Welcome to the commentary magazine, progress for Wednesday July, twenty, ninth, twenty twenty, I'm John backwards. The editor of Commentary Christie Rosen, is out this week with me, always associate editor nor Rossman high on our agenda.

An executive editor, a brain, wild high aim. I John so here's the drill when you go before Congress in a publicly aired hearing with a high profile person, like attorney general, William BAR before the House, Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee members were not on your side, yellow you.

And scream at you and then, when you try to answer their questions, they say you're, not answering my questions and when he starts to answer the questions they say, I claim back my time, meaning shut up. I'm speaking and when they we claim their time, they then accuse bar, and did this time and again of not answering the question that they just asked,

and he started to answer and that they prevented him from answering by saying I reclaim my time this happen with Sheila Jackson. Lee it happened with Hang Johnson did happen with TAT deutsche. It happened with Steve Cohen. It happened with Mary, Gay Scanlon. It happened over and over and over again, so I not being a total master of House procedure, found a paper by the congressional Research service, called speaking on the house floor gaining time and parliamentary phraseology to figure out how it was that saying. I reclaim my time had the magical power to silence the witness

who is being asked a question. Okay, so here is what the document says. The member who has yielded to another member can take the time back generally. This is done by entered the interrupting the member who had been yielded to. By saying reclaiming my time, so what this means is that a congressmen can interrupt another congressmen to whom they had given their time. By saying I reclaimed,

a time. It does not mean that a congressmen who says here's my question answer my question and then the witness starts answering the question says I reclaim my time meaning shot up. There is no right to tell the witness to shut up. There is no right to tell the witness that he does not have the right to answer the question, because the car where's member has reclaimed his or her time. So you know what this means. They all think that's what it means this is just I would reply that it up is that it's not that there is no right. It's just. It's not gonna talk about Roberts rules.

What are here now. We are finally talking about Roberts rules of order. He all what they're saying. Is there there appealing to that order? When they're not know they are just bullying somebody by using language that suggests that they have the right to overrule his speaking into the microphone. Which they do not. They do not under house procedure. They do not in any way shape or form, have the right under the rules of order of the house to interrupt the witness or to prevent the witness from answering the question they themselves have ass. They do not have that right when I watch this- and I saw happen over and over again as well. I had two thoughts. The first is which it makes the congressional member look terrible. It does not redound to his or her advantage because a they are come off his immediately very unpleasant and be they look trump.

Endlessly afraid of the answer, particularly I think in the bar case, and secondly, I think it makes bar look much better than he might have. Otherwise, I'm because he is handled it at least from what I saw very calmly, very well. He tried to push back in the most polite sort of mild mannered way a few times, and then some sort of Europe gave in or serves submitted, did to the to the atmosphere of the thing. I am obviously not happy with it, but in no way seeming this and told his unperturbed, which is one of them things that drives his critics so crazy, and that he's just about you. It is a statue. In these things and then just for a Cox, his head and looked at you like perturbed rather confused as to the nature of your request,

They didn't want any of this, but because I was turning out content for counter magazine. I don't use the word confident, please God don't call it can't none there, call it content, not content. It is work. You are producing pieces of writing foreign minister and advancing the sum of human knowledge, but What I do come across was the stuff that journalists really pushed out hard on two things that they appear to find really really enticing woman's, really provocative moments that just looked like made that the questioner or the person speaking the member Congress Democrats exclusively look horrible on the first was from Richmond who accused who attacked William BAR attorney general, William BAR in his opening statement, where he defended himself began with emotion. The cursory nod to Jean Louis and several Bridgman

I said that I would suggest that the actions speak louder than words and that you should really keep the name of the honourable Jean Louis out of the Department of Justice his mouth on this kind of thing that gets real alot applauded Son Twitter, but it is absolutely abhorrence. It is an assault on civil civil discourse and dignity, The attorney general should be able to celebrate the legacy of the early Harrison Civil Rights leader without being attacked for it simply because they happened to disagree on political issues. That's just insane to suggest otherwise, and this. Second, was from congresswoman familiar Jai about who well in this diatribe assaulting the YO something bar for failing to to defend

a rather to use of this kind ordinance that they use Mafia Park, for example, and in places and in around the courthouse in Portland the same fashion in Michigan, you have anti lockdown demonstrators protesting governor widower and suggesting that a very plainly now adjusting rather accusing him stay outright of defending attacking black Americans who are protesting for their rights and now carrying as much when the people who are protesting or white and armed and carrying confederate flags and the application. There is very clear, The difference is that one of these places was federal property. The other was not and didn't seem to matter particularly to these journalists, for boosting the signal on all that stuff. You know, there's a particular deliciousness to watching

the the congressional members blow their top in front of bar, because he is a terrible stand in for Trump. He makes he makes a bad monster to direct all your anti trump animus head equally, because he is now, as you say so, imperturbable he's like me, the anti trump do you know and every time he gets out there- and this was true when he came out to comment. On the Mulder report is well, I mean you know that A lot of hay was made about what he said. He just doesn't work as a target for that kind of rage and and there. Then the anger in frustration is palpable in response, so the opening stew, a billion bar is. It is a pretty remarkable document if we were allowed not to view everything through the prism of either Trump is

their full or is the worst person in the world. You would say that this opening statement is one of the best defenses of the Trump administrations actions that has that there is in part, because it is actually relatively mild, though he does refer plainly in the third I refer to the bogus Russia Gate scandal and he says every ever since I made it clear. I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus russet Russia get scandal many of the day creates on this committee of attempted to discredit me by conjuring up of that I am simply the president's Factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions.

And then he goes into chapter verse about how he does not do that and in an inv questioning by Hank Johnson congressmen best. Own. Before this time for referring to Israelis as termites infesting, the West Bank Termites Hank Johnson of Georgia, Hank Johnson, says bar. Your opening statement could have been written by Roger Stone and BAR says. I don't know what you mean And he says.

I want. I demand that you answer the question about whether you went to the president and he told you to treat stone lightly. An bar says I didn't go to anybody. I did not discuss any action without involving Roger Stone with the White House, and he says I You don't want to answer after which bar then says, but I did answer and Johnson says. Are we claim my time Johnson says you change to sentencing recommendations

embark, as I did in Johnson's as you change the sensing recommendation on Michael Flynn and BAR says, I didn't change and fully and Johnson says I reclaim my time I mean it's funny maybe but here's the problem. Like I look at this, and I am, I would aim say they look terrible, but do the people that they are trying to appeal to do. They think they Terrible, I did hear are never NBC. I heard Andrew Mitchell say when there was a five minute break there. Some concern that the democratic questioning is a little unfocused and then she went to Garrod Hake, who was standing in the hallway, with his mask on, because you know now, you have to wear masks while your broadcasting, even though no one's within six feet of you, you're broadcasting and.

Am I you know. Garrard Hague sounded like Candy and South Park little bed. I couldn't entirely stand him because his mouth was covered with a mask, but he says yes, the Democrats seem to be no. Maybe they'll go get their act together during the break, so that I do think that, even though I thought look terrible, but then I think that their own people will think of their great there just there, given it to a mere given it to that. Guy. That the journalist response was, I hope, you get it together. Nobody lowering our its point to reach Larry had the same complaint about Republicans. Isn't there not in the moment their focused more on their on the pre workers, talking point not addressing. What's in the room, which is an insult in a travesty, and there is a lot to be said for that, but also I mean if you're watching this at all, you are

the target audience. You therefore to see points scored you're not interested in an oversight hearing but book, but which is why I think, most of their people, as you say, John, as both the people who the Democrats are looking to get excited with this are watching the entire proceeding and they're not gonna, see those clips because they make members of Congress of bad What they're going to see over and over again are the law a fee, thunderous denunciations of fascism and racism. Right I mean that's an that's end. They will take those away, as you know, magnificent, toward a forces towards the force right. So in that case, it doesn't really matter does no, I mean weirdly enough. It really does matter, because what what what's going on then? Is people

speaking to one side, and then you have you now republic gives absolutely Gomer blithering on in his idiotic way and that gate, splattering, MAC Gates attacking attack attacking bar from the right for not, I don't know like basically for now executing Andrew became and on like that, and then someone in Congress or from Alabama saying you know, I very concerned about the welfare of children and sex trafficking and bar says I'm with you on that. Can I just could. Could I just take a little bit of your time to answer some of the questions that they were asking me before about Roger stolen Lafayette Part, and she does, of course, so then he basically used her time not to really talk about sex trafficking, but rather to kind of try to address the questions that the time was reclaim for now there is. It is very important,

in our system that Congress practice oversight over the executive branch. That is a necessary and important check on executive power. The check is not just the pocket book. It is also the knowledge that executive branch officials need to have that. Someone is watching It is going to hold them accountable if they'd miss spend money or if they behave in ways that violate the house, that they take and these hearings don't necessary. These hearings are some hard tune, hard monster, cartoon version of that process, which does go on every and is an important fact that its there is the check and

actually bar alluded to that fact. At one point by saying I knew I know that I'm gonna get criticised and factors into how I think about how do my job, and so you should understand if I, if way. Yet on something like a sentence or something like that, I'm doing with the knowledge that this could cause me trouble. But I feel I have to do. What I need to do to you know too, were to perform my job properly and in our either he's a fantastic liar and basically sits with Trump drinking at my giggling and coming up with horrible and terrible. You know our policies. They help Trump get us through into a pardon, trumps friends and and mitigate things with his enemies or you know, and make lifestyle tougher as enemies like like Michael oh in or not,

I don't know if it's kind of a binary. I think that the Lafayette part display was a fantastic bungle, terrible miscalculate from political miscalculation, in which his attorney general market, not take immediate part apart and planning was certainly party to it in a participant in it, and that was. Regrettable mine, politically and and in terms of just basic civil, civics and decency, and just an executive should should be negative, should behave what happens in the West Coast what's happening in the cities. What did not happen in front of missions Us State House is some is completely relevant and certainly not something that is worthy of the kind of hydrogen

garment rending that we saw from some democratic bumpers so again going back to bars statement. He put it this way, you so soul chosen to respond to George Woods, death in a fight less productive way by demonizing the police promoting slogans like a cab. All cops are bastards and making grossly irresponsible proposals to defend the police. The demonization of police Is not only unfair and inconsistent with the principle that all people should be treated as individuals but grey. Billy injurious to our inner city communities. There is no job harder job in America today than being a police officer when it can Did he turns on in pillar? Is its own? Police officers naturally become more risk, averse and crime rate sore. Unfortunately, we are seeing that now in many of our major cities. This is a critical problem that exists apart from disagreements on other issues. The threats of black lives posed by crime in the streets is met.

Greater than any threat posed by police was conduct. The leading cause of death for young black meals is homicide. Every year approximately seventy five hundred black Americans are victims of homicide and the vast majority of them run. Ninety percent are killed other blacks, mainly by gunfire each of those lives matter. That's that would be an interesting thing to have an argument about right, but of course they are not equipped have an argument or discussion about any of this goes its all performative, you know, and and then he went into the breakdown in the rule of law over the past two months, violent rioters, an anarchist, have hijacked legitimate protests, two weeks census, havoc and destruction on innocent victims. Current situation. Portland is a telling example, every night for the past two months, a mob of hundreds of writers is laid siege to the federal

ass, another nearby property, the writers arrive equipped for a fight armed with powerful slingshot tailors, Sledge hammer saws, knives rifles and explosive devices inside the court has are relatively small number of federal law enforcement personnel charged with a defensive mission to protect. The court has home to article three federal, judges from being overrun and destroyed. What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably called be called the protest. It is by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States. Again,

It would be interesting to have a conversation around this point in which bars critics found themselves compelled to argue that the protests that we are seeing are some kind of understandable emotional expression of distress compelled by the circumstances surrounding George Floyd's DAS, but that is not or killing. That is not what we all we see is people screaming at a guy sitting before them up the time to go, to have had the discussion about the greatest threat to american black lives was in late may in early June, and we had it both on them

of course, in the magazine and a few others headed, but mostly people, were scared to death to have that discussion so that so the entire movement in response, has sailed along with a wee bit windows closed. It has we skip that discussion in time. Early and there's no way to two reinserting on on a large scale now well in bar, complete concluded by saying the following. As elected. Vessels of federal government. Every member of this committee, regardless of your political views or your feelings about the Trump administration should can violence against federal officers and destruction of federal property, social. State and local leaders, whoever responsibility to keep their community safe to tacitly condone. Structural and anarchy is to abandon the basic rule of law principles that should unite us. Even in a politically divisive.

I'm at the very least, we should all be able to agree that there is no place in this country for armed mobs that seek to establish a ton of a zone beyond government control. Or tear down statues and monuments that law abiding communities chose to erect or you destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent business owners. The most basic responsibility of government to ensure the rule of law so that people can live, live there live safely and without fear. Now, what's wrong on with a single syllable of that paragraph. Unless you are a radical anarchist, I'm I'm I'm, I'm honestly asking the question: is any of that untrue

no, but I would of course, Democrats are now invested in this idea that you cannot criticise the excesses of this of this mob, and in fact you have to ten, as though this mob is is made up of people of color when there now Then there are the people who are committing the violence as video after video image. Her image. Anybody you also closely knows are not predominantly minorities, but why people and progressive of a certain age, demographic, You have to pretend, as though none of that happening in this is some sort of a righteous expression, righteous and solemn expression of the dignified And and mistreated masses when it

It's not true any if you were to acknowledge the violence than your to undermine that premise. But I mean that's: that's again: that's let's allowing the people on Twitter to german, these that maximum lists on twitter to determine You know your rational response to events, and it has just rendered our national conversation? Unintelligible on these? No one is speaking to each other, So I forget that drive all the giant building again. I can't I can't stress this enough that she's calling a billboard, basically and and nazi apologist, a racist and it's all premised on a error, one things federal property when things not but little really. No one cares. The electric diet, is all that matters and, if you're going to argue the facts, you're just speaking to know what the use their eyes Glaser, So there is another example of this where the premises are so faulty and no one seems to notice so. The mayor of Portland TED Wheeler.

Says he's now looking to have a cease fire, his term ceasefire between the anarchists and the federal agents, who are defending federal property. And federal employs a ceasefire implies. Two sides of two hostile sides seeking to harm each other. You know each each with its own cause emission. The federal agents are responding to a criminal attack on federal property. There sit there No, this there's no ceasefire to be had you you can you can try to persuade the rioters and the anarchists to stop attacking federal buildings, but this is not a question of a ceasefire, but we saw this at the dawn of the Chaz Right, where

started, creating these maps of Portland, wherever, like they had this block, regime controlled and the other one was a lip point of liberation and there were the shifting battle eyes like they're playing at the syrian civil war. Exactly it's almost it's almost as though a hostage negotiator starts believing that the people or holding the hostages- have a point in that you know what routes are really would only be Cricut to let them have what it is that you're negotiating for as opposed to what a hasa is going to share is actually doing, which is trying to you're out away to separate the violent people from the people who are under threat to convince the violent people to let them let them

go and then who cares what happens to the half the people or holding hostages? The building could fall on them. Everything could blow up, they could get shot it's of no consequence, but the hostage negotiator, currently, and that would be mayor. Ted Wheeler now has to boot, treat these people who are taking hostages, taking the city hostage and these buildings hostage and the streets hostage as though they are proper negotiating partners in a rational negotiation over first things- and I swear to God, if these people Wheeler and whoever followed the people who have given in a Jake again, fry the mayor, Minneapolis people who have given in to this emotional disaster.

If there is not a reckoning for them in some fashion than to say that they'll be replaced by you know, conservative Republicans, but if they are not held to account for what has gone on here for their survey of these streets and for the surrender of the rule of law. You know that the did the dis in the dissolution of the United States over the next twenty years is a very real problem. I mean I do. How do we? How can you live in a world in which you have established this as a president when David Jenkins in New York and ninety ninety one let the riot and crown

go on injuries in the dozens to do when he did when he paid for the funeral of a drug dealer and acted as though the drug dealer who had been shooting at a cop was innocent victim of a US up. Of a cop who was in danger of losing his life, who say his own life and the lives of others in the building by shooting kicker, Garcia Dead and the mayor of New York treated. That is, though, that worry that had been a of police crime, he lost his mayoralty and the cities entire politics, flipped over unruly Giuliani, became mayor right now. I dont think something like that is gonna happen, but are R. People really gonna, but that was not an overnight thing there now look here

years and years of a consensus forming at grass roots level and migrating up to elite institutions around the response to the current commission style of blaming policing, fork banality getting order reversed. I mean that we're talking over decades worth societal evolution here and if that's the trajectory them were at work, starting the cycle over again at the beginning of road accidents is apt to be fair, Portland. It's not starting at ground. Zero right Portland, as we know from Andy, knows, reporting over the last three years. Portland has been an anti fraud nightmare. Oh you know what let's pull back from it at my congressmen, Gerald Adler, who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, asked by a report. You know some concern a reporter about it,

Tea for said, anti further mass now the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which is tasked with the oversight of the lawn order, arms and functions. The fellow parliament is saying that what is going on in Portland Seattle and in His own city and elsewhere is a myth. I just I can't believe that where people are not going to look back on this,

in twenty five years and say what the hell was going on. How on earth did this happen? It's like with wind when you find out or when people find out that in you know, in the in the late sixties, early seventies, there were one thousand two hundred domestic terrorist bombings in the United States by leftist groups. All over the country and people say what how what that's what went on in America? I can't believe it, but yeah it happened. Then it's happening now and again. Twenty five years from now people are going to be like John they're going to have their jaws hanging open when they make the eight part documentary after you know, when they make an honest version of the Maiden America Oj Simpson

about this. Twenty years from now and people watcher, Thou, Netflix or whatever you know where they they deem it into their brains using Netflix as Hologram brain him. I'm function and they're gonna be like they're gonna. Their jaws are gonna drop, because this is crazy. Like how hard as if to say- and this is bad what's going on in Portland. What is the political consequence of saying it's bad? What's going on in Portland, even if you're a liberal Democrat explore, I don't understand it you're giving these are white communists there. Why communists who who's on their side? There not suffering black kids, their white communist punk, creep, monsters, you notice something of a town shift, though yesterday and in

some people who, in other ways is supportive of just about anything. I mixed Donald Trump look bad some damage. That's, MSNBC personalities, all the sudden adopting I had been a very sensible position that we have adopted for quite some time, but that they were allergic to which is this stuff makes us look bad. This stuff helps truck, stop doing this stuff We are talking about what the stuff was being very vague, but never addressing the political ramifications of urban violence, not necessarily, you know they got the morality of it. The assaults on on neighborhoods that are actually lived in by people who they come clean to protest in favour of, but please acknowledging the political detriment associated with prolonged civil unrest in american citizen? That was welcome. In so far, It represented a nod towards sanity and something

resembling an objective, calculus political calculus, right yeah. I guess I hope I mean it was kind of short lived. I haven't seen it today, but it was at least it was there yesterday you know what I'm going to pull back. I want to talk to you guys about our sponsor today, the Bradley Foundation and its speaker series. Conceived in liberty, is making sense of current events during this extraordinary time can be trying, as this podcast makes clear every day, so conceive liberty. The Bradley Speaker Series is where he should go cause. It's a new video series of offers meaningful perspectives through engaging fifth many errors and boy. Is there an engaging fifth Many of you in your future, with my friend are contributor. Arm arm are quite frequent contributor on matters chilean

biographer of Churchill, Biafra Napoleon one of my favorite people, british author historian and Roberts, I dare say you know and who knows everything, but he really Churchill. His book walking with that their church, one would destiny, is a master piece of masterpieces and in this episode, which you can see at Bradley, F, Dm Dot, org the slash liberty, he addresses Churchill's approached the governing board the crisis and how Churchill evolved from statist to staunch advocate of the free market system Andrew also shares this take on the destruction of historical

payments that's Bradley within Ellie. Why, at the end, F, Dm Dot, Org slash liberty to watch the video of new episodes, will debut weekly, so come back often and subscribe to their Youtube channel to be notified whenever a new one is posted. Now I believe that it was Churchill who said democracy is the worst system, except for all the other systems, and I think that that sort of what we're talking about here in relation to these congressional hearings, like a few watches and rational hearings or any congressional hearing on time, but the ones that hurt Democrats like Benghazi are the ones that hurt Republicans. Like this or what are we know what our house works? The dramaturgy is always a failure because it always invokes sympathy for, as I would say, for the for the person who was testifying almost always because you got

thirty people yelling at them and there's one guy in a chair. This is not let you know. This is not a good optic right. If this is what democracy really is that democracy is terrible, but is this really? What democracy is I mean not to get. You know overly philosophical here, but as it is this, what american democracy really is the publicly the publicly televised hearing on twenty democracy is properly understood. So so you are an opponent, you mean you're, talking about rule the rule by mob throng. A majority rule gap, precisely ok, because right over the house was a majority Irian institution, and this is what a majority and institution looks like can be AIDS, but it's also literally made up of representatives so dear so dear, it's it's. What a republic looks like as well.

Well? Well, meals. We have some mitigating factors, but yeah I mean generally in this as it as a democratic institution, albeit one that is comprised of republican representatives in it. Republic short, but yes will not proceed as them is in fifty plus one. Yet summer caters to the mob. Not everybody in so in the largest sense, even forgetting the the bar hearing. Are we really what we're talking about now is this very large risk with democracy, which is to say that when the The passions of a great number of the people turn problematic or dangerous. It poses a threat to two to two republic- and this is a promise that I've been working on for a couple of weeks now for a much larger peace switches D, the

the way in which the Democratic Party, in particular, has given itself over. To this ecstatic delight in crowds is the mass movement aesthetic which is not new but where they have deferred to anyone and anything that looks like a mass movement as long as it's you know, can physically manifesting itself in crowds in street demonstrations. He saw this with they broke all those stigma around locked down and broadly, you now have. A democratic party has deferred to majority Marian romanticizing majority. Syrian of reforms that have undermined political parties and have deferred referenda to get legislation through that people have no legitimate navigating themselves and why we have republican democracy. There's no

there's no way in which voters in California can understand, prescription pricing rules right and yet that's put to them in a referendum, because legislators don't actually want to negotiate, this sort of things, the attack on legislative filibuster, fetish with the with voting as though more voting will somehow dilute person ship, which is not justified in any political literature, eliminating the electoral college, etc, etc, etc. There there infatuated with the majority Marian Aesthetic It has measurably dangerous consequences for actual for the functioning of this government. Will. This is also evident this this stuff,

Elsa, something that I'm working on it, and you know I didn't in writing running about this guy when looked a bit. The federalist at at at the Federalist and James Madison Particular, is has quite a bit to say about what he called factions in the danger of faction, swaying, the the the larger republic and, in fact, all his arguments about why the United States composed politically

and governmental organised as it is, would reduce factions? There's no failsafe, there's no lock in there that guarantees the protection of of one dangerous group holding sway there a bunch of very good convincing arguments about why it's unlikely to happen, but were particularly having to do with the size of our country and what he. He foresaw at which did not materialise as there being a great number of competing political parties too many for one to hold sway to any dangerous degree, but the situation no described in which it is in a system where we now have two leading

parties- and one of them has in fact become infatuated with with the mob, is a very significant risk. Well, I mean I, you know the one, the so basically what What makes american the american political system work is its second ass right, that's the that's the general idea is that power is diffused through a series of layers and block, and you don't may amaze like ways that it can be expressed. That makes the that makes the exercise of power difficult, not ease the exercise of authority in Centralize authority, influence difficult and not easy, every one of the three

branches of federal of the federal government is checked by the other state. Power is checked by local power. Local powers checked by state power and state power is checked by the Congress and by the presidency, and the world the principle of federal supremacy that makes it impossible for say, Andrew Cuomo to impose a tax on run the fantasy. You know that that kind of thing and that this thickness into this thickness and not you know that there is a hundred percent voting turn out. That is what insured the freedom and the liberties of the people, and that is the genius of the system- is not that it is a representative government, precise We, it is a representative government, but it's a representative government that had, and particularly in the first two hundred and twenty,

As you know, the Senate was not a representative governmental body. Right was an appointed body so that the that's it. That's a pretty big exception. Judges are appointed now, even though their confirmed so there it's, not that everything is voted on, and everything and add the people choose everything. It is that the entire system is built to ensure that the individual does not get messed with war, that it is more difficult for people to mess with the individual and his liberties and his and his freedoms and his essential freedoms, and that that is the promise of America. That's why Some of us would say that America's better that the mechanism is better than parliamentary system right, because parliamentary seats was also a voting system. Representatives of all that, but in that case parliamentary systems are not thick

The government in power can basically enact its will there's? No there's no effort to pull that back and our system is built built on the pulling pulling it back, and yet the worship of the direct democracy idea is incredibly violet. Of of this. Fact about the american system. All this hysteria over over over voting now you know and how everyone needs access to voting in voting voting voting voting voting in voting in one man, one vote, my god. What about the vote and all that? Well, you know so we're in a country in which a hundred and forty million people voted and were now being told by people, Britain, forty million people voted the last lesson and were told by people that the vote, vote, vote, vote or being suppressed all over the place, suppress like brother, more. These vote should be suppressed, did he

This is why you know they use them. You know like doing trust, to whose voting I mean it's, like you just vote for the halibut. It's like fun now now this was to make it as far as possible to work out an app. You know you can vote like you play quiz up You know you have to what you shouldn't have to wait on. Why? Because that's too hard you shouldn't have to should never have register, because it's too hard all that stuff. It's supposed to be hard. Some of this is supposed to be hard, a horrid. I know it's there, it's not working there. Where would I only places into registry and others of the arrest of them? posted surmount a bowl of hurdles before it. Aging in in civics, and that's Did you know I it's unspoken, but it serve its I own test of your capacity to engage responsibly

this is all has a bad odor because of efforts to suppress the black vote. With much more stringent tests, some of which being financial in nature, and so there others- and there is an allergy tanning that, particularly if your focused on repairing american race relations as Democrats are more than Republicans quite clearly I don't think that's a controversial statement to make that they are far more focused on the legacy of american racial discrimination. Then organs are nevertheless It is true that you should have to be a competent citizen in order to cast a ballot and the smallest possible contrary. And you can make- is to be able to know where your Poland places look. That's a central point is that is that rights are balanced by responsibilities

that this is a key element of the of the Federalist. Is that not just that God grants us these liberties, and we have this liberties and then we have them and we can do whatever the hell we want with them. We can't do whatever the hell we, while at them because there is always the possibility- We will use them in a way that will destroy them at the same time and that we are therefore response. We have to be responsible in our stored ship and management of our own liberties in the liberties of are fellow citizens, and you can say, since we have this whole controversy over whether wherever Tom Cotton making the entirely on controversial point that that people who wish to see the constitution ratified in the country Move forward founded necessary to make compromises with the existence of slavery, because otherwise it wasn't going to happen that

the compromise that allowed slavery to happen was itself precisely the thing that lead over time to a civil war that kills half a million people and nearly destroyed the country, because those people who insisted on it were improper stewards of their responsibilities to the liberties that they enjoy and that they were denied. The others, not all anti discrimination. Legislation is predicated on the constitutional, constitutional, equal protection. And we now have you like an anti discrimination law. You have to defend the constitution. Sorry. What am? I just think that, ultimately, what we're talking about here is trumpets is guilty of this. Is anybody else? Is the idea that what are you gonna do? What have you done for me lately? What are you

doing for me, I'm I'm your vote. Gimme, Gimme, stuff, Gimme things stop them from getting things they hate. You date me now. If you don't like me than your bad like the presumption that none of that is supposed to matter. Those attitudes. Arts was the matter because this system itself, is a moderating influence on the passions and the end and the bad ideas that that prevail, but if the entire country becomes drink, solid, cystic and self involved and does not believe itself to have any responsibility towards the system whatsoever, then we will devolve into. We will destroy ourselves, will turn to a series of fiefdoms there will be represent. Government will be representative in direct proportion to the racial poetic

all it illogical with religious make up of the country and the end, and we, literally live in our little, Silos and the poor will get poor and the rich will get richer and everybody, and it will be a miserable place too, to have a civilization has ever. Crushing veracity. It's bad right does all this from one hearing and hidden. Although really since I was as since I first saw Paying attention to these things in the early eighties, by the way like when the hearings hearings, don't work out all that welfare. For Democrats, I have to say when you think about it like the. U know impeachment didn't: go: thou well, the cabin I hearing- was a disaster in the end,

this is not, I think going well for them. So I don't know they had some interesting point. I mean there is, but I mean how much does it matter? How much is it? How much will it matters that got break animals can be on the Supreme Court for thirty years at the lower. The electoral ramifications democratic overreach there needed a manifest in eighteen. No I'm going to have. One reason is because nobody remembers impeachment happen soon, own of all about the electoral ramifications question whether they got their way whether they understand what they look like when they have these fits and, of course that was, of course also calmly Harris. I guess it yet picked as the vice presidential, Mommy, weaken, say. In the end, her her her rub rising stardom because of the way she behaved. The at the cabinet hearing was the first step on the road, but but by them

that's the problem. That's why these building up, because everyone wants that start turn moment in these things right. So, so they're all overshooting counterpoint for you actually Amy clover to restart began to rise during the cabinet hearings, not because she was a firebrand, but just the opposite, because she was actually asking pointed questions in a similar fashion and not over reaching, and it was in fact, Cavenaugh responded in a rocking chair, Refashion, and that made her look really good right, well, yeah, but and once in a while, you get there. You know. Sometimes you see again. I didn't want this, but others valley there made is by the way, a gas. Sometimes you see people who get high marks for actually asking substantive questions and getting a subset of response and doing so dispassionately, where it will vowed their meetings if thou them exams up the vice presidential mommy will be because of her behaviour is one ass managers at impeachment, when she actually was an effective advocate for that view, in a room in which

there were people who were really awful and I'm sorry, but I am but the atom shift was awful and all of you liberals who think that he was good understand what awful is. This is like people who liked my dinner with Andrei were lost in translation, both of which are terrible and a new many people like them, and they were awful and so was anxious. Those movies of people like another year we're supposed to like that in fact, don't like lost in translation. I know everybody like you're all wrong. They should see it again because it so boring that its outer it's crazy born anyway. I throw Lawson translated in there see if I can arise out of aid by did nosey illegal arise at an hour, though, This issue has arisen as I get the other. I was more focused on I didn't regards which I hate, right. I also like lost in translation. Opec right so skipper

translation. We can pick something outside Europe. Something by parents malins anyway with dad, I think we will bring. This brings to a close no, I will be back tomorrow, John onwards. Keep the cavern