mcarch this super Gumonga st Hamber. I actually think that we get McDonald's advertising because I was listening to the podcast and there was a McDonald's aad. Really then I noticed that was an ad for all the podcasts.
I was listening to, So maybe.
N Yeah, I think you have the wrong microphones selected to Oh yeah, I'm too loud.
Well yeah, wrong microphone.
There we go.
How's that that's way better?
You know what actually against thee lesson so liter thing is uh you want me to redo it?
Yeah, because you did a crap job of reading a script I gave you. What do you think?
I know what. I'm sorry everyone, Jesus, you.
Know again, the actor is only as good as the writing.
Come on, go ahead and over again, John, what do you want to leave? Maybe you know what? I take it all back. He was your wrong microphone. That's why I thought that.
Oh man, go ahead, Okay, ready, Okay, here we go again. Pretend you didn't hear anything. Okay. Welcome every buddy to the new and improved three Whiskey Happy Hour, now sponsored by the Civitas Institute of the University of Texas at Austin. Because of our new sponsors, henceforth, we will be adding Texas Barbecue to our list of kulinary obsessions, with new libations to come depending on whether the advertisers send Steve Hayward more money like McDonald's and the big new mccarth.
How's that? That was pretty good? I tell you I was going, I was. I'm really excited about this new Uh. You know this is me Robert F. Kennedy agree on something at last, which is more meat patties and less bread and our burgers. It only came out this week and I haven't been able to get to McDonald's to get one because I've been eating too much Texas barbecue here in Austin, Texas.
We but you also again, Yeah, but also John, you lost your BUCkies virginity this week, right, You went to your first BUCkies in all my great that was crazy.
Yeah.
I went to my first BUCkies, and I have to now confess that I think that they do beat Wahlah. I think i'd ever lived in this wow, but I got it.
An apology, John, I gotta.
Tell you this.
This beef jerky bar, I mean, have you I can't believe such a thing exins I was soap fee. There's twenty five thirty different flavors of beef jerky, and it's almost like they combined Wlahlah with Costco. I could go and ask for free sample tastes of any of the barbecue, any of the beef tokey. It was amazing.
I'm surprised we even got you back from the place I thought you would just like camp out.
Now. The weird thing is this is very Texas too. I suppose you guys explain this to me. There's so much food, drink, and as you guys predicted, the cleanest bathrooms of any rest stop I've ever seen, but no place to sit and eat. What's the deal with that?
They just want you out? I'm not sure.
That's an interesting question. I think I think they want people to take stuff to go and you know, eat in their cars and their rbs, or go someplace else. And I'll bet there's a theory on that.
It's one of the I was just gonna say. One of the things that differentiated our time in Europe from what we experience in America the conveniences of paper cups and uh get get you on the road. You can have uh tablecloths for your lap, sort of things you can eat while with both hands while you're driving. In almost no place at least in Germany or Switzerland or Italy that I visited, ever even had so much as a paper coffee coffee cup or a disposable coffee cup.
You you stop at roadside gas station and you sit and you drink your coffee out of porcelain. And that's and so.
They don't understand. They don't understand.
The rest stops and and a lot of they may be different now, but the German cars don't have cup.
That's Mercedes and BMW we're very late in adding couple.
Holders in the United States. Huh.
Interesting because of because I didn't think you.
Should get a bit different attitude.
Yeah yeah, Or I.
Just think you should sit there and take some time part of your thirty hour work week. The other ten hours you can spend in a gas station drinking coffee out of course and cups.
Yeah. Right.
So my good friend, our good friend Phil Munos, who was I was talking to on the phone. He wants to join and the live chat, but he says, I refuse to pay Steve Hayward forty dollars a year. He doesn't.
He doesn't happen.
He's not paying any attention, right, Yeah, he's not paying any attention at all.
I don't and he can pay me, but he doesn't need to pay Steve.
Look, if all it takes fifty bucks for us to get philled to shut up, I'm happy to put the whole barrier up there.
Very nice. Our friend John Sound also joined.
Oh right, So John Fund and I have a secret of side together, which is we are huge fans of The Prisoner, the English show of course TV show, which is amazing. And uh I sat there with him for an hour to conference where he explained all these secrets to the show I had, which I had seen many times. I had no idea. It was amazing. He is like, well this is He's like a wizard guru of the prisoner. It was astounding. I learned so many things about the
show from him. And for those of you who know, it is about a spy who's kidnapped, but he doesn't know which side kidnapped him, and he's put in this little village, which I think is called Port Marion. Is that what's called in England? Which is like this strange it looks like a Disneyland. It's like an Englishman's version
of Disneyland. It's like fake city, fake things. But now after talking to him, I actually want to go visit this town which exists, which you can go visit and hang out in, so I want to.
I think it's uh, I think it's down on Cornwall or Devonshire. But John, I mean, this is obvious. You wouldn't know this. And why John fun does is that that was that was an early, very big hit with libertarians. I mean, that's it's part of the libertarian it's part of libertarian it's part of the libertarian canon.
John, so oh, I didn't know that. Of course you don't, so I know nothing about it. It all up, Phil is this joint which means he cought for No, we didn't.
Anybody quit giving disinformation, John, Okay.
First issue of that, of course, is the Iran War. And I want to defend Steve and I because we made a prediction at the end of the last podcast when we were asked by Lucretian whether we thought that there were the nicest to attack Iran, and we were criticized, I'm told because I don't read the comments, but people say my co host said we were criticized for getting it wrong. We did not get it wrong. Steve and
I said that we would attack Iran within the next week. Well, I thought I attack Iran within the next week.
But I.
Thought I was pretty far out on the limbs saying I don't think it's gonna happen imminently.
I think it's got another few weeks to play out. But I did say that wasn't it.
Actually happening as we were actually giving time. Yeah, you know, like in the morning.
In the air from the era we were talking, so that, by the way, that's why I thought this week we should offer our stock market picks.
Since we were so lusty.
We will run. Jesus, I know they're so lack confidence. Well, we're totally right.
And you guys didn't even respond to when you started in on your South Korean stock market nonsense, and I said, you can't even even come close to the Lucretia investment strategy. I kept telling mister Lucretia, I want my own gold bar, and I wouldn't do it. He wouldn't do it. He wouldn't do it, so I wouldn't bought my own at twenty one twenty one hundred dollars an ounce about a year ago. And guess how much money I have now in that nice little gold bar. So I'm very happy.
One fifty three sixty announced the last I saw.
Yeah, it's actually down this week.
I'm not sure howth which is kind of a surm No, but you would have thought it would have gone up along with oil prices.
I still made a lot of money.
Look, investments are going to be gold bars, ammunition and like that one years worth of freeze dried food.
Now again, I'm like you. The one thing I've ever agreed with you about John is I'm not too worried about having more than a month's supply of food because one way or the other, I'll get it because I have it.
Okay, So the war, Oh yeah, Lucretia, do you think this is a big mistake? Aren't you the most mega person on the podcast? And isn't Mega up in arms about this neo comperson president who's achieving everything Tick Cheney wished we could have done in the first the second Persian administrations. Christian, what do you think about the Iran War?
I do think that Iran is It's certainly an existential threat to Israel. We have been at war technically, I think you could say, at least from Iran the writing point of view, since nineteen seventy nine. I'm old enough to remember watching our hostages, watching the United States be humiliated by those Muslim islam skum people in Iran, and
I'm very glad to see them go. And the fact I don't see a lot of people commenting about this, but the fact that they are that Iran is attacking all of those other Middle Eastern states seems to me to be really stupid on their part. I don't really quite follow what the idea behind that is. Do they expe fact that they'll just cower and say, oh, we're going to join back up with you or something. Maybe
you guys can explain that one to me. But I am I am one hundred percent behind Trump and hag Seth on this, and I do not believe that this is a Neocon attack. I hope it doesn't last a long time. I don't think it's a forever war. I do believe many of you saw my ex posts that this is that forever wars are a choice. Choice is made by by corrupt politicians to make sure that they can the funnel millions and probably billions of dollars to their friends. This is not one of those.
You might have seen today that the President demanded the unconditional surrender, which he qualified a good IDEA big mistake.
Well, I mean you mean he qualified in the sense of saying I want to have a say in it.
He qualified by saying he qualified by saying that an unconditional surrender did not necessarily mean that a non existent current leadership would come down and raise a white flag. It meant that their military capabilities would be completely destroyed. It will not he qualified it by saying it would not require someone whoever, whomever that might be, to come out and say we unconditionally surrender.
Plus yeah, well he said something in the same treat about wanting to pick the next leadership of Iran in there too, which is kind of like unconditional surrender.
Yeah, I mean, I think if yeah, I mean, I think that qualification means it's not really unconditional surrender, or certainly not the way it was meant in World War Two, which there's a live argument now about whether it was a mistake to do that back then. Now, I do think it should be said two things. One is, there's several surveys out showing overwhelming Republican support for Trump on this.
But I think beyond that, if you go back ten years now, Trump was of course a great critic of the you know, Iran and Iraq war, stupid wars overseas, but he's never been a total non interventionist. He never joined with the hardcore MAGA people about being down on Ukraine. He was always conditional about that right, and of course we sawt in the first term, especially with the killing with Solo money. He says, a man not averse to using some force in the matter. So I think we
shouldn't be surprised. And I don't think the Iranian should have thought that they could have bluff Trump through by stringing him out as long as they did, even although I think now what we know is it took time to prepare this operation. It's really quite impressive. And I'll say, to me, the most significant thing of the week, and I'm trying to pick on things that what won't be rendered obsolete by events in the next twenty four hours
or so. But to me, the most significant thing of the week was the sinking of the Iranian destroyer out in the open ocean. What a couple thousand miles away from the battle for right?
Why is that important to me?
That?
Why is that significant?
Game? That's just because I can see in your bookshelves you have the game Battleship back there you put the little things? Yeah, too far you hit my battleship. Heyward's a big fan of that game. Yeah.
No, I think why you're thinking about.
An Iranian destroyer out near Sri Lanka important?
Well, I think it's important for this reason.
I mean, look, they we easily could have said, and I think by the way any other administration would have sent some message through the Indians or somebody, you can't sail that ship back to your country. You need to be quarantined in uh, in India or straight Lanka for the duration of whatever, of however long this goes on. We did that kind of sort of with a couple of German ships in World War Two. You know, they
steamed Harguay and stayed there for the whole war. Uh Instead, the signal it sends is we really do mean it. We're not gonna We're not pussy footing around here. We're gonna do absolutely everything to degrade your military, and if that means shooting your your your top line brand new ships, practically, I understand that we're gonna do all that. It reminded me I've been you know, I thought to myself, I haven't had a good analogy for a while to annoy Lucretia.
But it reminds me. It's not identical, but it does remind me, and I dusted off my old Churchill old books to look it up. You know.
In July of nineteen forty till only three weeks after France had capitulated the Germans and The terms included the French fleet was supposed to be surrendered to the Germans or Italians, and a lot of the French navy said, we won't do it, We'll defect to the British. We don't want to do that. But some stayed loyal to Vischi and said they were going to submit. So what did Churchill do? He told them, you either submit to us or we sink your fleet. He didn't want to
do that. In fact, even though Churchill was cheered for he did that, he did sink the fleet in Iran. Many hundreds of French sailors who weeks before were Allies were killed in that raid, and Churchill was cheered in the House of Commons. He was personally very upset and depressed about it because he really didn't want to do it but thought he had to.
But most important was what he called later the moral effect of it.
And it emerged later that Franklin Roosevelt took note of that and said, ah, that was the moment we know that Churchill meant it about winning, and that was the moment. By the way, Roosevelt turned on his ambassador to Great Britain, one Joseph Kennedy, you remember who kept saying anyone's finished, We shouldn't try and.
Help these guys.
It's hopeless, right, And that's when Roosevelt said, no, these guys are actually going to win, and they just showed me why.
And so I think there's something like that.
I think the moral effect of thinking that ship is quite dramatic, and you got to be.
A signal to everybody that we really mean business.
Well, I think the more important thing that happened this week is it proved what an absolute moron, idiot, incompetent white lily lily livered boob what Barack Obama was.
Evidence of that.
So now, yeah, now, not only has his signature domestic supposed a chief been proven to be an unmitigated disaster Obamacare if you're not following that, one his supposed great uh international Florid affairs achievement, you know, dropping literally hallets of cash, millions and millions of dollars on the Iranians in order to keep them from pursuing their nuclear weapons, which, of course you know he was just what a patsy
he is? What everything about that man is despicable, including his choice of wives.
Oh no, no, I'll be done so Okaya. You know when when you remember Missus Obama said something like when they go low, we go high, but then dragged them.
That is high. That's the highest phrase I can think of for either one of them. I'm done.
So, Lucretia, let me ask you this about what's going on in Iran because it ties back to your question of what does Iran do? They start buying off missiles at everybody, even people trying to help them. Is it the Iranian strategy just to try to destabilize the Middle East as badly as possible and the hope this will put pressure on the Trump administration to end the war
earlier than at once. And is it that a worry that the Mega Wing that you used to be a member of what seemed to be no longer was mostly worried about, was that this would just drag the United States into, you know, another quagmire in the Middle East. Is this not going to be another Iraq that We're going to have to come in and clean everything up and in all these destabilized countries and as a result, we're going to get stuck again.
No, I don't believe that's going to happen. Number One, Number one. I refuse to be put in dumb categories. I am not going to be put into a neocon or non neocon or any of those dumb categories. I don't know about Mega. I do believe in making America great, and I do believe in America first. I believe that
our actual in Iran are America first. I also believe that if how do I say this differently, if you think about the culture, the religion, the societal situation, environment atmosphere in Iran and compare that to Afghanistan for instance, or even Iraq, I mean, there's possibilities for the Persian people that were probably never possibilities. Let me give you this example. Trump didn't go in there saying, oh.
Whatever we do, we can't have people be islamaphobes, and Islam is a religion of peace, and whatever you do, don't go around these prejudicial against Islam and Muslims.
You know he knows better than that. That was George Bush's stupid, moronic Oh I think even But anyway, no, I don't think it's that. I think I do think America's security will be enhanced by regime toppling. I don't know that we have to do that all ourselves. I think the Persian people are and I'm gonna call them the Persian people, Steve, are going to take that on themselves. And you know they're they're closer to Western people than or were than probably anybody in the Middle East other
than the Israelis. Anyway, I think I'm gonna support Trump throughout this. I know you're gonna go on to the next question, so I won't. I won't preempt you about it. But I think the Democrats' responses to this are not just disingenuous, lying and all of that, but but I think they're harmful. I think that they're an American and that I can't believe that they hate Trump so much that they're doing what they're doing. But I'll but Steve made a couple of faces at me, So.
Let me Steve.
One question, maybe to prompt more from you, is does the Trump administration really have an endgame here that's achievable? President Trump seems to think that there will be an uprising by the Iranian people to overthrow any government. We don't really, but was that really going to happen when all the guns are in the hands of the regime and you have. Of course, millions of people clearly would like to be free of this regime, but they have
no means to carry it out. And if they can't, then what's the What is the endgame without any kind of rebellion? Are we just going to keep bombing them and bombing them until what happens? That's the question? What is the end game here? Steve?
Yeah, right, well there, I mean, there is this question, a live question about whether we can affect regime change from bombing alone.
And Hegseth said he hasn't rule out.
Boots on the ground, which I do wish heg Seth would think decaf sometimes. But anyway, it's well, you are hearing that we might be mobilizing the Kurds.
Who are they? You'd be happy to sweep?
We know it might be we are well.
Look, I know it's in the news, but I think we don't know for sure.
Look, you always take all these news reports with a grain of salt, because I bet our news people don't know what they're right.
Well okay, well maybe.
Well maybe you have their sources, but look, I mean, mobilizing the Curds is not going to please the Turks or the iraqis right. Although I've long thought we ought to establish a Kurdistan. I don't know what the hold up is anything.
Anyway, Turkey is a whole other crazy situation. Sorry, it didn't mean to interrupt, but well, I.
Write the country Lucretia wants to bomb. Oh wait, no, she says again.
Well, look, I mean act, but don't go back briefly do that. We didn't.
Oh oh, now, now this is awesome.
Okay, let's talk about the next thing, which is the legal issue related to the So you you said you wanted you were previewing it there just a second ago. But Lucretia, what do you think about the president's U support without any congressional approval? And then this week, just yesterday, the House failed to block the war. The Senate failed the day before, but you saw Rand Paul and Representative
Massey voting with the Democrats to stop the war. What do you what do you think about the constitutional issue?
And so let's yeah, let's talk about that because that's something you and I both sort of focus on. I teach the War Powers Act to my students in the Presidency class and the con lag you know, Separation of Powers class and here's the point. Leave aside whether or not the War Powers Act is unconstitutional for a moment. That's a secondary issue. The first issue is every president since it was passed, starting with Ford, has used the War Powers Act to its advantage. It has ended up
being in almost every president. It has ended up being a grant of power to the president. And you know, Congress has come along and then passed other kinds of authorizing statutes and so on. But right now Trump is
perfectly within his War Powers Act powers in what he's done. Now, if sixty days goes by and Congress doesn't do anything, and he pushes the issue, But anybody who might not know the War Powers Act requires before a president introduces troops into areas where there our hostilities or hostilities are imminent,
he must get the approval of Congress. But if he does it without the approval of Congress, he has to make a report within forty eight hours of said introduction of troops into hostilities or areas of where hostilities are imminent. Trump did that, and that starts the sixty day period. Now, I mean, I heard Reuben Diego, who maybe dumber than Horano and AOC and the guy with the Puerto Rico,
tipping over Guam, tipping over put together. I could not believe bretbar put that idiot on to actually try to defend the democratic position. But Trump has done what is legal under the War Powers Act, and again, why are they complaining about it? Repeal the War Powers Act and then you do. Then Trump has a whole different constitutional argument to make. But right now, statutorily, according to Congress, he is perfectly in the rights doing what he's doing. Am I wrong about that?
John?
Well, actually, you know you're quite writing or reading of the statute. It says presidents need the approval of Congress to have troops and air of hostilities when they there past sixty days. So as you say, there's a sixty day clock, and.
You can go to ninety to bring them back, seat to bring.
Them back again, another thirty days to bring them back. But Trump's within the sixty days, in fact the first president. And now what people have observed is it's almost like a congressional admission. As you say that the presidents have this discretion, and as you say, also most presidents never conceded the legality of the Act, but acted within the sixty days. It's actually Bill Clinton, who was the first
president to actually just outright violate the clock. The air war in Kosovo went on for longer than sixty days, and Congress never authorized it. And that, by the way. One other thing about your point about legality is there was a lawsuit brought by Tom Campbell, Stanford law professor, expert on separation of powers, who represented the Palo Alto District.
And there's a case called Campbell versus Clinton, which I teach in law school because it's the highest court, the d. C. Circuit is really the highest court to ever write way in on this. In the DC Cirkus said, deciding on war and Congress versus the president is a political question, and it's outside judicial competence. Let the Congress and president fight it out. And I think that's actually accurate, that
that's really what's happened. The other thing about whether one way to read the law is that it doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. It doesn't say what happens at the end of sixty days. It says the president has to pull out the troops.
What happens if he doesn't.
So I've always read it as it's Congress promising, it's going to do something at the end of the clump, but then they never do anything.
Well, isn't there one more issue, John, And that's the legislative veto, which is which you know, essentially the requirement that both houses of Congress in order to when they have already authorized the president to do something when they must act in order to keep they passed the law, and now it requires their action once they've authorized the president. It's essentially a legislative veto, which the Supreme Court declared
to be on constitutional in I ins versus Chada. Nobody's made that argument specifically, probably because they use the legislati veto all the time anyway. But again, it mixes up the way the Constitution wants congressional and executive power to work, especially in the area of foreign affairs. The whole point behind the War Powers Act was to make sure that something like Vietnam didn't happen again, you know. But they had authorized the president in Vietnam with the tonkuin Golf resolutions.
And they didn't need the War Powers Resolution because they ended the war by cutting off funding.
And that's hadding off funding, which is their constitutional power they should be.
Your argument has always been that the real check on the president's war making power is not declaring war or not declaring war, but just cutting off funds. And one piece of I think why this is historically true is because before nineteen forty five we didn't have a large standing army. So anytime the president really wanted to go to war, he had to go to Congress and say, please build me the military to fight the war. And the funding check this draws more of my time working
in Congress. The funding check is a perfect check because if you do nothing, nothing happens. If you do nothing and pass no bill, the funding ceases.
So it's only the check.
Actually is overridden only when Congress decides to pass the law to add more money to the military coffers. And so if you have a fifty point one percent majority of the House that doesn't want this, or the Senate that doesn't want a war to go on, just they just have to not pass the law, not pass an appropriation, and modern warfare will come to Hull because it's so expensive and we are drawing down so severely on our
munition thoughts that they have to be replenished. That apparently President Trump is going to come to Congress in a week or two and ask for more funds or they around.
War will stop?
Will it stop? I mean, we do have the appropriations through September thirtieth.
Remember you need the ability to reprogram, so you have. I mean, there's limits on how much money you can move around within the Defense Department budget.
The other anyway, I just think I'm sorry. My only point is is that I am constantly amazed by the gas lighting of Democrats on this issue. And a few were about to ask you.
That the consistency issue.
Where was everybody when President Obama launched an air war in Libya? And actually, if you want to call if the Venezuelan intervention had a parallel in the nineteen eighty nine Georgia hw Bush invasion of Panama, this war has a closer parallel than people think. In twenty eleven, without a declaration of war offation, President Obama launched an air war in Libya which was designed to overthrow the regime of Kadaffi.
And it did, and it did, and of course it made Libya much worse place. But that's a different story. I I you know, actually you should be the one challenging me to tell me what national security interest we had in toppling Kadaffi in twenty eleven, I think we were still in our make the Middle East safer democracy sort of mindset. I don't think there was any American national security interests, you know, central national security interest in the same way that I believe there is in Iran.
I mean, we can You've seen the memes where they list what do we ever do to you? And then you know it's just time after time after time where Iran is behind killing American citizens, killing American troops, et cetera, et cetera, both directly but mostly of course through their proxy.
Well, this is where I think international law has in a way corrupted our domestic arguments, because you heard several members of Congress say, uh, there was no imminent threat from Iran. That's not a requirement in the Constitution for military action that there will be an imminent threat from
another country. That is a standard from international law. There is this idea that to adequately I'm sorry, to have an adequate justification for the right to use force and self defense, there has to be an imminent threat of attack.
This is actually a natural law question.
The cretiation this is This is the puzzle me, this great natural law scholar trusts. The thing that's interesting to me is that so the natural law of self defense between two individuals, between you and me, is governed by the idea of right.
You can you can use.
Force, violent force, deadly force to defend yourself, and you can't. You don't have to wait for the attack to fall upon you. If you see the other person coming at you right, pulling the gun out of the holster, you're allowed to shoot first. You don't have to wait for the other person to shoot you before you respond. That's called anticipatory self defense. Why does that rule? Why should that rule apply between nations? Has the same roots in
the natural law. The international law is probably the purest form of natural law still in use, I think, But why should that govern between nations? It makes total sense to me as governing between people. But why should natural law principles like that government between the US and Iran.
I'm not sure that they do, John, I don't think so. I you know, I mean, it takes a lot of stretch to get to the point where one sovereign people becomes an entity that possesses rights they don't. I think that what has happened over time is that this is how I would put it, and I'll try to do
this quickly. A sovereign people in a country, based upon consent, based upon the idea that it was put together for the safety and happiness of the citizens of that sovereign nation, recognizes that the decision to go to war, the decision to attack another country, or the decision to provide for their security is you know that decision has limitations, you don't,
you know? I mean, I suppose you could say, if you're the most powerful country in the world, as the US has been many times, we could have just wiped all the other nations off the planet and then we'd have been fine. But we don't operate that way because there are prudential considerations. John that I.
Think my life, he just ruins such a beautiful discussion.
But you know what I mean, we and we see that. Even you have said on several occasions when when like the Venezuela, the bombing of the boats, taking the boats out of the water, the drug boats out of the water. Cartels, yeah, the drug cartels, even you have said the Trump administration could do a better job of explaining why they're doing this.
You said that on this podcast. You said, and what that means to me is in a republican form of government, you do have to make the reasoned, rational argument and get support from the people. Now Iran doesn't have to do that, obviously, and that has to be part of our calculation. So it really becomes much more complicated, I think than just I won't. I'll shoot you if you look like you're going to be taking away my glass of scotch.
Actually, that's such a good point because Steve was so eager to get us to talk about beef products that we didn't go through what we were drinking with creature. What are you drinking?
I'm I'm about to get myself fired because I'm actually drinking a Glenn footage a fourteen year old in sherry cask that I've stuck to my drawer because I'm at my office at school and it's.
I think your freedom of religion includes the right to consume alcohol. But I know Phil Lenez would disagree because because he's listening, he doesn't think any of these rights are enforceable in court for some reason. I, however, am drinking HB flavored. This is great chib, which is another thing I discovered in Texas along with BUCkies, has its online and basically everything. And this is sparkling water peach guava flavored. Oh I'm feeling fruitier just by drinking it.
You're looking fruitier.
We have announces for our listeners. I'm sorry, but as you may have noticed, the content of the podcast got so much better and more serious because Steve Heyward dropped out and so we have technical difficulties with Steve. So yes, Steve has started a new live stream. What we're gonna do is close this one down. I'm afraid Steve is going to send invites to everybody and he's instructing us all to rejoin the other one. So please close this one.
I hope this works. Please close this one, and we will now.
All hope to see you on the other side.
Steve.
You can tell what Steve was like as a kid when he was kicked out of the game. He took all the toys and went to his own treehouse, and now we have to go to his treehouse. Okay, bye. At the other live stream.
Hey, everybody, it's Steve. I don't know what went wrong here today.
A lot to learn still about how the substack platform works, but it certainly seems less flexible than zoom. In any case, it turns out the patch to our second segment coming up shortly is very abrupt. So I thought I would just stop and take the time here for a commercial announcement.
Which is I want to thank.
All of the listeners and readers who in the last several weeks have signed up to be paying subscribers. Now I'm totally doing a substack model wrong. Everyone is supposed to do some free content and then some paid content behind a paywall to drive people will like you to subscribe to get the third of the content that you can't get for free. I don't like that model. My content is going to stay free. But I'm really grateful to all of you who have signed up to be
paying subscribers. It's a great vote of confidence. And by the way, from as near as I can tell looking at other substacks.
The subscription rate of the total.
Readership is as high or maybe higher than a lot of the mercenaries out there on substack who are trying to make a living out of it. I'm not trying to make a living out of it, but I do like to generate enough revenue so I can pay all the contributing writers like Ammogirl and Max Cossack and Lloyd and others for their regular contributions and support.
So I'm very grateful for all that. Thanks a ton. I'm going to do a.
Reader's survey soon, by the way, to see what you'd like to see. I've kind of backed off from my long and admittedly turgid academic ramblings, although there's a lot.
Of people who like all that.
All that, by the way, a number of people early on signed up to be founding subscribers, which is like two hundred dollars or something that's the default of substack. I didn't pick that, and those are.
The people who really hate Bernie Sanders, and I'm so grateful for all of you.
In any case, we're gonna get back right now to the rest of the show.
It's very abrupt.
I caught, for whatever reason, it catches John almost mid sentence saying we'll see if this podcast is like Godfather one and Godfather Too or something silly like that, because he is silly like that. So without further ado, we're gonna jump right back into it, very abruptly.
Right now was Godfather too better than Godfather One? Was preveng that Jedi better than Is the sequel going to be better than the original?
Uh?
Yeah right, hot boy, that is really weird. Anyway, I couldn't see to figure out how to get back.
You're getting buzzy a couple of times. So Steve, I was a little worried.
I'll bet yeah, I can't tell you the live stream comments. I guess we've lost them.
All.
We're going on about how the podcast suddenly improved about ten minutes ago.
You are so bad. People are like, what happened?
This is the content just got so much more sophisticated.
I was like, I can't tell me what we're gonna get even with you. Okay, So that was just strange.
I mean, so Steve, let me pull you into it and ask you a simple question. Can you tell me what our national security interests were in boming Libya in twenty eleven?
Oh?
Good question. I don't know, because you know, Lebya became very very.
Quiet after literally after nine to eleven, when I think they were worried that we were going to attack.
Them normally not they turned over their nuclear weapons right and their Nuclear Act because they were afraid we were going to bomb a month in two thousand and three.
Right, yeah, that's right, and and that interesting. I don't know what the problem was then, I think I don't remember.
Now, well, I guess go ahead, go ahead.
You get an Let's move on to issue three, because actually there's a great segue between issues two and three, which was natural law. So I just want to put a pin in that last discussion. Steve was not present for Steve, you missed out on ten minutes of discussion of natural law. Oh man, we're not going to let you come in late on it.
Sorry. Well, the first time I know this was great.
For the first time when it was just lucretia, I finally understood what the hell you guys were talking about. No, you don't just kidding, No, I don't.
But the pen in it is.
I just want to put the pin in the issue, which is, why should natural law govern relations with states between states the way they government relations between individuals, Because the rules on self defense between nations is almost identical
and it comes from the same source as self defenstration. Anyway, let's talk about that another time, but yet another I hate to say this, I hate to say this another victory for natural law, which I will describe now and ask for your commentary, which is this week, the Supreme Court in a sixty three vote a case called Mirrabelli Mirabelli Right Beautiful View versus Bonta Bonta the Anhi Mirrabelli. I just want to get that in before Lucretia attacked
his looks with her look is on. The Supreme Court struck down a California law which have been causing a lot of controversy in California, which for Bay teachers, for Bay teachers from telling parents of children that their children were engaged in gender changes, name changes, pronoun changes. And the thing that's interesting is, uh. I think there were two challenges. One was this, I think the teachers were claiming they had a First Amendment right here to disclose
to the parents. But the courts said, the reason why, this is really the reason why this protection for right transgenderism was unconstitutional, was that interfered with the right of the parents to raise their children. Now, this is not in the text of the Constitution, and the court admitted it. What they said is this is the substance of due process right of parents that has been recognized for the Court for about one hundred years.
Now, well, yeah, the Oregon case, right, the Oregon case from nineteen twenty here here here.
Yeahs the most famous. There's another one called Meyer. This is seriously that you know. For example, the Meyer versus Nebraska, if I remember correctly, was a state law that prohibited did parents from teaching their children German. Yeah, that was it, right, which seems to me a very sensible law. I mean, there's more languages other than German. Yes, why should we
love them learn of the language of our enemies. But anyway, so the Court has always said that there is some kind of natural right of parents to control the education upbringing in their children.
But it's not in any constitutional text.
So, Steve, how do you reconcile this idea that parents have this right with the text of the Constitution, which doesn't say anything about parents or children, actually doesn't use the words are we Are.
We really doing this again? I can't believe it. We make no progress with you, John, we just did. Well, Okay, I wasn't. I wasn't there. I wasn't I didn't see it.
Well, look, well, let me work backwards here. I think think for the left The most terrifying part of this decision is not specifically the issue itself, it hasn't worked up, but the fact that somebody was it. Gorsuch said, actually
used the phrase substance of due process. Yeah, yeah, And if that's going to come back from the new semi conservative lucretious grimacing, she doesn't like this idea, But the point is is that that suggests that the Court is ready to say, wait a minute, there are principles, deep principles beyond the Constitution anchor a natural law that leads to an easy result of saying, if we're not going to respect parents' rights over their own families, then something's
gone badly awry, right. I mean, this is like the debate over the expost facto clause we've talked about several times, where James Wilson others.
Said, we don't need to put that in there.
It's kind of obvious the Constitution did not need to put in something about parental rights, because no one in seventeen eighty seven would have thought a statute such as the one you have in California made any sense at all.
And so I don't know, I don't think it's that hard result to get to.
I think it cretybody who studied a little bit of Aristotle understands that there's no basis for a political community that doesn't start with the family, and a good political community. The best regime, of course is the tilos. It's the.
End.
But all political relations actually start with the family. And the relationship between parents and children is well outlined there and has been understood again, probably more than expost facto. That's why cringe just a little bit when you said that until you sort of clarified, you meant that it didn't need to be included in the constitution discussion at the convention. But I think that it is part of the agenda of the left, the project of the left,
among other things, completely to destroy the family. We know that the Communists did that. All you have to do is read Witness by uh Whitaker Chambers and and and all sorts of other things they abs or Elena. Elena is the name of the the nonfiction work about the guy's mom in Greece. When the Communists take over. All you have to do is read that. You can see that what what cop think about ilia Ilian Gonzalez. The idea is to destroy the family structure and replace it with well whatever.
Uh.
In the case of our leftists, they just they want to destroy Western civilization. That's the reason for promoting trans It's the reason, you know, for all of those things. And so I don't know when you're when you're a court, you always want to be careful how you do those things. I hate to see them go to the substantive due process clause. But since the cat is out of the bag that we're now originalists, they have to have something. I prefer the Privileges and Immunities clause.
Yeah, but that's right. No, I'd like that one better too. Look, I'll sort of add this way, you don't have to even read actually, just read.
The communists themselves, going back even before Marx, right, and and and this is kind of in Plato a little bit of though he's probably mischievous, but today it's well understood that the yes, but I don't want to do that now.
It takes too long.
The point is was joking when he talked about the kids away and raising them, you know, yes, for now service to the state.
You had to do it, didn't you.
Really, How are I supposed to know which parts of Plato.
Or no, no, oh God, here we go again. Talk about Plato.
Literally, he doesn't want that was what I.
Was gonna ask next. Ye leave Plato out of this for today.
Look, you're talking about Aristotle. I thought we were that there was a social contract in the state of nature. Where did this family is the structure of all politics?
Oh that's modern. Never mind.
Look, the point is it's clear from social science, which is maybe we'll get to maybe we won't, is that.
The family today is the.
Greatest engine of inequality as the left things of it right. They want straighted galitarianism, and you know, you go back to feet playo, just go back to the early socialists of the early nineteenth century before Marx does the Dialectic, and they all said, yeah, if you're going to have equality, we have to nationalize the children. And I do think that's the animating principle. I think I agree withly Creciate
about the left hatred for our civilization. You know what Roger Scrutin called the culture repudiation.
But you don't have to go that far.
The family is the obstacle to every egalitarian design today.
Yes, doesn't want to do force childcare. I mean that that's sort of like his number one policy initiative is this free childcare. And I see, I mean, I couldn't give a damn New Yorker's are so stupid they get what they deserve.
Any Thai family, he would say, that's pro family, wouldn't he.
No, it is that not Crow family. Yeah, it's a little bit like what Plato talked about. And I'll leave it at that.
But he was joking. I hear, gosh, I didn't not know. Plato was so funny.
Hilarious, and you know what Strauss says about it, It was the greatest tragedy of history that that Plato resurfaced amongst the Germans with their cosmic lack of a sense of humor or something.
Almo, So let me ask for one follow up, Steve, wait a second, I just have to stick in here that Lucretian and I have been saying for years.
Let me notice our teachers that the problem with Marx is he read Plato and didn't get the joke. Turns out that John Hugh doesn't. John Hugh doesn't get the joke either.
I don't get the which you guys are gonna have to get me. Like the edited version with the parts that you think he's joking highlighted and then the other stuff not highlighted.
So why don't we do let's do a whole half episode about that sometimes? Yeah, wait, could they be fun educating? Right?
But one more question, though, is suppose I agreed with you that more as a matter of morality, we should not allow the government to dictate or interfere with the way parents raise their children. And this is really I think the Scalia point is why is it the job of the courts to do that? If it really is a matter of such strong universal morality, then we should allow the states to decide. For example, we do that now with abortion right. That was the great argument that
conservatives made against abortions. Why should the courts intervene about abortion right? So let each state decide it for itself. And look, I live in California. If my crazy co residents want pass this stupid bill then and they want to destroy the family in California, then that's the mistake of Californians. And people can leave or change the government. But why should the courts be the ones to enforce morality rather than the legislatures.
Well, first of all, all legislatures enforce. All they do is enforce morality. Let's be very clear about that. Every decision they make is a moral decision. And this idea that you can separate law from morality is just stupid. But I'll leave that one aside. And it's not a joke. Some of the decisions made by say, pro life Catholics, to make it a little simpler, were, again John prudential decisions.
Get as much good and eliminate as much evil as possible with the You know, so, if rather than a national right to abortion and all of the horrible things that that brings with it, you leave the question of abortion to the states where it's easier to push an agenda against it, leave it at that. It's every decision a legislature makes affects some moral question. Even if it's a taxation decision, it's it's who should be text and why should they be taxed? Is it? Do we have
a moral favoritism for poor over rich? So we're going to tax the rich. We're going to tax it very wealthy in California because they're bad people for being so wealthy. I mean, don't kid yourself. Every single law makes some kind of moral judgment.
Oh, I agree with you. I think the Sclia point is make the legislatures do it. For example, and every question like this question of the family, why is it the job of the judiciary to stop that from happening? With this issue of our transgender children and the family, Steve.
Well, I could say a bunch about this, including you know, our friend Halie Arcis.
By the way, if Phil Munoz is still back with us, he's having an embolism right now.
John over the way he did that question, he's not okay because he had.
The embolism during the previous session, so he could a sign on. Because Steve's screwed up the technology and feeling.
That is no, and it was Irnian hackers. I think that.
Well, you know, it's they wouldn't have kept you. Steve, Well, you okay.
I looked at you know, like our friend Hadley Arcus and Jerry Bradley, they were disappointed with the.
Abortion decisions for not going far enough right. They they did it on very minimalist grounds.
Because I think had the and others and I think the serious pro lifers say we ought to declare a personhood for unbrown children under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that's probably a bridge too far politically and judicially. It does remind me a little bit, in a different context of McCauley's great line about the Toleration Act, where you said.
Oh, there, well, that it was not an analogy.
I'm just, uh, you know what is Macaulay's line about the Toleration Act in sixteen eighty eight was it removed a great evil without disturbing a vast mass of prejudice. So what you have here is a public opinion that is confused, I think, but certainly a large plurality favors abortion. It's lumpy by states. California's probably seventy percent, Texas less so.
And the point is is that you now have a nuptia put it well, I think reduced the number of abortions that you're going to happen, although so far un much for the numbers bear that out. But your question about the judiciary. Just this week I taught the old New York case of Rigs versus I forget Who. This is a case of a kid who had murdered his grandfather in whose will he'd been named as the heir before his.
Grandfather could change the will.
And it was of course sentenced to a prison for the murder, but he claimed his inheritance and the judges said, now, wait a minute, you can't.
What's the old old joke about the.
Person whos his parents and ask for orphan right, the court said, we're not going through that logic. Person is not A person is not entitled to benefit from a wrong, a clear wrong like this. Even though the dissent in that case said, wait, we can't do this. The statute says he's you know, a state law says he's the heir.
We have to execute it that way. Right.
So in an other cases like that usv. Kirby on the US attorney who arrested the sheriff in Ohio for arresting a murderer who was on a barge, a male carrying barge the Ohio River, and the charge was you impeded the mail. There's a statute against that, and it was pink. Court made quick work of that, saying this is silly, right. It was under Stephen Field opinion.
Right. So I don't think there's that much difficulty.
It's only a moral skeptic like you who think there's a problem with the court stepping up when they need.
To, well, when there's a warm court in charge, I really don't want them to do it. Okay, one last issue though, Do we have time to get to it?
I don't think we do.
But no technical difficulties have atten to an hour.
I'll bring up a topic that you you next, but I'm actually very much interested in, and that is the Texas Senate race. Okay, bye bye, Jasmine. I I won't have to ask you anymore questions. She's still complaining that everybody, everybody and their brother was either stupid or cheated. But anyway, Uh, I actually Tallaricoes. Oh my god, you guys can talk about him. I don't think he's worth the breath if he but I want to talk about uh. And you know when we're when we're recording this, Trump has not
made his endorsement. Ken Paxton has come out, which I think is with a very statesmanlike proposal. I will step down. I will get out of the race if if that scumbag John Corny, and you know I despise him for a lot of reasons that if he Yeah, I do. When we talked about the Johns way back when who was going to take over from from the disinterred turtle.
When boy, you're hit. You're hitting some new highlights today.
Yes I am, and you guys write those down.
No.
But but John Cornyn had literally tens of millions of dollars spent as an incumbent to beat James Talerico by what one percentage point or something like that? You may, I mean, I mean Paxton. Sorry, sorry, that's what I meant. I am not sure that Paxton couldn't win that race. And if it were up to me, if I were Trump, I would say, Okay, here's your deal, folks, you Rhino senate Republicans, Stune and all the rest of those. Either you pass to say back this week, or I'm going
to endorse Paxton. That's what I would do. And because I don't think Cornan is uh, everyone says, oh, he's the only one who could beat Tallarico, because everybody's gonna love this little cutie pie, dumbass minister God is non binary. There are six sexes, six genders. I guess there can't be six sexes. There can be a million genders. Because it's useless anyway. I'm done with those. I'm done with the John cornyings of the world. I'm done with the
James Tallerricos of the world. Supposedly Paxton has some kind of uh scandal in his background. I don't know what it is.
But scandal's plural scandal.
Yeah, I don't care.
I don't get your thoughts on the Texas primaries before we and and just just throughout the listeners, what we were gonna plan to talk about was why do Steve and Linda hate social science so much? But that'll be
for next week. But Steve, so your view on the Texas primary shouldn't shouldn't let me put this way, shouldn't Paxton just concede so that Republicans can rally around Cornyn and picked up an easy to win seat which they're going to need to keep for the majority when it looks like they're going to definitely lose the House this November, rather than having a Paxton, a flawed candidate, go up and potentially lose, and even if he doesn't, the Republican
pier will have to spend millions of millions to win in the seat.
Steve, well, look, I mean, I think Paxson does have a lot of baggage, but look that tall Rico.
Guy he's veto two point zero times ten.
I mean, he's the attacks on him are going to be delicious, and so I think he will not be a very good candidate.
Look, there was a third candidate.
In Republican primary, remember who got to a ten eleven twelve percent of the vote, And I.
Think those votes would have gone to Paxton.
I think if that person has not been running, people say, oh, you know, Cornan would have won and been horned.
As the Lucretia points out, was only ahead of Paxton by one point.
I've got to think that if those votes for the other person were split, Paxton would have won the primary. Because I think I'm not as down on Cornan as Lucretius.
He's voted with Trump something like ninety nine percent of the time.
He's very yeah.
Yeah, Well look, all right, those can be misleading because there has not been a boat on the say back. So all right, I don't know if he's opposed to say back.
But the question here is too he's pro SA, but he's against getting rid of the philibuster.
Well, let's see, I thought Lucretia was two when we brought this up a few days ago, and so I thought I'm not.
I'm against it too. What I'm in favor of is the talking philibuster. That's okay, Well, well they won't do it, they're too busy being on vacation.
Well okay, fine, But point number two is if you start them out on a talking filibuster, Democrats are going to be happy to plan that out for six weeks, eight weeks longer. Fine, I mean we should. I think she'd make them sleep in their darn clots. And I'm for it, except remember, if you want a supplemental defense appropriation in three or four weeks from now for the war against Iran or something else, you will not be able to do it in the Senate.
There is that trade off. Ways to think about. Well, if it wasn't we won't need it. But what if it isn't over what if you actually need the point? And what about judges?
You know we're going to try and confirm some Pelic court judges between now an election day. What if we're you know, three months into a filibuster? Because I think the Democrats will lay down front of a train on them, well I'm not surely might they might give in because the polls show that even a majority of Democrats favor voter id But just remember the one't only making is it is not without potentially serious costs and trade off to think about.
That's all. By the way, I think Cornyn was.
A political idiot for not figuring out where the winds were blowing. I think he's kind of clueless that way, and so it's his own darnfall that that.
At the same time, interesting when you saw Senator Danes, I think, right, retire and write Montana. Right, So you're saying he should Corny should have followed his example.
Well, I don't know, but fight and let.
The Republican Party pick a new candidate.
Well, but look the Montana thing, I mean, the fix was in there. I kind of like the fact that they put the fix into that. Sounds like the guy that kicked is going to be pretty good. But I don't think that's it's a different situation in Texas. I don't think the two states are equivalent.
Well, that brings us to the end of our time. So the Krisha, what uh bab you have for us?
I have to keep him uh a minimal even though I have a whole list. So let me start. We'll we'll work on the war once first, Biden asks why Trump didn't just bomb Iyatola in the leg Obama confused to see bombs falling on a ram instead of palletts of cash.
Truth. True.
Yeah, we didn't talk about Christy Nome. That's fine a lot of us.
I know, I wanted to talk about it. If you guys didn't want to.
I would have been fine. But I'll just go with the the new DHS nominee. DHS nominee Mark Wayne Mullen, who, by the way, is a former m M A fighter, which means in my house, he's very popular. DHS nominee Mark Wayne Mullen surges in popularity after vowing to deport liberal white ladies.
I like that one.
I like that one. Then you guys know that it was three hundred and fifty seven members of the House who decided not in the midst of this, this whole travesty with the Epstein What a you talk about wasting time? Nobody gives a damn about the Epstein files. Go into them, figure out what's going on, okay anyway, But they did decide not to release the records about how the seventeen million dollars that have been paid out to victims of
sexual harassment by members of Congress. Go figure. Congress pledges to work tirelessly to expose all sex criminals who aren't in Congress. Okay, this one's for you. Steve America graciously converts twenty Iranian warships into new submarine means right, Yeah, okay, this one's for are the people who pay attention to popular global leaders warned that if what w W three doesn't end soon, it could disrupt Taylor Swift's wedding. Not in these sweetees, I almost think to get the reference
in madonniae orders flags. Okay, two more Madonnie orders flags at one World Trade Center flown half staff to mourn the Ayatola. Yeah finally, Iranian generals kicking themselves for not just meeting over zoom or substances.
Yeah done.
I Before I do my normal stick, I just want to remind everyone that the Justice Department has put up all the Epstein files in a searchable database. And so I just put in Steve Hayward's name and got no hits. I put in a Kresha and I got hundreds and hundreds of hits. Chut yourself now, fears there's someone named Lucretia who was doing a lot of stuff with Epstein. But I leave that to the listeners to play the
data based on the DNJ website. Always drink your whiskey, meat, buy more hot Barbaria Texas Barbecue.
That's going to be our new sign off.
Yes, Steve, what new closing do you have in development? To recognize our move to the Civitas Institute in Texas?
Well, I think the thing to do is to say, if you if the listener's viewers are not following Cimotas Outlook where John mccreash and I are. Hey, we're all fellows now at Cimatas and b contributors to Cimotas Outlook. It's a place you should put mark. I think their editor Richard Brynch is really talented guy.
Uh and uh so you know that's a place you should now look for things. Uh. Second, you know, we want to try and class.
Up the join a little bit, and after we work out our technical difficulties from today.
Uh but we well okay.
But uh we we uh we should start doing some of the standard things listeners and say, would you please go to Apple iTunes or other others podcast source and give us a five star review.
It helps us build our audience. Symbatos will like it.
Uh.
And that's it for this week.
I care less about the reviews or the stars. Who cares what they were doing?
It for the art they promote it work, that's right. I have Well, I have a final, final, final word. And this one's for Jim who's not joined. He doesn't but he likes to watch it early in the morning when he can't sleep. This is for our listener, Jim or otherwise known as the Doppler. Oh, don't forget to milk the hard power.
Oh hard power. See that's this is.
A dividend dividend. I was thinking. I got rolled back. Yeah, I know, dividends. Don't forget it, just justice, Jean.
Can I just say look for for for recent listeners. This is a throwback to Trump one when we ended the show. Then then there's just me and Lucretian in those days. But we ended the show with Samantha Power's famous remark on election Night twenty sixteen, when Hillary Laws saying I was looking forward to milking the soft power dividend. I thought, if that isn't the perfect encapsulation of flabby
idiotic lydism. I don't know what is so we we ran with that for a long time to look got old but now more powered.
Dividend right, yeah, power power.
Yes, I'm a big book that should be like the neo Khan anthem. Anyway, run it.
Why don't you John up.
God, Burger and Paradise to have my alder?
Little don your slives. It's not too particular, non's impersize. I'm just a She's Burger and Paradise heard him out the old time sailor man. They eat the same thing again and again. Ricochet join the conversation.