Podcasts about Electoral college

The first presidential elections excluded some states, chose electors without the popular vote, and delayed the selection of the president after members of Congress fail to show up to count the votes. Blog ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789, by Joseph Ellis Online Recommendation of the Week: 1789 President of the United States, Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/zp38wf06k Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amrevpod.quora.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow the podcast on X ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the podcast mail list: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ARP T-shirts and other merch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://merch.amrevpodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support this podcast on Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or via PayPal ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Take a Fifth and Call Me In the Morning" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis Website for the show: https://governamerica.com Vicky's website: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22626-govern-america-july-12-2025-take-a-fifth-and-call-me-in-the-morning Listen LIVE every Saturday at 11AM Eastern or 8AM Pacific at http://governamerica.net or on your favorite app. How dare you ask any questions about Epstein! Trump administration now says Epstein killed himself, bribed no one, and there was no client list. Weather modification admittedly used prior to deadly Texas flooding, but you're a conspiracy theorist if you believe it had an impact. Deadline approaches for WHO International Health Regulations withdrawal, and more.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

fWotD Episode 2982: George Washington Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Friday, 4 July 2025, is George Washington.George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O. S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799) was a Founding Father and the first president of the United States, serving from 1789 to 1797. As commander of the Continental Army, Washington led Patriot forces to victory in the American Revolutionary War against the British Empire. He is commonly known as the Father of the Nation for his role in bringing about American independence.Born in the Colony of Virginia, Washington became the commander of the Virginia Regiment during the French and Indian War (1754–1763). He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, and opposed the perceived oppression of the American colonists by the British Crown. When the American Revolutionary War against the British began in 1775, Washington was appointed commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. He directed a poorly organized and equipped force against disciplined British troops. Washington and his army achieved an early victory at the Siege of Boston in March 1776 but were forced to retreat from New York City in November. Washington crossed the Delaware River and won the battles of Trenton in late 1776 and Princeton in early 1777, then lost the battles of Brandywine and Germantown later that year. He faced criticism of his command, low troop morale, and a lack of provisions for his forces as the war continued. Ultimately Washington led a combined French and American force to a decisive victory over the British at Yorktown in 1781. In the resulting Treaty of Paris in 1783, the British acknowledged the sovereign independence of the United States. Washington then served as president of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which drafted the current Constitution of the United States.Washington was unanimously elected the first U. S. president by the Electoral College in 1788 and 1792. He implemented a strong, well-financed national government while remaining impartial in the fierce rivalry that emerged within his cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. During the French Revolution, he proclaimed a policy of neutrality while supporting the Jay Treaty with Britain. Washington set enduring precedents for the office of president, including republicanism, a peaceful transfer of power, the use of the title "Mr. President", and the two-term tradition. His 1796 farewell address became a preeminent statement on republicanism: Washington wrote about the importance of national unity and the dangers that regionalism, partisanship, and foreign influence pose to it. As a planter of tobacco and wheat at Mount Vernon, Washington owned many slaves. He began opposing slavery near the end of his life, and provided in his will for the eventual manumission of his slaves.Washington's image is an icon of American culture and he has been extensively memorialized; his namesakes include the national capital and the State of Washington. In both popular and scholarly polls, he is consistently considered one of the greatest presidents in American history.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:46 UTC on Friday, 4 July 2025.For the full current version of the article, see George Washington on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Olivia.

Donald Bacon is an American politician and retired military officer who has served as the U.S. representative for Nebraska's 2nd congressional district since 2017. During his 29 years in the United States Air Force, he commanded wings at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and Offutt Air Force Base south of Omaha, Nebraska, before retiring as a brigadier general in 2014. Bacon has been described as a maverick for his opposition to the isolationist and protectionist policies proposed by Donald Trump, who has derided him as a "rebel." Bacon is one of the strongest pro-Ukraine voices in US politics, with a clear and moral stance on the war. In April 2022, the Russian Federation sanctioned and banned Bacon in retaliation for U.S. participation in sanctions against pro-war members of the Russian Duma. In 2023, Bacon signed a letter advocating for President Joe Biden to give F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.Following the highly contentious White House meeting between President Trump and Volodymir Zelenskyy in February 2025, Bacon described the summit as "a bad day for America's foreign policy." In an interview with CNN, he described Trump's stance on Russia as "too conciliatory" and amounting to "walking away" from America's legacy as the leader of the free world. Bacon did not join congressional Republicans who sided with the Trump campaign's attempts to overturn the 2020 US presidential election. He voted to certify both Arizona's and Pennsylvania's votes in the 2021 Electoral College vote count. Bacon was one of 35 Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to approve legislation to establish the January 6 commission to investigate the Capitol attack.----------Links: https://x.com/repdonbacon?lang=en https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Baconhttps://bacon.house.gov/https://www.congress.gov/member/don-bacon/B001298https://www.facebook.com/RepDonBacon/https://www.instagram.com/repdonbacon/ ----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------PLATFORMS:Twitter: https://twitter.com/CurtainSiliconInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/siliconcurtain/Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/4thRZj6NO7y93zG11JMtqmLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/finkjonathan/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------Welcome to the Silicon Curtain podcast. Please like and subscribe if you like the content we produce. It will really help to increase the popularity of our content in YouTube's algorithm. Our material is now being made available on popular podcasting platforms as well, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Hillsdale College Radio General Manager and Radio Free Hillsdale Hour host Scot Bertram fills in for Jim on Thursday's 3 Martini Lunch. Join Scot and Greg as they assess the Supreme Court's ruling on Planned Parenthood and your tax dollars, a radical government overhaul proposal from a Democratic congressman, and whether the Democrats will mimic Mamdani in the 2026 midterms and beyond.First, they discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from where it spends Medicaid dollars. Scot and Greg react to the decision, explain why it makes sense, and note the incredibly biased way these politically-charged rulings are covered in the media. Next, they shake their heads as Illinois Rep. Sean Casten proposes adding 12 at-large U.S. Senate seat decided in a national popular vote, which would also add 12 votes to the Electoral College. He also wants to increase the U.S. House of Representatives by 250 seats, and "rebalance" the Supreme Court by creating a "13-judge multi-circuit panel" that would decide any cases where the U.S. government or a federal agency is a party.Finally, they spotlight the Democrats who avoided Zohran Mamdani's extremism before the election but now rush to align with him. Scot and Greg explore whether Mamdani's far-left agenda will become a blueprint for Democrats heading into the 2026 midterms and beyond.Please visit our great sponsors:It's free, online, and easy to start—no strings attached. Enroll in American Foreign Policy  with Hillsdale College. Visit https://Hillsdale.edu/MartiniFatty15 is on a mission to help you live healthier, longer.  Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to https://Fatty15.com/3ML and use code 3ML at checkout.

rWotD Episode 2974: 1884 United States presidential election in Wisconsin Welcome to Random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Wednesday, 25 June 2025, is 1884 United States presidential election in Wisconsin.The 1884 United States presidential election in Wisconsin was held on November 4, 1884, as part of the 1884 United States presidential election. State voters chose 11 electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.Republican Party candidate James G. Blaine won Wisconsin with 50.37% of the popular vote, winning the state's eleven electoral votes.Starting with this election, Ashland County voted for the statewide winner in every election until 1944; Chippewa County also began such a streak that lasted until 1940.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:05 UTC on Wednesday, 25 June 2025.For the full current version of the article, see 1884 United States presidential election in Wisconsin on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Joanna.

It's the end of the line for Donald Trump as the Electoral College finally meets and casts their votes for Joe Biden. While Trump vows to fight on, his MAGA warriors are targeting the GOP for failing to overturn the election in Trump's favor. We also look back at the previous five weeks and pick out the highs and lows in Trump's clown car coup attempt. Plus, Vanity Fair's Emily Jane Fox, author of Born Trump, joins Michael to discuss the future of the President's offspring. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices It's the end of the line for Donald Trump as the Electoral College finally meets and casts their votes for Joe Biden. While Trump vows to fight on, his MAGA warriors are targeting the GOP for failing to overturn the election in Trump's favor. We also look back at the previous five weeks and pick out the highs and lows in Trump's clown car coup attempt. Plus, Vanity Fair's Emily Jane Fox, author of Born Trump, joins Michael to discuss the future of the President's offspring. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The House, the Whistle, and the Basement: Explaining America to ItselfAmerica in 2025 feels less like a nation-state and more like a house mid-repossession. Not by banks, but by competing claims of ownership over what it means to belong, to obey, to resist, and to rule. Think of it like this: there's an old multi-generational house — a Montauk-style sprawl. The parents live upstairs. The kids rule the basement. And now the whole place is in conflict.At first, the basement was a gift. A playroom. The kids got space to express themselves — a little weed, a little weirdness, some drag, some slogans. Fine. Contained chaos. But then the parents went downstairs… and it wasn't just play. The crucifix was upside down. There was graffiti, moral chanting, purity rituals, and defiance. They'd lost control.The parents tried to whistle — a sharp sound meant to snap order back into place, the way Grandpa Dunn used to whistle in Jersey City and all four daughters fell into line. But this time, the kids laughed.So they called the cops. In this case: Trump. Not as a liberator, but as enforcer-in-chief. He won the Electoral College, the popular vote, all the swing states. The GOP controls the House, the Senate, and the ideological center of gravity. He didn't bring back the old crew. He brought enforcers — Tulsi, RFK Jr., Kash Patel, Pam Bondi. The new guard.This wasn't a policy shift. This was a mandate.It's not just permission to govern — it's permission to undo. To erase.No more DEI priests.No more pronoun rituals.No more moral blackmail posing as diversity.The populist right believes they have the numbers and the moral right to reclaim the house. Not burn it down — but flip it. Renovate it. Throw out the squatters and board up the basement.To the left, this is terrifying. Because “mandate” means Trump didn't squeak by — he was sent. With permission. With support. With the will of a majority who silently said, “Get our house back.”From 2016 to 2020, identity politics went through ideological gain-of-function. The universities. The HR departments. K–12. White Fragility was published in 2018, just in time to spread a new form of mandatory compassion. Dissent was rebranded as violence. Tolerance became insufficient. You had to submit.COVID was the trigger — the mask over the mouth, and the curriculum into the bloodstream. America tolerated it — until it didn't.And that's where the MAGA mandate hit: not to debate, but to reverse. To enforce a reality many believed they'd lost. Trump isn't there to convince. He's there to reset.This piece is published on Juneteenth, during Pride Month. That matters. Because even amid backlash, we recognize what's been fought for — and what still deserves dignity.But we also need to name the tension: America is a house, and right now, everyone thinks they own the deed.The whistle didn't work. The cops have been called.And the basement is under new management.—Chris AbrahamWhat is the MAGA Mandate?Cultural Gain-of-FunctionFinal Bow

What is the Electoral College and how does it preserve states' rights and protect the voices of our citizens? We often see messages from media pundits and activists calling for “national popular vote” reforms and pleas to “count all votes.” What would those changes mean to our country and to freedoms we cherish? With Linda to discuss these often-asked questions is Michael Maibach, Policy Advisor for The American Civil Rights Union and Distinguished Fellow for Save Our States. Michael provides historically grounded and constitutionally sound insights into how the Electoral College protects minority rights, prevents regional domination, and ensures that small and large states have a voice in presidential elections. The Electoral College provides a stabilizing force to ensure states' rights and citizen voices are protected, which is why every American will benefit from understanding the importance of this process. Listen today for information and action items to guide you as you seek to become an educated and engaged citizen. Copyright 2025, Prosperity 101, LLC __________________________________________________________________ For information about our online course and other resources visit: https://prosperity101.com To order a copy of Prosperity 101 – Job Security Through Business Prosperity® by Linda J. Hansen, click here: https://prosperity101.com/products/ Become a Prosperity Partner: https://prosperity101.com/partner-contribution/ If you would like to be an episode sponsor, please contact us directly at https://prosperity101.com. You can also support this podcast by engaging with our Strategic Partners using the promo codes listed below. Be free to work and free to hire by joining RedBalloon, America's #1 non-woke job board and talent connector. Use Promo Code P101 or go to RedBalloon.work/p101 to join Red Balloon and support Prosperity 101®. Connect with other Kingdom minded business owners by joining the US Christian Chamber of Commerce. Support both organizations by mentioning Prosperity 101, LLC or using code P101 to join. https://uschristianchamber.com Mother Nature's Trading Company®, providing natural products for your health, all Powered by Cranology®. Use this link to explore Buy One Get One Free product options and special discounts: https://mntc.shop/prosperity101/ Unite for impact by joining Christian Employers Alliance at www.ChristianEmployersAlliance.org and use Promo Code P101. Support Pro-Life Payments and help save babies with every swipe. Visit www.prolifepayments.com/life/p101 for more information. Maximize your podcast by contacting Podcast Town. Contact them today: https://podcasttown.zohothrive.com/affiliateportal/podcasttown/login Thank you to all our guests, listeners, Prosperity Partners, and Strategic Partners. You are appreciated!   The opinions expressed by guests on this podcast do not necessarily represent those held or promoted by Linda J. Hansen or Prosperity 101, LLC.  

On the sixty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben, Shane, and Matthew discuss the Mayflower Compact, and its implications for American political life as one of the nation's earliest constitutional compacts. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

Roman Buhler never thought he'd see the day where the 'Left' would so actively try to undermine this nation through the packing of the Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment, presented with a Democrat helping the coalition, to say the the Supreme Court will consist with 9 justices. Roman looks behind the left wing members of Congress; involving the pro-abortion crowd, the teachers unions, folks who want to take away 2nd Amendment rights, the quota civil rights crowd wanting racial quotas, and Wall Street to empower regulators to enrich Green New Deal policies, and the most dangerous of all the Democrat election lawyers that want to get rid of the Electoral College. Young voters are key. Roman packs his coalition with the Gen Z folks that are strongly engaged to join Roman's coalition to initiate this new constitutional amendment. "We need another revolution", Roman said. In Trump's 2017 inauguration, Donald Trump said "it's time to transfer power out of Washington and back to the states and the people." "Laws must be made by elected officials" he said, "not by administrative decree. That would be the NEXT amendment."Check out MadisonCoalition.org or 202-255-5000“Keep 9” Is the Solution ~ Let's Stop Dem Court Packing!!!on the GrassRoots TruthCast with Gene ValentinoORIGINAL MEDIA SOURCE(S):‣ Originally Recorded on May 13, 2025‣ GrassRoots TruthCast: Season 2, Episode 284‣ Image courtesy of: GeneValentino.com➡️ Join the Conversation: https://GeneValentino.com➡️ WMXI Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRadio981➡️ More WMXI Interviews: https://genevalentino.com/wmxi-interviews/➡️ More GrassRoots TruthCast Episodes: https://genevalentino.com/grassroots-truthcast-with-gene-valentino/➡️ More Broadcasts with Gene as the Guest: https://genevalentino.com/america-beyond-the-noise/ ➡️ More About Gene Valentino: https://genevalentino.com/about-gene-valentino/

On the sixty-first episode, Shane and Ben are joined by Joseph Natali, a Ph.D. student at Baylor University dissertating on the constitutionalism of bureaucracy and how Presidents succeed or fail in exercising control over the executive branch. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the sixtieth episode, Matthew and Ben are joined by Shilo Brooks, Executive Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, to discuss his immensely popular course "The Art of Statesmanship and the Political Life." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the fifty-ninth episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" on the omnipotence of the majority. They discuss Tocqueville's warnings of the detrimental effects of democracy on the citizen. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

A new AP-NORC poll finds just one-third of Democrats are optimistic about their party's future — down from six in 10 last July. Only 33% of Democrats say they're very or somewhat optimistic — a collapse driven by frustration that leaders aren't pushing back hard enough on Trump's agenda. Meanwhile, Republicans' optimism is on the rise. Fifty-five percent of GOP voters feel good about their party's direction — up from 47% a year ago. But neither party enjoys widespread love. Only 40% of Americans view the GOP favorably, and just one-third feel that way about Democrats. Among Democrats, only 30% have a positive view of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 21% back Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders leads with 40% approval. With gerrymandering and the Electoral College leaving 55% of Democrats doubting the system, the question is clear: Will the party find its next unifying leader in time, or will pessimism prevail? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the fifty-eighth episode, Shane, Matthew, and Ben are joined by William B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University, to discuss Montesquieu's political philosophy and its influence on the American Founding and eighteenth-century British politics. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

In this episode of Welcome to Cloudlandia, we start with Dan's recent experience with stem cell injections, a journey filled with both challenges and relief. This discussion transitions into the inspiring story of a Vietnamese massage therapist who built her career in Canada, highlighting the diverse paths in the healing professions. Our conversation then shifts to the political landscape of Canada. We analyze the unique dynamics of minority governments and consider the influence of international figures like Trump on Canadian politics. We also discuss the role of central banking figures in political negotiations and reflect on the contrasts between Canadian and American electoral perspectives. Next, we explore the parallels between political and economic systems, examining the shift from traditional hierarchies to modern digital frameworks. The conversation covers the challenges faced by third-party candidates in the U.S., with a focus on Robert F. Kennedy's independent run, and delves into the economic tensions between China and the U.S., considering their impact on global trade relations. Finally, we reflect on the importance of creative consistency and the power of legacy. Whether it's maintaining a long-term streak of publishing or creating innovative tools, we emphasize the value of continuously producing impactful content. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS We explore the intricacies of stem cell treatments and discuss my personal experience with multiple injections, sharing insights on the healing journey alongside Mr. Jackson. The conversation transitions to Canadian politics, where we delve into the complexities of a minority government and the influence of international figures like Trump on Canadian political dynamics. We examine the parallels between political and economic systems, focusing on the evolution from hierarchical structures to digital frameworks, and discuss the challenges faced by third-party candidates in the U.S. electoral system. The geopolitical dynamics between China and the United States are analyzed, highlighting the differing geographical and demographic challenges and the economic tensions resulting from tariffs and trade negotiations. We reflect on the value of maintaining a long-term creative streak, discussing the importance of consistent output and deadlines in driving productivity and ensuring a legacy of impactful content. The discussion touches on the strategic importance of filling the future with new and exciting projects to ensure personal growth and innovation, contrasting past achievements with future aspirations. We explore the significance of creativity in producing meaningful content across various platforms, from books and workshops to podcasts, emphasizing the role of personal reputation and motivation in maintaining a steady output. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean: Mr Sullivan, Dan:Mr Jackson, Dean: there he is. How are things in your outpost of the? Dan: mainland. Well good, I had a convalescence week. They really packed me full of new stem cells. And the procedure is things aren't good if I'm not feeling bad. Dean: That's what I'm saying. It's along the lines of we're not happy until you're not happy. Dan: How's that for a closing argument? Dean: That's good, that's good. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Things aren't good if you're not feeling bad. Dan: I got the procedure on the Thursday of last week, not the week we're just finishing, but the week. So Thursday, friday, saturday and it was almost one week later, exactly on Thursday, almost the same time of day, and all of a sudden the pain went away. Dean: Okay, how long was it Acute onset? Did you have to travel in pain? Dan: Yeah, well, I did, but they drugged me out. Yeah, they had sedatives Right when they were doing the procedure and then you had takeaways. Dean: Yeah, A goody bag. Dan: Nothing like a good drug. Yeah, exactly, especially a pa pain killing drug and and they're real big on this but went full force this time I had eight different injections, both ankles, both knees, even the knee. That's good they do it to reinforce what's already there. Reinforce what's already there. And then tendons the tendons in the calf, tendons in the hamstring, tendons in the quadriceps and then on both hips, both hips, so the left leg is the. You know in the spotlight here and when you're it's like you're experiencing inflammation in the ankle, in the calf, in the knee, in the upper leg and then the hip at the same time the leg doesn't want to, the leg doesn't want to work, right exactly yeah yeah, so that's the big problem, but actually I'm feeling pretty chipper today that's great, so that. Dean: So it took a week to get that. Is that usual or was this an unusual? Because I don't think I've ever heard you mention the pain. Dan: Usually it was a couple of days, but they got me while they had me. Dean: Well, that's good, and today you feel noticeably better. Dan: Now, yeah, I was noticing that we have a long-term massage therapist who comes to our house. Dean: Oh, my goodness. Dan: She's been coming for 33 years. Vietnamese Wow A boat person, actually, someone who escaped on a boat when she was a teenager, actually someone who escaped on boat when she was a teenager. And you know, really, she grew up, her grandmother was. They didn't have things like registered massage therapists, everybody just did massage, you know grandmothers especially, and so she learned from her grandmother. You know, even before she was 10 years old and so she's you, she's 60 now, 60 now. So she's been at this for about 50 years and she's availed herself of almost every kind of therapy training that there is. I mean, it was she was working till she was 45, from teenagers to 45 you know, paid for it before she ever got registered, she ever got. oh, oh my goodness, yeah, and I asked her about that. And the licensing is only really needed if the patient is claiming insurance money yeah. So they won't give me a patient any? Well, I never asked for it, I mean. I find I'm trying to get through my entire lifetime by having as little direct contact with government as possible. Dean: That's the best. I love that. Yes, that's great. Dan: I know they exist and as far as garbage being picked up, streets being repaired, police stopping crime. I have no complaints about paying for that, but I know I have to have some involvement but I don't try to expand it. Dean: That's so funny. What's the tone in Canada? Now here we are, you know, a week after the big debacle. Dan: Well, I don't know the debacle. They basically first of all didn't really decide anything because they had a minority government before for Americans. Americans only have winners and losers, but in Canada you can have someone who's half and half. Dean: They're half winners and half loser. Dan: Yeah, they're like. You know. It's that less than half the country voted for the winner. That's right. But the winner got more votes than the second place because there's more than one party. You know, americans don't believe in anything. That's not a winner or a loss. You know. That's one thing. I've learned since I've been in Canada. Americans, there's only two possibilities You're a winner or you're a loser. There's no halfway. There's no participation prize for showing up and being engaged, I think, the prime minister. He's an economist and we have a thing that it would be like the head of the Federal Reserve. In the United States you have a central bank which is called the Federal Reserve, and in Canada it's called the Bank of Canada, and then in the UK they have the Bank of England, and this man was both governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England. He's a lifetime bureaucrat. He's never been anything except a bureaucrat and his first job is to negotiate with Trump. Right exactly, and nothing in his background has prepared him for this experience. Dean: Yeah, that's so. It is true, isn't it? I mean the whole, I think it feels like from this view. Dan: They kicked a can both the US and Canada. Dean: And the you know. The very interesting thing is that this vote definitely feels like a not Trump type of sentiment. You know more than it did yes. Dan: There's no question in my I mean there's no question in anyone's mind that Trump was the issue. Dean: Yeah, yeah, Pierre Polyev's probably going. I was so close. If that election had happened any time between November and January, it would have been a whole different story, you know. Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that was. I think. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I think it was that the you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that was. I think. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I think it was that the you know Trump actually putting his gaze on Canada, really, didn't happen until after, you know, after he was inaugurated after he became president, I think you're totally correct. It was from November 5th to January 20th, yeah that would have been Kaliev's window. Yeah, but yeah well, you know there's a little history to this. A lot of people don't know it, but Canada was a major country you know in world affairs pretty well for most of the 20th century, pretty well for most of the 20th century, and part of the reason is that they were the big backup to the British Empire, like in the First World War and the Second World War. The major supplier of manpower and armaments and everything else came from Canada that backed up the British. I mean, the British were really in the eye of the storm for both of the wars, but their number one ally right from the start of the two wars was Canada. Canada was the big player. As a matter of fact, in 1945, the end of the Second World War, Canada had the third largest navy in the world and they had the fourth largest air force in the world. Think of little canada little canada yeah, and they played a huge part in the cold war. You know the rcmp, the, you know the mounties most people think of them as people in red coats riding on horses, but actually they were the. They were actually the dual they were were the combination of the CIA and the FBI. They were all packed in one. And they were a major player, because the United States, canada, was the country that was in between the United States and the Soviet Union. So I'm going to sneeze. Oh, there I go, yeah, that's completed, anyway, anyway, and their intelligence services were first class and everything. And then when the cold war suddenly ended in 1991, the end of 1991, all of a sudden their importance in the world just disappeared. So we've been and they've had to fake it yeah, it's interesting. I mean canada, I guess, and that's basically that and the you know you had some good prime minister you had. You know the liberal crechin wasn't too bad because he was a long time tough guy in the liberal party and harper I thought was, and my experience of being in Canada, which is 54 years, I think, Harper was. Dean: Well, he's always widely regarded as that right. Dan: He's by far the best prime minister and he wasn't confused about what Canada should be for, what it should support and everything like that. And then you came. You know, obviously they got the next character from central casting. You know, they just said send us, send us and he's by hands down. I mean, if you really talk to the liberals quietly and in private, they said you know, he's kind of a disaster, he's been a disaster for 10 years and you know. I mean they just don't have much gas in the gas tank anymore at that party and there's a general pushback against left-wing parties going on in the world right now. You can see it in Britain. They had the elections for local councils. You know local councils, which is it's an odd, you know it's an odd sort of election, but they have it sort of like midterm elections in the United. Dean: States, you know and Nigel Farage. Dan: Who's the you? Know, he was the Brexit, he was the brains behind Brexit. I mean, very clearly, if that had been the general election, he'd be the prime minister right now and he wants to just detach Great Britain completely from Europe and have the attachment with the United States, and I think that's going to happen. What's disappearing is this sort of wishy-washy, left-wing mushy-ness in the world right now. The world's going very binary in my sense. That and a $9 latte you got yourself a deal. Dean: Oh, my goodness. Dan: Is that what it's come to? Dean: Is that what it's come to? Is that what it's come to? The $9 latte? You know, it's so funny. I'm going to be back up in June, of course, and I'll be setting up residency in Yorkville there for several weeks, and last time I was there I was surprised by the. You know I usually get Americanos which are now have been replaced by Canadianos, but it's a whole new whole new, whole new logo. Dan: Yeah, I mean, how can I be against patriotism? Dean: I think so, and it's so amazing, though, to see like just the lengths that they're going. You know, I mean pulling all the. That was the big news when I was there. Dan: And I'm wondering if it's. What I noticed is that Canadians are demonstrating every aspect of courageousness that doesn't cost you anything. Dean: Well, I think that it's going to cost. I mean, you know, there I saw, is it Doug Ford or Mark Ford? Doug Ford was up, you know, in the liquor store in the LCBOs saying how they've pulled all American brands out of the LCBO and that you know they're like taking a stand about. But that total buy of the LCBO is $3.2 billion is what they're saying. The liquor market is $340 billion. So less than 1% of the whole. It's not even too little to measure, even you know. Yeah. Dan: Well, they can do it because the LCBO is Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Dean: The largest. Dan: The largest on the planet, Not just the largest in North America. Dean: the largest on the planet. Dan: There's one bureaucratic office that you know that's, that's a lot of liquor. Yeah well, you know it's, it's a bit. You know you're dealing in symbols here, it's sort of symbol. I mean, it's not yeah, it's not actually. It's not actually real courage. You know it's not real courage. It's symbolic courage you know, it's a symbolic. Symbolic, and you know, but that's part of life too, you know. And you know, I'm really noticing. Do you ever, in any of your video viewing, do you ever watch the Bill Maher show? Yes, I do, yeah, and I watched him in the old days and I watch him. You know, I don't actually watch television, but I get YouTubes. I get YouTubes of it, you know. And Trump invited him to come to the White House or the White House or Mar-a-Lago. I don't know if there is Mar-a-Lago, and you know Barr, who has been. I think actually. Dean: Focally anti-Trump yeah, yeah. Dan: well, trump had printed up a document which said 60 insults that Bill Maher had insulted Trump or Bill Maher had done it. And he wanted to give it as a present to the president and he said you know, these are my 60 insults of you. And Trump said oh, can I sign that Trump autograph? That's the best, and Maher came away and he says you know, can I sign that? And Trump autographed it. That's the best, I autographed it. And Maher came away and he says you know, I want to tell you it's not a crazy man in the White House. He said I was treated, you know, it surprised me how gracious he was and you know how just open to having a chat and everything like that. Well, he's just been slammed by the left wing that he would even show up and that's all this fake symbolism, you know, but attack the only guy on the Democratic side in the United States who is actually positioning himself differently is this guy Fetterman from Pennsylvania. He's the senator and he's someone who really hasn't done anything in his life, but through just the way politics were working, I think he had a state job and then he ran and he's got mental issues. I mean, he's had mental issues, but he's been a voice, a lone voice. You know a singular lone voice of somebody. He said you know politics, you try to find common ground and wherever you can find common ground with the opposition, you sit down with him, you talk about it and the public benefits if you can get an agreement there. Well, he's just been. He's just been cast out, but he doesn't really care. He doesn't really care, so you know yeah anyway, but it's an interesting time and you know what? I've got a thesis that politics takes on gradually. It takes on the form of economics. Okay, so that, however, the economics of society, the structure, you know, how do things get created, produced and where's profit being made Ultimately politics takes on the same kind of structure. So if you think of the industrial revolution, when everything was defined by big pyramids organizations, you know you had people at the top and then you had either big factories or you had big administrative companies that did the work out in the world. For the factories, you know the research, the marketing and distribution out into the world of manufactured products. After a while, government took on the same form, the big pyramids. Government always is the last institution to figure out what's going on. Dean: That's interesting, it's true, right, because everything has to trickle up. Dan: Yeah. So starting in the 70s, you started to get a change in the structure and you went from the big pyramidal structures to basically the microchip networks. Everything started more and more to be on the framework of computers, individual computers communicating with other individual computers, you know communicating with other individual computers, first hundreds and thousands and then millions, you know, and gradually. But the central principle of the microchip is binary, that in the digital code things are either a one or they're a zero. Okay, and so what I noticed over the last, probably starting in the early nineties, you start getting you're either on one side or the other side. But my sense is that politics is just imitating how the economic system it's a digital economic system. That's what we're talking about on. Welcome to Cloudlandia. What allows this amazing communication that we can make digitally depends on ones and zeros. And what I noticed is that the entire political structure, you know all the players in the political structure. You're either on one side or you're on the other side. If you're in the middle, you don't count. Dean: Yeah, and that's you know. It's interesting. You were talking about the third party system. I think that the interesting thing is, the United States is really a three party system. There's three parties, but really, you know, in a two party system, I think that's really what it is, but there's a large majority of people who are more moderate. Right now, it's binary in terms of you're Democrat or Republican. That's really it, and there's never been, there's never been, you know, a real outsider opportunity. I mean, you look at, you know, ross Perot. Maybe he was the got the farthest. Well, they're a spoiler. They're a spoiler. Dan: They're not, they could never be the lead party. Dean: You know, they're just a spoiler party. Dan: Yeah, and the reason is because of the Electoral College. You know that. I remember being at Genius Network in the year before the election, so the election was last November, so it was the previous November and Robert Kennedy was running. Robert F Kennedy was running. And then the Democrats made it impossible for him to be a contender, a Democratic contender. So he went independent and I remember him. He came twice, he came twice to Genius Network. Dean: And. Dan: I remember the first time he came, everybody was excited. You know he's going to be the next president and I said, yeah, yeah, I said well, you know if you want to know how the game's played, you got to take the game box and flip it on the back and read the rules. And I could tell you he could take 30% of the total vote. You know that would be. You know that'd be something like 45, 50 million. Unheard of yeah 45, 50 million and he wouldn't get one electoral vote. Dean: Right. Dan: And I said, and they said well, that's just absurd, that's just absurd. And I said nope, that's how the rules, that's what the rules are. I said, learn what the rules are. And that's why I think it was so easy for them to jump. I mean, if he had run right through to the end of the election and you know, like he was showing up on election night, you know and he got 3% of the three. He could have gotten tens of millions of votes and gotten, maybe, but wouldn't have won a single electoral vote. Dean: Right. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah yeah, I like your approach and mine just being in it but not of it. It's like I appreciate the things Well it's entertainment yeah, it's, you know. Dan: It's entertainment that costs you a lot more than cable, that's exactly right. Dean: And you know what the good news is, dan? There's no tariff. There's no tariffs on good ideas, no tariffs in Cloudlandia Tariff free. I think that's the big thing. Dan: If it doesn't weigh anything, there's no tariff. Dean: That's right. That's right. If it doesn't come in a box, there's no tariff. That's exactly right. That's right. If it doesn't, comeia is so. Fascinating to me is just seeing how unstable the mainland things are becoming. Dan: You start to see the Cloudlandia future. We're in a period where we're going to see the greatest amount of chaos and turmoil in the tangible I'll talk about the tangible economy, yeah, but I think it'll be about probably a decade and then things will be remarkably stable. Dean: How do you see this playing out? Because I've been curious about that too. You see this playing out like so, because I've been curious about that too like what is the end game of all of these? You know the I guess you kind of take this intersection of what you know, the populations and the, you know the movement to cloudlandia, and then these, the political to Cloudlandia, and then the geopolitical climate. You see all these things like what is the unintended? We wonder now I've heard different things about China, all these countries or whatever, that Trump is imposing the tariffs on, the reaction, the rebound reaction of that. Is that something that Peter Zion has talked about? Or is that what's your take? I know you've read a lot and observed a lot. Dan: It's very interesting. I think he's very conflicted. I think Peter Zion is very conflicted right now, and the reason is that he made predictions 10 years ago. I'd say it was 10 years ago, about how he saw the world changing. It produces all sorts of interesting insights. And the first one is that, basically, as a country, the future of your country past, present and future of your country is really determined basically your geography, where you are on the planet and what kind of geography you have, so your placement on the planet. I'll use an example of let's use China as one and use the United States as the other. The China is basically a land country rather than a maritime country. If you look at the map of China, where it shows the cities, most of the cities are inland in China. Even Beijing is not close to the ocean. You have two big ports. One of them is Shanghai, which is actually up the river, but it's got a very wide mouth to the river, and then Shanghai and the other one was Hong Kong, and so they're basically Hong Kong, hong Kong and so they're basically a land-based country, but they border on 13 other countries who have a passionate hatred for China. These are enemies, they're surrounded by enemies. There's nobody who likes them, and one major country that's offshore is Japan, and there's nothing but pure hatred between Japan, and everybody else has an adversarial attitude towards China. So that's China. Then you take the United States. The United States sits with 3,000 miles of water on its eastern shore, 5,000 miles of water on its western shore shore, 5,000 miles of water on its western shore, and then it's got just. The only connector is the Mexican, and it's 200 miles of desert and mountains. And then on the north you have 3,000 miles of pot-smoking Canadians. Dean: Terrorists hiding pot-smoking Canadians. Dan: Yeah, terrorists who had a plan for tomorrow but forgot what it was. So the US really doesn't have to. China has to totally defend itself. You know they have to spend an enormous amount of their budget defending their borders where the US really doesn't. I mean there's they talk about, you know, the Canadian-American border they talk about. You know that, you about that actually there's just nothing there. It's just fields and there's farms, farms certainly in the West, in Manitoba, saskatchewan and Alberta where. I'm sure the farms are partially in the United States, partially in. Dean: Canada, you could just walk right across. Dan: Yeah, oh, yeah, it's you know, and everything like that. So one thing is the US really doesn't have to. By the standards of the world, the US doesn't have to spend much money defending itself territorially. The other thing is demographics, and it's what your population looks like. Do you have mostly, is it mostly young people? Is it mostly middle-aged people? Is it mostly old people? And the US is China probably by 10 years from now will have more people over 60 than people under 20, which means that they become more and more of a top-heavy population. And these people are past working age, they're past investment age, but they're not past being in an expense age. So more and more, the cost of your society is older people, and you have fewer and fewer workers who are producing, fewer and fewer workers who are paying taxes, fewer and fewer workers who are, you know, who are investing, and you have older, older population. That's just consuming and it's just consuming. Yeah, so these are the two big things that you have to think about. It's China and the US and tariff. A tariff that the United States places on China is five times a heavier penalty than one that China places on the US. Dean: And the. Dan: US, like Trump, everybody else in the world. He put it 10 percent, 25 percent, some of 50 percent. On China, he put 145 percent and apparently there's riots going on in China right now because the factories are closing down really fast. You'll see within the next three months, you'll see next month. So it'll be formal new negotiations between the United. States and China. Now that's the central issue as we go forward what's the relationship between these two countries? It's like after the Second World War? What's the relationship between the United States and the Soviet? Union the basic attitude is that we'll just keep applying more and more pressure and wait them out and they'll collapse. So that's what I see the big game for the China. Dean: And do you think that the net of this is that will bring back? Like what is everything? Is that setting up you know what kind of the playbook that Peter Zayn was talking about, the absent superpower of the US, sort of moving away from dependence or interaction with outside? Dan: No, no, I just think it's a one-on-one that the United States is going to have with every other country in the world. So there's 200 countries according to the United Nations. There's 200 countries and every one of them is under some sort of broad trading agreement with the United States. And the US did that basically for security reasons, because they said we'll make it easy for you to trade, but your military strategies and your security strategies have to have to be in alignment with us. And when the Soviet Union collapsed there was no need for that, but it just went on by inertia. Basically, it was just something that carried on. It was a good deal for everybody else, but not such a great deal for the US. And Trump comes in, you know, and Trump is nothing if not a dealmaker, you know. So what he says is every country now you make sure you send somebody to Washington because we're going to do a dealmaker. So what he says is every country, now you make sure you send somebody to Washington because we're going to do a different deal. So I think probably within a year you'll have probably the US will have deals with, if not China, they'll have deals they already do with China, south Korea, india, vietnam in that part of the world, the Philippines, australia, and so everybody will be in the new American deal except China. And probably within a year you'll have more than 100, maybe 130 countries who now have new deals, including Canada. We'll see what Canada does, because Maybe a year from now we'll be back to drinking Americanos at Starbucks. Dean: I wonder. That's what I wonder. Dan: It's just amazing to me, why stop with Canadiennes? Why don't we go to Ontariannes? Uh-huh, exactly, toronto. I mean, if you're going that route, why not go all the way? Dean: Toronto, yeah, York. Dan: Villano. Dean: Uh-huh right, that's the thing I stay on the island there. That's right. That's so funny, yeah, so that's I mean, you know? Dan: I mean I'm just an amateur observer here and I'm just picking up what I see happening. But the big thing is to have every deal that the United States has as separate with each individual country, no broad multilateral agreements. And so the big thing is that the word tariff is a bit of a distractor. It's not actually a tariff. That's the penalty if you don't do the new deal. So that's how they do it. He says let's do a deal because right now you guys can sell stuff into the United States with hardly any expense, hardly any. But you make it very difficult for us to sell our stuff into your country. And so let's do a new deal. Let's do a new deal and so let's do a new deal. Dean: Let's do a new deal. How's this affecting the dollar, by the way? Dan: It's down. As far as I can tell, it's down about five cents. It's from 144 to 139. I think it's 138. I think it's 138.5, something like that, but a year ago it was at 132 or 133. So it's still five, six cents above, yeah, yeah. It's a good deal. Dean: Yeah, Still a good deal. Still a good deal. Yeah, it's so funny. Well, Dan, I've been looking. I've been continuing on the dip into history, continuing on the dip into history phase, looking. It's been a fun thing. Every week I've just kind of been randomly selecting a core sample of my journals from the last 30 years now and it's very interesting to look through and see those things. I've been thinking about streaks too. Like you know, this last your 70s of 40 books in 10 years is a pretty good streak. I was thinking back that Dan Kenney has been publishing his newsletter monthly since 1992. And I think about that. You know 33, 34 years, this year of a you know, around 400 newsletters 16 page, just single space, nothing, no special, no design, nothing like that around it, but just that. You know, essentially just along the lines of what your global thinker. Global thinker was just like a series of essays kind of thing. I guess is what you would call it right, but that's kind of what Dan's done for 34 years. Yeah, pretty amazing. And I was thinking, you know I've done, I've had 30 years now of very consistent output to an audience of one, and I sure realize what a you know what an amazing body of work this is. Dan: I hope that audience of one is appreciative. Dean: Yes, exactly, very appreciative, you know, and it's so funny, right? Dan: You're playing a high stakes game here. Yes, exactly. Dean: I've had one satisfied subscriber for 30 years, you could lose your target market in a bad week, you know. Uh-huh. Dan: Exactly. Dean: Yeah, I mean, it's kind of funny, right, but I could see, you know, all these things they start. This is where they start and they in Manly specifically, and I was talking, this was the very beginnings of the who, not how. So this was August of 2015. And I think it was November of 2015 at the annual event that I sort of talked about that idea of the thing. But it's funny, this was scientific profit making came out of this, that journal, so that looked at the breakthrough DNA process as so very yeah, it's just the, you know, I think, the decision that you've, you know that consistent output gallery, I guess we'll call it or distribution model. It's a very it's really. Do you still journal internally? Or how do you what gathers, the notes and the thoughts that make the quarterly? Dan: books. Well, I have the. You know I have that series, the one new book every quarter. I have the new tools. Dean: Now my goal. Dan: I'm not up to speed yet on the complete capability of doing it yet. But, my goal is to create one new thinking tool every week okay, yes and and that I don't have, you know, a public need for that in other words that the tools are for new workshops. It's to keep the system supplied. You know, and I have. You know, I and I have free zone workshops every quarter, just three of them, but I have four Zoom two-hour workshops every month. So if you line them up and then I have podcast series I have podcast series. So there's really hundreds of activities that are in the schedule really on January 1st, you know on January 1st, you'd look out and say by December 31st how many scheduled public if you call them public impact activities do I have? Dean: You know it'd be over 200,? Dan: certainly yeah. You know one thing or another, and they all require the creation of something new. You know right you know, and one of the things that I've. You're on a really interesting subject here, because each of these has public impact, you know a book does. There are people who read the book, there's workshops, people who attend the workshops, people who listen to the podcast. And then the new tools themselves, which have the necessary. They're necessary to keep the program new. You know the workshops, and I have teams that take what I'm doing and they apply it to the workshops that I don't coach. We have the other coaches. And then the other thing is that, you know, within the last two or three years we realized that the tools can be patents, and so we're up to 61. Now we have 61. And so these are all one thing that they really keep me busy. Okay, and I'm very deadline responsive. I really like deadlines. I really like it, you know, because I mean, for you and me, we've got one problem what's important enough in our life that we would actually focus and concentrate on it, that we would actually focus and concentrate on it. And I find deadlines where other people, my reputation as at stake, really is very important for me because I get real serious. You know, I'm pretty lenient with me failing myself. I'm not lenient with failing other people. Dean: Right, yeah, me too, that's right. Dan: Yeah, my reputation is very important to me, so you know I don't want the word going around. Dean: Dan's starting to lose it you know no way, yeah, no way. Dan: Yeah, he's fading, he's fading, you know, and anyway. So that's really it. But I came up with a concept, just to put a name on something, that what makes people older not physically but physically, ultimately, but what makes you older intellectually, emotionally, psychologically is that your past has more living another day, that your past is going to fill up with stuff. So you have to work at filling your future up so that the stuff in your future is much, it's much more valuable than what you had in your past. So what I try to do is always favor the future in terms of stuff. I'm going to create stuff. I'm going to do that. It keeps getting to be a bigger game in the future than I ever played in the past. So that's sort of the you know that's. You know the essence of the game that I'm playing with my own life, with my own life, right. Dean: Yeah, this is really, I mean, and that's kind of, do you ever see? I mean, there's no real. Dan: I imagine you'll keep this cadence up continuously that there's still to do the to do 40 more 40 more quarterly books in your 80s 57, I'm on 43, I'm on 43 right now, so it's 57. Dean: 57 more. Dan: Yeah, which is oh, no, no no, is that no? Dean: how many are you For the 10 years? Dan: you're still going to go quarterly? Yeah well, I'm on quarter 43 right now so I see, right, right, right, yeah so. And the quarter. Actually, we're starting it this week. We just put one to bed and the next one starts this week. So that's 57 more and that takes me till about 95. I'm about 95 years old. 57 divided by 4 is 16 and a quarter 16 years and one quarter. And then I have my podcast and the workshops and everything else? Dean: yeah, how many of your podcasts are weekly podcasts like this? Dan: no, I don't have any weeklies we have. We have a certain number for each of them and sometimes, you know, I don't think there's any podcast exception. You and jeff would be the most podcast, jeff madoff, that I yeah, and that wouldn't be 52 weeks. That would be, you know, maybe 30, 35, because we have times when we're not able to do it right, exactly off weeks, not many, but we do yeah. Dean: Yeah's very so that's, you know, looking forward. For me, that's kind of a good thing here. You know this. I'm going to join you in this quarterly cadence here, you know, as I look forward for the next 30, the next 30 years, I mean I already write enough volume to do it. It's just a matter of having the stuff in place. If only I owned a company that makes books. You know they don't have to. Dan: They could be you know, books you can write in an hour, 90 minutes say. Well, the big thing with Dan Kennedy, I mean, if you look at his monthly newsletter if he would take three of them and put them into a different format. He could have oh, yeah, oh for sure, Absolutely. Dean: That's my thought, right. My outlet is really these emails that I write. I think they're really episodic thought kind of thing. I think they're really episodic thought kind of thing. So I'm just really going to get into that cadence of having that output. I think that's going to be a nice valuable thing, Because I look back over the, I look at this 30-year inflection point here, you know, and look at what's changed and what's not going to change you know, and it's very interesting when I start getting to the bedrock things, like if I look at lifestyle design, you know, purpose, freedom of purpose, freedom of relationship, freedom of money, all of those things that I'm very like, consistent in my desires and I think everybody is like, for me it's really, I look at it, that you know what's not gonna change in 30 years. I'm, I want to get eight hours of great sleep, everything. I want to wake up, I want to eat great food, I want to have, you know, two or three hours a day of creative work and have fun. And that's really the, that's really the big game, you know, row your boat gently down the stream, that's the, that's the plan, you know. But I think that having these, I think having these outlets, you know, I think that's really been the great thing. When you have all these workshops and the tools, you've got a gallery for everything. Dan: Yeah, Well, and you know, I mean they get better. I mean, I mean the teams that are involved in this. I mean, there, there isn't anything that I do that doesn't involve a team. You know the workshop team, the book team, the podcast team, you know the my artists, my writers, you know? The sound engineers and everything like that. And and it gives structure to their lives too. You know like they basically and they get better things I notice every quarter things happen faster, easier there's. You know we're getting them done. The overall quality keeps improving from quarter to quarter. I can take a book. You know, like if I took book 30 and compare it to book 42, which we just finished on Friday. I mean the quality of it is just much, much higher than it was. Dean: And. Dan: I don't really angst about this you know, I just know when people. They're really good at what they do and the teamwork keeps improving and they keep getting better quarter by quarter. It's going to improve the product and I'm a great belief that quality is a combination of successful consistency and duration times. Duration that you have a consistency where you can get better at something. You do it once. Second time you do it better. Tenth time you're ten times better at it. Compound interest yeah, that's really Like compound interest, yeah. Dean: Yeah, and that consistency over that time, that trajectory is only going up and better. Dan: Yeah and then it pays for it. You know it pays for itself. You can't be in a net deficit money-wise with these things. They have to pay for themselves. Like right now. I would say that the quarterly books in the podcast the podcasts are, you know one person's, you know one or two people, right, exactly the tools totally pay for themselves because that's the basis for getting paid for the workshops. Dean: Right. Dan: And of course they have IP value now. Dean: Do you have your? Are the books available on Amazon? Yeah, quarterly Amazon, yeah, quarterly books yeah, yeah, yeah. And do they sell organically? Do you sell those? 0:48:43 - Dan: Oh, yeah, oh yeah, yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean it's not a big, you know, it's not a big budget item, you know and everything like that my whole thing is just that the entire production costs get paid for in a year yeah, I get it yeah, yeah that's awesome, yeah yeah, and, and you know, and you know it's part of our marketing, you know it's part of our market but they yeah, and every once in a while one of the little books becomes a big book, and then they write for them. Dean: So then, they really pay for themselves. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love it. Well, it's exciting, it's got a whole lot. It's like a farm. Dan: I have sort of an agricultural approach. These are different crops that I have. You keep the soil healthy and pray for good weather. Dean: Yeah Well, it's quite an impressive like. When I look at my Dan Sullivan bookshelf, you know it's like quite a collection of them and consistently I mean the same look and feel of every book Every quarter. Yeah, amazing. Dan: Thank you. Thank you Appreciate it. Dean: Yeah. Dan: You're being impressed with. This was my intention that's exciting. Dean: Right from book number one, propose a contest. Dan: Let's do it. Dean: I think I could do that too. I'll race you back. We went from roaming the streets of Soho in London to being in Strategic Coach in Toronto with a book in hand. Dan: Speaking of which, I'll have Becca get in touch, but our next call will be in London, so we're in London, we leave next Sunday We'll be in London. So it won't be on the Sunday, though, because I'll be jet lagged and Becca will arrange in London. So it won't be on the Sunday, though, because I'll be jet lagged and Bab Becca will arrange for you With Lillian. Dean: Yeah, that's fine, yeah, so that's awesome. Dan: And then I'll be up. We'll be seeing you in June. We'll be seeing you. Dean: That's exactly right. Dan: Yeah. Dean:* Yeah, awesome. Okay, have a great day. Take care. Thanks, dan, bye.

Today we'll be rebroadcasting our conversation with David Horowitz, the influential author, speaker, and conservative activist who passed away 4/29/25 at the age of 86 after a long battle with cancer. Best known for his memoir Radical Son and for boldly confronting radical ideologies on college campuses, Horowitz spent a lifetime navigating—and ultimately rejecting—the political extremes of the American Left. From his early days among Marxists and Black Panthers to his fierce advocacy for free speech and Western values through the David Horowitz Freedom Center, his voice remained unapologetically clear. His journey from revolutionary to Reagan Republican left a permanent mark on America's culture wars. [Original airdate: 2/16/23] TODAY'S GUEST: David Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the bestselling author of several books, including Radical Son, The Black Book Of The American Left, Dark Agenda: The War To Destroy Christian America, and his brand new book, FINAL BATTLE: THE NEXT ELECTION COULD BE THE LAST. Final Battle, by David Horowitz, exposes the real threat that Democrats pose to freedom. The rise of socialism and critical race theory, coupled with threats to the Electoral College and Senate, an independent judiciary, and the integrity of the electoral system, now threaten to destroy the traditions that bring Americans together — the heart of our democracy. ...Americans now speak in different and antagonistic political languages, and the two parties are so polarized that the American way of life itself is at risk.

On the fifty-seventh episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Chapter 2 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

In this episode of America's Founding Series, Professor Giordano explores the life and legacy of James Wilson, one of the most influential yet overlooked Founding Fathers. As one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Wilson played a pivotal role in shaping the core structures of American government—including the Electoral College, the independent judiciary, and the concept of a single, energetic executive. Drawing from his Enlightenment roots and deep belief in popular sovereignty, Wilson's vision helped define the Constitution as a government of the people. His warnings, insights, and contributions are just as relevant today as they were in 1787. Episode Highlights: How James Wilson's ideas shaped the Electoral College, the presidency, and judicial independence Why Wilson opposed the Bill of Rights—and what it reveals about constitutional interpretation The forgotten story of a Founder who helped design America's legal system, then died broke and in obscurity