Well, whiskey coming, fame, my pain, my brain, Oh whiskey, don't let me go. From Powerline blog dot com and produced by Wicochet dot com. This is the three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and Powerlines International Woman of Mystery Lucresha's gotta give me and let that whiskey blow where you're being in love down and low. Welcome everybody to
another episode of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour. I'm your host, John You, and I'm joined as always by my two co hosts, Steve Hayward, Hello Steve, Hi John, and Lucresia, the International Woman of History. Hi Lucretia, Hi John, I miss you already and then you're taking off for another country, leaving me behind very so but Lucretia. I didn't even know if Lucretia would fit. Lucretia would fit in so well in Korea, where I'm headed for a week, because Koreans have Roman virtues of the republic.
They're tough, they're tough people. Everybody a lot of Korean friends. I do, John, because my town is a military town and soldiers are are you know, stationed PCs to Korea and then come back with Korean wives. So this is a very Korean town that I live in. So um I have and and quite a few Koreans go to my uh my church, and my church often has special services just for them. And on Corpus Christie Sunday, a lot of the lovely Korean women dress up in their their what
would you call them native? Not native, that's not the right handbock, No, their native costume, their native custome to do the Corpus Christie, you know, Church of Christ, bio Christ and cool and yeah, so I'm way more Korean, a Korean Korean a file than you might think. But we're not my only Korean friend, but Lucretia and we're on zoom here. Of course, do you believe this is really John? You present? And not a chat gpt AI bought because it starts off so low key.
I mean, I'm used to John showing up on the Fox News on the Ricochet podcast and it's boom with a wise crack and his high energy guy, and here he's all low key and you take your host duties too seriously, John, that's all So yeah, I can't have enough McDonald's products today. I don't want to say, really, you should take a screenshot, because if if all of our listeners could see John tonight, not only would they be shocked and dismayed at how much of a preppy he looks like he's got
on a v nextwetter. Of course, you know, he's got his library behind him and the sweaters from and of course it's a Brooks Brothers sweater. And he's trying to get into Harvard ease they already did so even though he was Asian. That just excuse me. That just tells you how smart John is that he was able to get into Harvard before the Supreme Court opinion.
Yeah, when it was there was still racial discrimination. I actually think I should get like a contribution from every Asian parent in the country because of all the hard work for thirty years I have. I have almost by myself tripled the chances of every Asian kid of getting into Harvard. That's got to be
worth something. Yeah, And I told, I told you. I told this terrible joke on the Ricochet Main podcast when Peter Robinson said, oh, I've seen you on Fox and CNN and all these outlets about the Harvard case, and I said, you know what that is, Peter, and he said, well, I said, that's what we call the Asian victory Lap for the first and only time ever. And then, by the way, because it was it came out just a little bit after our last week podcast, but John sent it to me. I had seen it, but I
still laughed. It was the Babylon Bee that said, uh Asian American students celebrate Harvard decision by taking a five minute steady break, And I said, the Swimpson, you know, in my day would have been thirty seconds. So guys, Steve, what do you drink? Steve? What are you drinking too? Yeah? I am finishing off a bottle of Aaron A A A R R A M ten year old? Uman? What is that? It's uh? Where's it from? It's from the Isle of Erin. I think look it up here. I was gonna say, say it sounds vaguely
old Testament or you know, Game of Throne something. I don't know. Um, uh, I don't know. I don't even know where I got it, but I have it. That's very nice. Yeah, I love Aaron. Yeah, so I have a pron and pardon me, I'm choking. That is that you know I'm a morning person and John is a nice night person. We're taping this a little bit late past my drinking hour. I did have an entire bottle on my own, mostly of a beautiful Italian wine. But I want to tell you that I was able to order an
entire case. I got the very last bottle of a twenty fifteen Castello Cacciano, which is of course our good friend Genevra's winery, which is the fourth oldest family continuously operating family business in the universe, in the world, and this was an oldest winery, yes, continuously operating, and I was able to order a case of it. When I do, I'm going to save a bottle for us to have together next time we're going to get together. So it's Countess, isn't it. Don't blow our cover. Don't blow a
baroness, right, I won't. I'm not going to say anything more about her because they don't want to get him in trouble or anything like that. But but anyway, she was a lovely woman that we all adore from Italy, and she happens to be married to a baron who lives in a castle. They both live in a castle, from the eleventh century and his families
and making wind there for eight hundred years or something. You know. Believe the other the other part of the story is that they're mentioned in Dante's Infernos, one of the families of Tuscany. Yeah. Really, there's this dream named after them in Florence. Yeah, oh my goodness. Yea. So anyway, you know, our listeners probably love the idea of me taking them to McDonald's, but I didn't get a chance. Next time, next time they visit, I'm going to introduce them to the joys of American cuisine.
But wait a minute, I have to ask you, John, how was horseback riding? Ah? So, you know, entertaining Italians is never just a simple walk down the road or a little hike. My Italian visitors because Stephen Lucretia took them around a little bit down San Francisco and then they bailed out on me, and I was responsible responsible for all these Italians for the next few days. So I said, what would you like to do? And I thought they might like to see, you know, like the Chance
of America you're amid Yeah, our library. No, they wanted to go horseback riding along the ocean. So I had to figure out. Oh my butt still hurts. I had to go to I don't understand. I'm like, how did mankind survive before the combustion engine? I mean that was painful, right? And what did you do when you ran out of quarters? John, I was really riding a real horse. I photographic evidence. I'm going to send it to you. You could post it. And then I
took them the next day. They wanted to go on the base, so I took them kayak around San Francisco Bay and you know what, I have so much fun because I said, they know nothing, So I said, you know there's we're gonna see seals, and we're there seals. There are great whites. Yeah, they freaked out. So I said, every seat, if you see anything under the water, large moving fast, that's probably
a giant sharp Oh it was so much fun. They freaked out. I didn't tell them until we turned it back that there actually there are great whites in the bay, but not many as far as we know anyway. So then and then on July fourth, I took them to a big, good, old fashioned American barbecue with all you could eat hot dogs and hamburgers and ice cream sandwiches and apple pie. Oh good with a so and you guys would like this with a seventies eighties cover band. Oh okay, you know
that's that's America. Yet absolutely that sounds like wonderful. The rest of it, I'm not so sure about the guyaking would be okay, But it's been a long time since I've been on a horse to John, and I grew up in horse country. But uh yeah, that's a that's a thing younger people do and stupid people when they get older. Anyway, anyway, glad, I'm glad you had fun. I'm glad we did. And what are
you drink? So I'm having since since it was July fourth this week, and we're going to talk a little bit about the podcast about the Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. I thought I would have Jefferson, a rye from one of the original colonies. So I have whistle Pig here, right, which if er yeah, but I hate Jefferson. I'm a Hamiltonian, you
know, so I just can't stand. So this is whistle Pig Farm stock rye eighty six proof made and sure Vermont which I'm sure they pronounced Shaham Vermont in New England probably, so whistle Pig Eyes is probably my favorite rye these days. Okay, so let's oh, of course, Actually Lucretia's will like this. Lucretia got us all three whiskey half hour water for crystal glasses, and I put it right behind my head when I'm on Fox. Every time i'm FOM, I swear to God it's right back back here, right behind
my head. So the discerning, discerning watcher, we'll see it and want and want to buy one messaging. Okay, so let's start on the many topics we have today. First was all, we're all the conspiracy theories that
conservatives have about social media actually true. And I'm talking about the case that came out this week Missouri, or as I learned to pronounce it, Missouri after I worked in the Senate, Missouri versus Biden, a decision that came out this week from a district judge in Louisiana who found that the United States government had been in cahoots with the social media companies to engage in censorship of
conservative speech, and having found that then and joined federal agencies essentially from working with the social media companies going forward So Steve, let's start with you. What did you think about this decision? Do you think that the judge went too far or got things right? And finding that the government had so either coerced or encouraged the social media companies to engage in censorship that it amounted to a violation the First Amendment. Yeah, so, as you mentioned, well,
what a couple baseline things. The opinion is one hundred and fifty five pages. Now it's double space, so it's not commensurate with say, two hundred and thirty seven pages of the Harvard Supreme Court decision. But it's also a district court case, which means a lot more of it is less about the law than a finding of the facts. As the judge sees it has emerged from the trial, and boy, is the narrative of the facts ever
gripping because it's yeah, they censored conservatives, but also some liberals. They talk about how Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Was censored, And lots of details and maybe they can be contested, I don't know, but lots of details of federal government agencies and the Biden White House having these meetings with social media companies and with YouTube and so forth to take down and otherwise censor claims, often that they turned out later to be true, like on masks and
other parts of COVID. Let me just insert here that one of the plaintiffs in the case that's wrapped into the Missouri against Biden, it was Jay Batachar. Yeah, I think it's been vindicated on every single point and everything anyway, and so he gave an a junction. And one news item I did see late Thursday is that the State Department, I think it's at the State Department, has canceled their regular bi weekly meeting with Facebook to talk about how
they do content a policing. So so we'll seeven holds up on appeal. There are some suggests exceptions for national security issues, but that would be you know, genuine foreign espionage and for an interference, but that's different from censoring American citizens, which they were. And the judge is pretty clear that, oh, they did this and it has to stop. I know both of you, but first of John and Steve that I'm going to take a little
bit more strident view of this. I would when I read the opinion. What I was shocked about wasn't so much the collusion you might find between say I'll just pick one, because there's several between Facebook and the h and different agencies of the federal government, but specifically the Biden administration, the COVID Digital whatever people. It was the the veiled threats and the way that they used Section to thirty threats and other kinds of things to just turn these these Facebook
I'll keep it at that. It's pretty much true across the board, these Facebook um censor csars into just these these patsias for the administration. You know. Oh, well wait a minute, you said you were doing this, but you're not doing it well enough. Oh, we'll get you back in answer in twenty four hours. We promise, We promise me, we'll try to do better. We promise, we'll do whatever you can. And that whole thing was what really shocked me is how obsequious the social media executives were
to these political hacks in the Biden administration. That shocked me beyond all belief. I was. I expected, you know, I'd heard, like you say, there were rumors, but just oh my god, it's the government and whatever you want, so I will do. I'll get your back. You want to an answer twenty four hours. I'll get it in twenty four minutes, you know, all the way through. That's let me let me
just interrupt just briefly. The reason why the opinion is long, why it is one hundred and fifty five pages, is a judge lists example after example after example, and I think one thing, it's hard to appreciate. You don't get the sense from the newspaper stories about this. It's hard to appreciate how intensive the relationship was between the Biden administration and social media. I mean, there's it sounds like the Biden White House was emailing Twitter and Facebook every
day and take this down, Facebook, take this person off. Sound like desperate eighth grade girls. Well, I think it was. That's what I was saying. That's what I was Steve's what I was trying to suggest opening up is I thought, oh, it's gonna be a long slog, one hundred and fifty five pages of a district court judge. You know, But Dan, it's it's it's actually kind of gripping the further in you go. And so I'll just give you one quote. I pulled out a page ninety
seven. So, uh, this is a message from the White House to who Sorry, oh, I don't see what never mind the content the message, so what's important? Quote? Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately? Please remove this account immediately they want? You know, I Twitter, doesn't matter which social media company, but ordering them to delete an account and you know, block somebody now The one one worry I have. Can I say, Steve, you missed her best one on that
list number K where it's as flierty, who's a White House official? To Facebook? Quote, are you guys effing serious on editing there? I want an answer on what happened here, and I want it today. Yeah, right now, they're all like that. No, it's it's a wonderful dossier of how bad these people were on both sides. The one worry, which I guess I shouldn't worry about that much, but absently the federal government coercion and involvement in the matter, might the social media companies on their own be
even worse. I mean, you know, we know what kind of people work in these places, and they might actually be more aggressive censors without some minimal involvement in the federal government. I don't know. Let me ask you Lucretia. Let me ask you that that would be the defense. There'd be two defenses for the White House. One is and one of them. Actually one of the defenses works better the worse the social media companies are, because
what one thing the government could say is we weren't coercing anybody. We were just bringing things to their tension, errors and mistakes. The social media companies, by themselves are so left wing they would do this anyway. The government doesn't need to coerce them to be left wing censors, because that's what they would be on their own. Quite frankly, John, that was the opinion I had of things before I read this case, and this case actually,
I think just decimates that idea. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the worst kind of, uh what coercion on the part of the government. And it's by the way, we've kind of generalized this a little bit too much. It's not just COVID, although it absolutely is COVID. It's not just the um, the anything anything about any irregularities in the twenty
twenty election. It's also anything about Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden laptop. It's also anything about the economy, about gas prices about on and on and on and on and on that anything that might have presented the Biden administration in the tiniest bad light or prevented the Biden the hopeful Biden administration call it that from being able to manipulate COVID to ensure that they could get away with all of the things they did in order to call I can't, I can't say anything
else after reading us to steal the election? You know, they they censored reports about states that did away with their signature requires for mail and valids, their postmark requirements, and anybody who came out with anything about it were censored. And when Facebook again I'll just leave it at Facebook or Twitter obviously came back and said, well, this hasn't really come under our censor guidelines.
It was excused the language, but effing do it anyway. We don't care, right, And so that that that that's my answer to you, John, I don't think that there was a defense by the Biden administration that they were just sort of, you know, encouraging what social media was already doing. They were tyrants, they were they were despicable in all of this, more than I ever even dreamed as possible. One other thing that doesn't come
through, I think in the newspaper accounts is the involvement of universities. So if you look at the opinion, it talks about how right, there's the agencies of the government and the White House, and you know, some of our most important intelligence agencies monitoring the Internet asking Twitter, Facebook to take these
posts off. But a lot of times these government agencies are taking the information from something called the Virality Project, being called like the Internet Observatory that's at Stanford. And it's incredible this he was just this is on page eighty five the opinion, if you're curious, the Virility Project made up a list of the primary spreaders of misinformation, as they called it. So on this I don't even know who some of these are. Jill Hines, I don't know
who that is. One American News, Breitbart News, Alex Barnson, Tucker Carlson. So this Viralty Project basically kept sending information to the government every time Tucker Carlson said something about vaccines to get it removed. Number six, all of Fox News, number seven, Candice Owens, number eight, the Daily Wire. And to Steve's point that this is a Bipartisan Censorship Operation. Number nine, all of Robert F. Kennedy Junior was to be removed from the
Internet. Number ten something called doctor Simone gold and America's Frontline Doctors, which sounds pretty good to me. And number eleven doctor Joyce Mercula. I'm actually shocked that the lucretia to be identified is not number twelve on the list. But the one interesting thing is that the universities were involved with this too, not just social media and not just the Biden administration. What do you think that, Steve, I don't know why would be surprised to that at all.
I mean, it sounds like their kind of thing. I mean, I think I told you guys that during COVID, Deborah Burks planned on making a visit to my university. At the time, we had a former surgeon General, Richard Carmona as our incident response commander for COVID, and he invited and she came, Deborah Burks, And at first, you know, people were up in arms because this was still under the Trump administration, and nobody in the entire university, of course, wanted to have anything to do with
anyone associated with the Trump administration. But as it turned out she was welcomed with open arms and you know, parties and whatever she was because you know, she she wasn't any part of the Bush, the Trump administration. She was part of this whole incredible attempt to just shut the country down so that the elites could get what they wanted during COVID. And you know, I
don't see any other way forward on it. I really don't. This is this isn't just about COVID, but the you know, shutting down any kind of complaints about children. That the Hinds lady that you mentioned, by the way, was from Louisiana and she was the one who was trying to get
Louisiana schools reopened. And she had one time had over one point one million subscribers I think on Facebook, and by the time they were done with her, she would within a couple of weeks she was down to eighty five thousand because they, you know, between algorithms and so on, completely censored her. She was calling for she said, look, there's no evidence that children should wear masks, there's no evidence that we need to cut schools done.
There's no evidence that children or at any risk whatsoever from COVID and they shut her down. They completely shut her down. Why why? Yeah, Okay, let's turn to some the issues still some of the issues still burning from the Supreme Court term. I want to get your take on this story that's
come up in the wake of the three or three Creative case. You remember, three or three Creative is the case of the website designer who did not want to make wedding design wedding websites for gay marriages Colorado, which had earlier persecuted I think his name is Jack Phillips. The baker who didn't who didn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings. Colorado has a antidiscrimination law which includes LGBTQ plus I think I got them all there, and so in a I
think a resounding victory for freedom of speech and freedom of thought. The Court said that Colorado could not force the website designer, and I think by implication obviously the baker and the florist and all writers and anybody else whose work involves free speech or expression from having to bend anee, as it were, to diversity. But there have been claims now from the left left left in the media. It's just not a tiny dribble of claims. This is a huge
firestorm of claims that the case was all made up. And the reason why they say this is because I think there was a report in the New Republic and they're repeated endlessly, I think, and left wing media suggesting that there was no real gay couple that actually wanted the website in the first place. Steve, what do you make of this? Why all the storm and drying about, Yeah, whether this is true? Well, I mean there's two
or three things to be said about it. One is, I thought the case represented yet another instance of cleaning up a mass left by Anthony Kennedy, because you know, they heard the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, which was very similar or coloraud of statute. And you know, his opinion, as I recalled, ruled in favor of the baker Jack Phillips, very narrowly. But it was on kind of as grounds as I recall from that Texas case where
he talked about or No, it was actually Romer v. Evans. That's the where he wanted to said, where a law that is motivated by animus against the particular group is unconstitutional. What the textual basis for that is, I don't know. But the point as he was trying to use the same logic he'd used in the gay rights case of Romer v. Evans I against
that law. But it should have been a straightforward religious liberty or first amendment or let me just let me just jump in right, what was so yeah, let me just jem me what Actually what Kennedy said in that in the Masterpiece Cake Shop wasn't that the law was at fault, that the this is so stupid. The state administrative agency that held a hearing about whether the baker violable was essentially too mean. Yes to the baker, right, yeah,
that's where the animals was essentially what she held. They have a very aggressive and the logically left state civil Rights commission that made Jack Phillips's life miserable. It was going to compel re education camps for his employees and him. But then the deeper problem. I actually wrote an article about this ten years ago in that case first popped up the law as I understand that attempts to define the cake baker, a website maker, a photographer whoever, as the equivalent
of public accommodations. And you know, we've always had the exception of public accommodations open to anyone, hotels, restaurants, going back to the nineteenth century. One of the few things the this year he got right about civil rights in nineteenth century, And is that really the same? I mean, the point about the cake maker is everyone should remember about that case. He Jack Phillips, a religious guy. He was willing to sell any donuts, any
bread, any standard cakes that he made to anybody. What he would not do is make a custom cake. And he was very well known for his fancy cakes. He'd hand custom design that expressed same sex marriage. He did not make cakes for a couple who were getting divorced. He would not make cakes for Halloween. So he has a very consistent practice, but only denying a cake to a same sex couple. By the way, before same sex weddings were even legal in Colorado. I mean, I think it's worse and
worse the more you go through the facts. And Kennedy just did this crazy thing about oh they were mean at the Civil Rights Commission. If he ruled correctly the first time, we wouldn't have had this second case. Okay. I thought for a long time that the public accommodations rationale civil rights was going to run sooner or later head on into the First Amendment of rights of freedom of religion and free expression. This is either compelled speech in either case or
religious liberty right. And you know, we've never had a case. I don't think we ever good get one that you know, a Baptist hotel won't allow Catholics in, right, we wouldn't, you know, I think we wouldn't allow for that. I forget how the reasoning would work. But you know that makes some sense as well as a racial discrimination. But you know, as our pal Richard Epstein points out, the rash and now for public accommodations is there might not be another hotel for fifty miles, so you're really
imposing some hardship. It turns out that you can look up online and find all the gay wedding web designers and bakers you want with a fifty mile radius of wherever you are, so there's no constriction from the marketplace on the ability of people to get the services they want. And by the way, why do you want a cake from a cake maker? Who? I mean, they picked on this guy, right, they're obviously going out of the way to pick on these people. The left is and to make them submit and
compel them to agree. It's the Cooper Union thesis, Lucretia, that you and I are eventually going to write up, and so it's really offensive in that respect. So so the thing here is, sorry, I'm rambling too much. The thing here is that no one had yet asked for a customized wedding website. But this is one of those cases. And you'll have to give me the technical term, John of where the court says, ah, but this is going to happen and let's get onto it now. Which is
I think similar to cases in past I can name. I don't think this is that unusual or rare. Oh yeah, yeah, in part actually what and this is I think this is going to happen over and over again. And Lucretia was talking about this last episode about you know, whether conservatives are still going to obey all these limits on judicial power like standing and so on. The ability to hear this case on the part of the court came about
because I think of a famous liberal exception to standing. So usually, right, you need to if there's a law that's passed, Usually you can't sue before the laws enforced. You have to wait for the government to come after you, and then you have speech, and then yeah, you have to be injured. But long ago liberals on the court made an exception of our free speech. They said, if a law affects free speech, normal rules don't apply because the mere presence of the law would have a chilling effect on
you, and you might censor yourself. And so in free speech case, liberals always love to allow the ACLU to sue against an oppressive, mean conservative state government here a city there before the law was ever enforced. And that's the same doctrine here. Right, the website designer is going to say, look, I have the right to sue first under liberal precedent, because if I wait for Colorado to come after me, that's going to cost me a lot of money. I might not even engage in the speech. I might
just to avoid being persecuted. I might start selling websites to gay right to gay weddings. And this if the liberals want to get rid of this doctrine that has benefited them all the time, then it actually has the effect Lucretia was talking about last week that oh, all these procedural rules always seem to be bent for the benefit of liberals and only has the effect of hurting conservatives.
Yeah, so this is an example maybe of a liberal doctrine turning round to bite them finally, which we've seen another because they're the ones, which makes sense because these procedural rules are were created to help sue oppressive governments. So right, if the oppressive governments of the past were the southern segregation as
governments, right, well, guess who the oppressive governments are today? All right, Well, let's you know, my pal Mark Perry has made a cottage industry of filing legal challenges to universities under Title nine when they have special programs just for women, just for minorities. I follows Title I think Title seven complaints which you're given standing through the old Civil Rights Act, and bring these complaints as as a third party, right, I think that's what it
works. And you know he wins these left and right. And you're right, who's doing all this, well, universities and liberal institutions, And he's filed several hundreds of these now and winning every single one. Just about Well,
I noticed one of you actually responded to my example. When I first I was the one who alerted you guys to this going on, And I said, isn't it interesting that liberals the left is complaining about this suppisitly made up case that should have meant that it never went to the court in the first place, when in fact, the most how should we say, the most egregious example of that in modern history, of course, and it's not
a First Amendment case is Lawrence versus Texas. Lawrence versus Lawrence and whoever that I forget the other guy's name, never had anything to do with each other. They were not gay, They weren't gay. They were both married.
As I recall. There's it's all this stuff. So if the left really wants to push this point and say that somehow three or three creative is illegitimate because there was in fact no harm done to uh you know, no, no nobody on the other side, to make a genuine case of controversy, then maybe we should overturn Lawrence versus Texas as well. That would be mine,
that would be that would be my offer. Okay, guys, but then let's overturn Laurence versus Texas. And in case anybody doesn't know, Lawrence versus Texas was a case that I actually talk about this case quite often, and it really has nothing to do with the fact that I think that one way or the other, we should be at the federal level regulating, caring about what people do in the privacy of their own home. I'll just leave
it at that. But the first case was hard Work versus Bowers, which tried to take the right to privacy, which had been found first of all in Griswold and then of course in Row versus Way, and extend it to the right to engage in sodomy. Sorry, that was really what it was, and I swear to god the case was named hard Work versus Bowers.
You know, the ironies of history. Justice Byron White, As I recall, wrote the majority opinion of that case, and that, you know, whatever else, the right to privacy was decided only and exclusively by the Supreme Court. Uh, it didn't include the right to engage in sodomy, and then of course that was overturned in Lawrence versus Texas. I forget, but I think in either case or those statutes enforced but never I mean, no,
of course they were. I mean, god, what a horrible job that would be as a law enforcement officer, which you know, it's also, I know this is a distinction, John, from the principal and free speech you mentioned, But we have a long history of I guess what I would call contrived cases that I don't mean phony, but where they worked very hard to get a case that otherwise might not have made of the I was just about to say that, you know, they what happened for years,
the civil rights lawyers try to get a case the Supreme Court to enforce the fourteenth Amendment, and it would always either get dismissed or they would find the rail company. And so they finally had to have a cooperating law enforcement to arrest Homer, a guy who was one thirty second black was white, right, yeah, blonde, curly hair. Right. Another another case like that
is the Connecticut case about contraceptives. Yeah law that, yeah, which had never really been enforced and commonly silly law, I think is what the Justice called it, right and uncommonly or in the descent, an uncommonly silly law, but it wasn't being enforced, and yeah, it made no difference. So yeah, the left, But you know, we I'm tired of saying
it. If the left didn't have standards, we can't expect the left to put their own rules regarding standing or anything else in play when it disadvantages them, because they're just not going to do it. But but if you will, I'm gonna say, I think you'll see the left become the big fans of procedural bars for the courts hearing things and structor standing. No more exceptions like the one for free speech, because they don't want the court to decide
anything. Right. They're in. They're in a massive delaying game, right, delaying game until thy more liberal justices up to the court. If you would draw back and take a wide angle view, it's uh. I mean one of the things you've seen as well, the port packing idea came back in a big way in the last week, and one of the arguments in favor of it is, well, the court, you know, it's thrashing democracy. You know, it's thwarting majority. Will and I keep that.
You know, look at all the polls showing that a robust majority of Americans has consistently said they don't like affirmative action dividing us up by race. What's the I think they well, the students, right, yeah, yeah, And so it's like, wait a minute, if you put this to a vote. Who's so you can see this as a case of Sita. You're talking about the same people Steve who said that when uh Liz Cheney lost by sixty percent of the vote in the primary, it was the end of democracy
mark as we know it right now. I mean, they're just morons, and the and their followers are even bigger morons. So but I have to say, John, you asked the question. You know what we're takeaways from this term. One of the things about the Students for Fair Admission OA, this is the case it's gonna gift that's gonna keep on giving. We're only a week out, but still it seems to me that uh, it will finally put an end to the left saying that Citizens United is the worst decision
since dread Scott, which has been safe for over a decade. They're so bit out of shape about Citizens United. Well that was nothing compared to what this has done to them. So let me ask you that, guys, let me ask lucretia. But if you don't mind the Crestia, please, if you have another point, go ahead. I was gonna ask you to know, taking a step back now that we've throw a week away now from the major decisions, we have some chance to reflect. Now we were I
listened to our last episode and we were a little bit giddy. We are which is amazing, wanted to say, and we were done. So now that we've had a week to sit back and think about it and reflect and see all the commentary, Lucretia, what is your view on this term? What do you think historians will say about this term? What do you think the political scientists of the few, sure the political theorists of the future will say about this supreme work term? Honestly, John, what's going to matter?
What's going to that's going to depend upon? How do I This sounds so trite. I don't mean it to who writes the history. So let me give you an example of what I mean by that. So a friend of ours sent us an article from MSNBC by someone I know this is going
to shock you to death. Her name is Keisha whatever I don't order, her last name was Keisha talking about how Canteeningy is the most brilliant legal mind of the last you know, millennium, and how she was able to prove in her historical reflections that the myth of a colorblind society, and she lists plus e versus ferguson, which, of course, is the case that determined that separate but equals was a perfectly legitimate way to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment when
it came to discriminating on the basis of race and public accommodations. What she doesn't do, of course, is make any mention, just like they didn't in Brown, of course, of the Descent, which in some ways is probably the most eloquent moving Supreme Court opinion in all of the Supreme Court history. And you know where where Justice John John Marshall Harland says in Descent that
our constitution is colored blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes amongst citizens. And he goes on the you know, the the least is the greatest, and so on. And we've talked before, We've even talked with you about this, John, and Steve was shocked that you agreed with us. He didn't think you were that smart, but I knew you were. Uh wait, wait, wait a second, Well I agree with you guys that education did
not in fact overturned Josie. It upheld plus he in the fundamental principle sense whereby it found that it was the psychological harm done by segregation that was the problem. Just like in Plessy, they found that the psychological harm done by segregation was basically, you know, not their problem. Different different psychology. They had better psych psychological knowledge by the time Brown came round. But what Brown never did, of course, was embraced the idea of a colorblind constitution.
And so when Katangi says there is no it's a myth of a colorblind society, in some ways she's very right. It's never been the opinion of the Supreme Court that we have a color blind constitution demanding a colorblind society. Can I interrupt just for one sentence? I think, I think it's Brennan who has a line in his concurrence or whatever the hell it was in Baki saying we have never recognized a color blind constitution. And then as footnote, by the way, is c Korey matsu vi us. Boy, isn't that
a charming precedent for him to involve? But yeah, I mean this has been what you're right. What Jackson said is not a departure from what has been the left legal orthodoxy on this. But just to point out one embarrassing thing. It was in the Wall Street Journal today, But I remember reading thinking this at the time of when I read Justice Jackson's Descent, where she makes a big deal about how we're soft blocks are than white's because of structural
racism. And one thing she said was for high risk black newborns, having a black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live. Then the Wall Street Journal points out today that's statistically impossible, since the actual survival rate is ninety nine percent already. So does that mean that actually now they
double to one hundred and ninety eight percent. Yeah, well she doesn't know what math is, so right, but you made they make the point that both all these descents in these cases are riddled with factual errors, claims that aren't true because they were so incensed that they were I mean, I'm embar
est. Actually it just happened. But it's all you know, it's a tribal thing that you know, supporting her in this, But never forget that had there not been separate but equal essentially upheld if you ask me, in Brown versus Board of Education, as long as it does not have that psychological
impact, it's perfectly. Okay, to separate on the basis of race, you couldn't have affirmative action, and you couldn't have an idiot like Catange as a Supreme Court justice because a she never would have gotten into an Ivy League university, she never would have gotten a clerkship. She didn't earn it despite discrimination like our friend john you did, and she wouldn't be on the damn United States Supreme Court, never mind if the rest of it was untrue.
We know what Biden said. She's put on the court for one reason, and one reason only because she's a black woman. And it's not because she has any great talent. It's not because she's smart, it's not because she's done anything exceptional in the in the world of law or constitutional law. It's because she's a black woman, which is exactly what Brown versus Board of Education
did following plus e versus Ferguson. Okay, separate but equal. You know what if you're if you're a black woman right now, that's who we prefer. So you get to be on the Supreme Court. And it's not a
question of merit. So what I think, Johnny, you say, what what's likely to happen down the road is I think it's going to depend not merely on the legal enforcement and follow ups like you've had after Brown, but I think there's now going to be a long running political conflict that will play out in all the branches over uh you know this concept, I mean it really it could. It could. We could use a Harvey Mansfield's old echotomy
they've had for forty years, which is entitlement versus equality of opportunity. A lot of our racial politics is simply a version of the entitlement mentality. That's Chris Caldwell's thesis in his book on the Age of Entitlement. And so we're
going to see, you know, I'll give you one good example. Um, there's some people saying saying that if Republicans get the White House in Congress, they should pass a statute that would be enforcement statute like the Civil Rights Act was that would deny federal funding to any universities that what, I don't know, trying to evade the Harvard decision through some subterfuges. Right, maybe the dispred you know, disperate impact might be the screen. I'm not sure,
but I think things like that or what sorry, go ahead. John gave a really good explanation last time for the ways they get around it. Yeah, no, understand. But that's why I say this is a political
struggle where other branches are going to have to wait. And I think you know, the one of the first things Biden did on day one was canceled the Justice Department's investigation into Yale's admission mission's policies because the suspicion was if you did discovery of Yale, you'd find all the same things that we found in the Harvard case. Well, let's reopen that. That's not a dead issue
yet. The latest thing I read in the New York Times here this week was well, universities are going to look at adversity scores and adversity screens, do you know philanthropy and that would be on its face race neutral, and maybe it would be in some ways, but you know, let's I mean, look, we know the guys. Guys. Let me ask you this one that comes up. What about getting rid of legacy? I think you've seen that now, you know, um minority groups are suing Harvard now saying
that legacy preferences and emissions is unconstitutional or illegal. What do you think of that, Steve, because you have to. You have to Actually, I'm sorry, just give a little bit more explanation for that. The reason they are arguing that they need to be ruled to be unconstitutional is because they are convinced that any legacy admission has to benefit white people. Because a only white people already went to Harvard and other Ivy League university So if they if their
legacy and rule is because you know, their family went there. But also because there are no donors to Ivy League universities that are wealthy minorities, They're all wealthy white people, and so legacy admissions by definition only advantage white people, which is you know that I'd have to see some data on that. I guess, well, I think that I think the data does show that
the whites benefit much more than any of it because you're smart. Surprise, you're too smart to give any money to Harvard drawing, Well, it's part what about the stigma? What about the stigma and these port legacies everyone is sees are stupid and rich, which often is true, right, Well that I've seen conflicting data about this, But I do I think that the getting Oh, by the way, that's one of the ideas Republicans should sponsor bills
saying no federal aid to universities a practice legacy admissions. So that'd be fun because the people who are going to defend this, we're going to be the universities for their fundraising reasons. And the left, the left of the people are going to draw the line is not going to be a I love the way the left thinks it's conservatives are behind defending legacy admissions. It's not us
at all. And yeah, and you know that, and it joins, of course, the issue I think we mentioned last week, which is Harvard Princeton. Yeah, they're so rich they could they could double the size of their student bodies and attract the top faculty and still get the top one percent of students. They won't do it at all. Are they rich enough? I'm sorry, let me just ask a question, booth you are they rich enough to say, okay, we'll stop legacy admissions. We'll stop legacy admissions
for big donors. I remember Conan O'Brien years ago. Conan remember a Harvard graduate. He had been editor of the Harvard Lampoon, and he said that one of his shows, I remember this twenty five years ago. I said, Yeah, the Harvard fundraisers. They call you up and their pitch essentially is, we're Harvard, we want your money. We don't need it, we just want it. So I think he Actually, here's one point about what universities could do. The only reason Harvard is subject to the Constitution and
the civil rights is because they take federal money. Right, They're so rich they could easily go back to discriminating on the basis of race if they wanted to, just by saying we don't need federal dollars anymore. So here, let me just give you a sense of the figures we're talking about here. So Harvard, Harvard's endowment is fifty three billion dollars. Yeah, Yales is forty two billion dollars. Number three, Stanford thirty seven billion dollars, Princeton
thirty seven billion, MIT twenty seven. So they're richer than some small countries in Africa. Well, the joke about Harvard, as you know, is
it's a hedge fund that runs a little educational institution on the side. Do you think I mean, look, I'm all for that, you know, make Harvard do what Hillsdale did However, one difficulty is, and I've heard this is they couldn't do that, not so much because of the money, but because they have so many research contracts connected the federal government that Hillsdale doesn't do, for example, and that would still expose them to the conforming with
civil rights laws. And I think, I hate to say this about you guys, but sounds like Lucretia and Steve have volunteered to work in the decantist Education department starting twenty twenty five. And the first thing they can do, and this is an easy thing, they could just have the Secretary of Education. Maybe who would such a secretary? Larry Arne, the president Hounsdale, just say I find that all these universities are in fact discriminating on the basis
of race. So I cut them all off from federal funding, and they have to prove to me that they are not discriminating on the basis of race for this spigot to open again. Yeah. Can I just at a little
bit of a different perspective on this. I think that the more important thing, honestly than even getting rid of discrimination based upon race, because as from a principle point of view, it's the very worst kind of thing from the principal point of view, the idea that this minority who might be let's say Asian and Maile should have to be denied to make a slot for a black
woman. Let's say as an example that you know, there's something really offensive about that, and I'm glad the Supreme Court said we're not going to do
that anymore. However, what would really in answer your to your question from a little while ago, what would really make a difference, what would really have an impact in the future, would be redefining the whole concept of diversity, to take race completely out of it and thereby completely undo the diversity inclusion and equity regime and make all of that illegitimate, make all of it illegitimate in the sense that we don't need inclusion, because it doesn't mean that we
don't need equity. We need equality of opportunity. And if this opinion simply, you know, gets Harvard and others to hide their despicable admissions practices in ways that can't be detected as easily, but they keep the diversity, inclusion and equity regime and they grow it, then I think that the decision becomes worthless. Never mind how well it's executed, If that makes sense. I don't know, what do you guys think? Oh, no, I agree,
I agree with you. I think that I'd like to think that we've hit the high water mark of the diversity mania and that the Harvard case is
going to now provide a lot of ammunition for people to sue. And I think the next wave of lawsuits are going to be against institutions that use TEI in there and going to be an ammunition for the Lucretias of the world to look at somebody when they start, you know, mouthing blah blah blah blah diversity saying, tell me why diversity is important again, Yeah, because I'm
not as sure a single person can give you an answer. We know the court demanded an answer and didn't get one, So I'm sure that the idiots who work in the die regime can't give an answer. They just assume it is a good Remember the whole discussion, your friend, that the calling of
the American Yeah, and he and I told you Steve. I was a little bit disappointed in him because he quit whatever damn organization association he was a product of, because he refused to say that academic freedom should take first place in front of diversity. Yeah, all he was willing to say was diversity is important too, but it shouldn't be more important than academic freedom. And I guess you know, in today's academia, I shouldn't be so tough on
him. But when we get to the point where nobody argues that diversity is a goal, an end, a T los above all T los in and of itself, then I'll be happy about the Harvard completely happy about the Harvard decision. I'm already happy. But that's just my thought because you guys know what it's like. How many diversities ares do you know at your university? How many provos? How many? It's a big place where we're at,
and if they're easy to avoid, that's a happy thing about Berkeley. So let's turn to the I think the last topic we have, which is we shouldn't end the show without observing that this week was July fourth, and of course the holiday where we remember the founding of the country and the issuing of the Declaration of independence. So I thought i'd ask one or two questions of
our resident scholars of the revolution. End of all things natural, natural, law, natural rights, and Jefferson's famous quotes and the Declaration of Independence. So, guys, one question that always strikes me when I teach about the founding is, we're the revolutionaries nuts. We were ready, ready living in the freest part maybe place in the world at the time. Right, if they have the rights of englishmen and englishwomen. They are lightly governed from London.
They've basically been governing themselves for hundred years or more in that with their assemblies, they're separated by an ocean from all the disorder of Europe. They have endless quantities of the source of wealth in the old world, which is land. I would say, what was wrong with them? They were already the freest, most well off people maybe in the history of the world, and yet they had a revolution. What was wrong with them? Really?
Good question, John, Actually really is a good question. I just had a long discussion with students about this yesterday. I believe it or not. Here's the point, Jefferson, whom you told us at the beginning you do not like. But Jefferson actually provides, I think, what is the clearest answer to that question. Prudence indeed will dictate that government's long establish should not
be changed for light and transient causes. What he's trying to say there underneath, I think is a little bit about it reminds us of your other, of your favorite Hamilton, what Hamilton says. You know, it's it's frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to
decide by their conduct. An example, the important question whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government upon reflection and choice, or whether they're forever destined to depend for their political constitutions upon accident force the people
of this country. So when we look at the situation that the colonists who are in with respect to Great Britain, when we read the Bill of Particulars in the Declaration of Independence, the first thing that comes to mind, and me when I do so currently, is that we are so much worse off, so much worse off, at the hands of our government than they were
their list of complaints against King George in Parliament. But the other side of it, the other side of the prudential question, is do you have the ability if you decide to revolt, if you decide to separate yourselves, establishing do you have the ability to make it work, as Hamilton talks about very
specifically in the first Federalist paper. We've seen subsequently places like Iraq. I'll just use that example, who wanted to have something very much like an American constitution, but they didn't have the same set of conditions that would make self government possible and likely to succeed that the colonists did with all of their advantages
that you pointed out back in seventeen seventy six. So even though we wouldn't call it such a terrible situation, they also had great advantages to take that situation and turn it into something truly spectacular. That's probably would be my answer to your question, which does make a lot of sense. You know, and students ask me today, well, why aren't we revolting? Our situation is worse? Yeah, So this is what I do agree with, that
provocative thought that actually things are worse now. Yeah, well you were at the time in seventeen seventy six. Well, see, here's the thing, John, is that you make the case that I remember William F. Buckley saying this that the colonists were revolting against what today we would consider mere bureaucratic inconveniences, and I think he's wrong about that, as you are, and
the way you frame the question, so you know, lucretition. I usually refer to a sort of the deeper natural law teachings of the first couple of paragraphs of the Declaration and the Council of Prudence. But here's one case where you really need to go to the Bill of Particulars against the King, although they really against Parliament. That's but that's a living aside for the moment. And you know, he's case canceling legislatures. He's canceling laws. The judges
he makes personally accountable to him. My favorite it's paragraph thirteen, I number the paragraphs for students. My favorite of all the charges against the British government is this one. He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Is a description of government today, right, And I mean, you go on, but you know, one of the arguments was he you know, he's trashing
local jurisdictions. He's dragging people to far flung locations to have their cases heard away from a jury of their peers. You know he's he's producing trial by jury. Well, boy, that happens all the time these days with bureaucratic procedures. You know, Hillsdale College day sue the federal government, it was US forty years ago now against the partner of education. Where's the case heard in Denver, you know, a Michigan college against the Washington bureaucracy, or
we're going to hear your case in Denver before an administrative law judge. Right, So no, I think those So leave aside the principles that are so important at the beginning and actually read the Billow particulars and see if that isn't a template that's easily updated to modern times today. So no, they were not radicals at all. But the other side of the question, Steve, I would ask you for your opinion, which is, are we in the
same position that he thought we were in Federalist number one? Where if we can't, I mean can if anybody can take that great experiment and make it work for all the reasons that you know, we know, the tradition of self government, the virtue of the people, the homogeneity whatever whatever, can are we in a better position today? Let's say, if we decided to have an Article five convention, would we come out better be better off?
I do think I stand by my point, John, I guess Steve was actually confirming that that if you look at the Bill of particulars our situation as much much worse today in really some fundamental ways. And does that mean, however, that not only should we exercise our duty to overthrow the government, but will will we be able to institute new government that will affect our safety
and happiness? And that's of course a real question. Well, I like I want to grab hold of your question about if we actually had an Article five convention today, how might that go? I also drop back a little bit. I have a bit of a sense of foreboding at the moment.
So on the one hand, you know, I have for several years now, I'm in this you know, sort of rural not semi rural part of California, still on the coast, and for several I've been going to local Fourth of July afternoon celebrations for several years, and this year it seemed bigger and more robust and happier and more people than it has been for several years. Part of that's coming out of COVID. Although these the areas where I
live, people didn't pay much attention to the COVID restrictions. On the other hand, I remember, okay, we're three years off from the Quinn what is it the Quinn Centennial, the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration. We're three years away from them. I remember the two hundredth anniversary forty seven years ago. In nineteen seventy six, the big observance in the big spectacular New York was the tall ships with their rigging, sailing into up the Hudson
there up to Manhattan. And of course that was supposed to symbolize you know, colonials, you know, the colonists coming to settle and found this new great country, and maybe a little bit of the marshal virtues of the navy that defended us the revolution in all those years. And I was reading what the left was saying about July four this year, and I don't need to tell you what they were saying. And I've got to thinking, I'm going
to plant this as a marker right here. I predict that three years from now, if there's a spectacular in New York it will not features tall ships. It's going to be featuring slave ships. And we're gonna get the sixteen nineteen project Bison Quinn Centennial. And that to me is one of the big political fights, you know, as a cultural matter of the next few years. And that bears on your question of and lucretia, your question of you know, do we still hold these truths to be self evident, etcetera,
etcetera. Gosh, I think you guys are a little bit out there for me on this one, this talk of having a revolution or even an Article five. So I take your point. You guys think that today is worse than then, But we're not having a revolution now. So that's why it makes me ask did they go too far having a revolution? Then? Well,
are taking the opposite of what you said they had a revolution? Then on the you're the angle the Anglo I am an Anglo folk would be would be English colony still well, actually I always was always You know whatn't the history of the world been much better if the United States and England had been combined all these years? They never Germany never would have gotten out of hand, It would be peaceful. Anglo American had gemony in the world this last
three hundred years. So I actually had a debate back and forth with one of the commenters on Steve's Midweekend Pictures fourth of July edition, because one of his memes said something like, you know, happy fourth of July, nothing of importance happened before this day or something Africa exactly what it was. And so somebody wrote and said, no, no, no, that's not true. Magna carta, while they said money twelve fifteen. And so I got
into this discussion. I said, absolutely not. You know, Magna Carta is nothing, nothing compared to what happened in seventeen seventy six, because Magna Carta was simply, as Hamilton tells us in Federalist eighty four, a king John held its sword point and demanded that he relinquished some of his prerogative, some of his divine right of king's prerogative, that right and only a certain
classes of people, not to certain nobles who held them at dunpoint. That that is not a precursor to what happens in seventeen seventy six, which is the first and only time that there is a recognition that all political sovereignty comes from the people, and it comes from the people because of their fundamental human equality, because they there is no natural ruler appointed by God or nature over them, and therefore their their own rulers. That's why they get to choose
their government. And according to Jefferson, they get to choose their government that will that will be most like to affect their safety and happiness. End the alpha and omega under Aristotle of political life is what I thought you guys were going to say, is that that's why the revolution is about ideas. It's an intellectual revolution almost not a material revolution, because the mcntire you know, the other revolutions French, Russian, Chinese, they arise because of material deprivation.
Right, there's extremely more countries terribly oppressed. The American Revolution occurs during a time of relative prosperity and freedom, which makes me think that it has nothing to do with material conditions. It's about the intellectual ideas. That's what causes the revolution. I didn't think you guys are going to turn this into we ought to have a revolution. Now. Well, now I didn't say that, I mean Lucretia did well. Actually, I've just I would just
argue, don't you ever give up your guns just in case. Well, now, it was just about to say we ought to, by the way, to a segment not tonight on an Article five condensed subject, because that's kind of fun. But yeah, that'll be fun. But look at Balant. I mean, you could do an extensive balance sheet. On the one hand, I'll just mentioned two things. On the one hand, thanks to the recent Supreme Court our gun rights are pretty secure and Americans are well armed.
And I find it amused when the right Americans are well right, you know, Joe Biden's as well. You couldn't. What's really pretty useless. It's only an argument if you don't have an F sixteen. And that's where I had a mean a few weeks ago of a Vietnamese peasant smiling. Right. But then on the other hand, again, we continue to see the population in the country sorting itself out between red and blue states, and the
red states are gaining in population economics. But do you realize it, California right now, it looks like California could lose five congressional seats after the next census, which is just mind blowing, right, And and so what that represents is I don't know whether it would lead to an actual formal secession or splitting up of the country, but it's going to mean culturally that way you're gonna see. Uh, well, all right, I'll end the red blue
state thing. That's pretty obvious to most people. Um and but I still think these cultural battles are going to rage on. Uh and the you know, two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that coloration is going to be a big moment for how that plays out. Yeah. By the way, just the weird radio just a few months ago, John, you were saying, Oh, you guys are really monarchist, aren't you. You love the king and
I know you guys, that's what you guys are. You guys are like you want to have you want to have a revolution, but yeah, I want to have you still don't have King Charles around two. Okay, we've gone way over time, so um we have. We have been off and on doing our feature at the end about recommending books. So I thought, in uh honor July fourth, we might um ask each of you, Lucretian Steve, what is your favorite book about the American Revolution that you would recommend
to listeners to pick up. Yeah, I thought you were gonna ask about the Declaration Independence and that's okay, or the Declaration or the Declaration Declaration. So I say, I'm not a fan of We'll do the clear Day. I'm not a fan of Gordon Woods book, which you list as a book you're not supposed to read in your politically and correct guide of the Supreme Court, that we'll come back to in a couple of weeks. I actually think that the see what the creation thinks I mean here. I think there's three
good books on the Declaration I can recommend. In some respects. The best one still is Carl Becker's book from nineteen twenty two called The Declaration of Independence. Although it has a major flaw in it, but it traces out, you know, the Lockey and roots very well. It's a very competent work of intellectual history leading up the Declaration. The problem with the book is he says towards the end, and I can quote him here, Professor Jaffa brought
this to our attention over and over again. He was a modern progressive historicist, but he said at the end of the book quote him here to ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is essentially a meaningless question. And he goes on from there to say, essentially that's because Hegel was right, and progress moves us on to new things. Now. The funny thing is the books out in nineteen twenty two, sort
of the peak of progressive intellectual life. He published a new edition in the fall of nineteen forty one. So the war in Europe is going on. We're not yet in it, but it's close, right, And he takes it all back, and I'll just quote two sentences from it, and this new forward to the forty one edition. He says, and maybe thought that just now, when political freedom is in retreat everywhere, I'll shorteness a little bit, maybe we need to be interested once again and the political principles of
the Declaration of Independence. And he says, certainly, recent events throughout the world have aroused an unwanted attention to the immemorial problem of human liberty. And he says, men everywhere will want to reappraise the validity of half forgotten ideas. You know my question, why are they half forgotten ideas well? Because of people in the progressive movement like you. Aside from that very important problem,
it's maybe the best book on the intellectual origins of declaration. And there's a couple of modern books I like, but you're not so sure, Lucretia, And I'd rather read Lincoln any day of the week. Well, okay, I mean a lot more about the Declaration of Independence from reading Lincoln, who said, I know this is a famous quote, but I'm going to
throw it at you anyway, All honor to Jefferson. I know you don't like him, John Jefferson, to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness forecast in a capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth applicable to all men at all times, and so to invom it there that today, in an all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block
to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression. Yeah, that's the most important thing you can ever read about the Declaration of Independence, in my opinion. I'd have to tell you guys something funny really quick. So tomorrow there's at my parish. They have recently restored a very old and very famous pipe organ to its original condition at a great expense, and they're having a concert called Patriotic Pipes, but yours truly Lucretia will be giving a talk about Christianity
and the Declaration of Independence tomorrow at the Patriotic Pipes. Can you record that? Yeah, we'll have to get a recording. Yeah. See, or if it's written, you can just began all of you got John and by the way, you know declaration, but go ahead, Oh yeah, he doesn't. So I just turned around to my bookshelf and pulled off two books that I've had for a long time that I like. And I know you don't like him, but I do like Bernard Balien's ideological origins in the American
Revolution. And I'm opening the copy I have, and I you know, brings memory to mine because it says it has me. I put the date I bought the book in here. It says November twenty first, nineteen eighty seven. And on the front of the book there's a price tag. Can you see what the price was back in nineteen eighty seven, Yeah, thirteen dollars and fifty cents where a brand new book, and I have that same edition, I think probably the same price. Yeah, I think it's the
first edition. Yeah, and then the other book I liked very much. I mean, so they both come out in the mid nineteen sixties. The other book I like a lot is Forrest McDonald E Colbos right, Yeah, it also came out about it. I think it came out in yeah, nineteen sixty five. Also, although this book I have is the Liberty Fund edition, which is you know, you get for a cost, and it
says I says, I bought that one in nineteen ninety one. So I do like both of these books, but again because they make the revolution, they explain the revolution as being caused by ideas, and in fact, Forrest McDonald did a great service by destroying Charles Beard's argrect that the Revolution and the Constitution were just rich plant and slave owners putting one over on the poor. Isn't that? Doesn't that epitaph do a better? Not that that that Forrest
McDonald doesn't. But you know, if you look at the Declaration of Independence, for instance, and when they say they uh, they pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor, and if you look at what actually happened to the fifty seven people who signed the declaration, of independence is sad. I mean many of them gave up everything in one way or another,
lost their homes, lost their farms, right yep. One of the great stories as a Philadelphia and I remember this while is that Benjamin Franklin signed it and his son was a loyalist and left with the with the British at the end of the revolution. And they never and never talked to him. Again, you're not talking. You're not mentioning the fact that I accused you guys of being more on the side of William Franklin than you were on the side
of a Whiskey rebellion. So untrue. But oh wellions. So I believe we should be in a revolution right now, John, So let sign it both of those books for the Constitution class I had with him. Um. By the way, the thing about Forest McDonald that you may not know, I knew him a little bit. He was kind of libertarian leaning. He had a farm in Alabama. He liked to plow his field in the nude.
He was. He was kind of a nudest libertarian guy. This is really yeah, that's take takes getting back to nature a little too far. By the way, if you've never read it. John. His intellectual history of the presidency is very good. Yeah, I'd like that book very much. Actually, so, uh it's time to end, right, so I will Lucretia, you have a Babylon Bee headline other than the Asians take a five minute study break to celebrate winning the Harvard case. It's always so so
difficult. Uh, there was a couple. I'm just I'm not even gonna try to choose. Zuckerberg unveils exciting new social media platform for government censor for the beginning, we didn't even bring up this subject. Maybe it doesn't even make sense to you. But DC police say they may never discover who left bag of cocaine labeled property of h Biden at White House. Oh yeah, we didn't talk about that. You're right. Maybe Why do I want to
go watch cocaine bear so badly? Right now? I don't know another one for us? Uh? The Native Ben and Jerry, you know that was Ben and Jerry are are giving a bud light run for the money. Ben and Jerry announced Native Americans may exchange white Men's Scout for free pint of chunky monkey. All right, I'm done this week. Calmualism of the Week here's colmalist quote. Culture is it is a reflection of our moment and our time right and present. Culture is the way we express how we're feeling about the
moment. She would always find times to express how we feel about the moment. Keep. I wish people could see the clip because she looks so serious when she's see Oh man quoted her and seriously as brilliant. Yeah, yes, so we will. Let's close out with always drink your whiskey, neat, Let's go Brandon and Steve. The closing from our president is, oh God saved the queen Man. That's right. Keep good night, everybody, good night, everybody see you next week, next week, Nay, I
don't, but see me and then you won't. My last dancing, my last night. I'm the warming about is hey God? My money is dashion hip Benshi, myney is downship content and myneme a cenship, senship cenship then sensation and me here and there do you think I really care? And my rechusband, my teams you should be living with Dames Cot cut snips with My name is senshi, this ship senshion. My name is sensionment. Myneme is sension ship, sension senorsen ship. The crime JA doesn't want many want,
no requiring tray. Well, will you comment? Go Ricochet join the conversation.