Podcasts about federalists

This week we open the Jefferson Administraion as he attempts to undo all the Federalists had done.

In the second of our two episodes about the American Revolution David talks to historian Eric Nelson about the ideas that shaped the US Constitution. Was the office of President a victory for the people who still wanted a king or for those who never wanted one again? What was old and what was new about the idea of the separation of powers? What really divided the Federalists and the Antifederalists? And how are these arguments still being played out in the early days of Trump 2.0? Out tomorrow: a special bonus episode for PPF+ subscribers on King Donald The First: David explores the arguments being made in 2025 for the restoration of monarchy in America. Who's making them and why? What on earth are they thinking? Sign up now to get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Also sign up now for the latest edition of our free fortnightly newsletter out tomorrow https://www.ppfideas.com/newsletters Next time: French Revolution 1: Sieyes Past Present Future is part of the Airwave Podcast Network Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we cover the constitutional crisis that was the Election of 1800, as Federalists ask the question "Jefferson or Burr?".

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1801On February 13, 1801, the U.S. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, a controversial law that reshaped the federal court system. Enacted in the final days of John Adams' presidency, the Act reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five and created sixteen new federal judgeships. It also eliminated the justices' duty to "ride circuit" by establishing separate circuit courts with their own judges. The law expanded federal jurisdiction, making it easier for creditors to bring cases in federal courts and granting them broader enforcement powers. Federalists, who controlled Congress at the time, saw this as a way to strengthen the judiciary before Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office.Adams quickly filled the newly created judgeships with Federalist allies, leading to accusations of court-packing and what became known as the "Midnight Judges" scandal. Jefferson and his party viewed the Act as an illegitimate attempt to entrench Federalist power in the judiciary. In 1802, the newly elected Republican-majority Congress repealed the Act, effectively undoing the judicial restructuring. This marked one of the first major political battles over the structure and independence of the federal courts. It also set the stage for future conflicts over judicial appointments and reforms.The Judiciary Act of 1801 played a key role in shaping the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It demonstrated how shifts in political power could influence the courts and foreshadowed later debates over judicial authority. The controversy surrounding the Act also contributed to the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. This episode remains a crucial moment in American legal history, illustrating the judiciary's evolving role in government.Cathy Harris, a Democratic appointee to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), has sued President Trump over her removal from office, arguing that the firing was unlawful. Trump also dismissed Ray Limon, the board's vice chair, and replaced Harris with Republican Henry Kerner as acting chair. The MSPB, an independent agency, hears appeals from federal workers who are fired or disciplined—a role that could become crucial as Trump pushes to shrink the federal workforce.Harris argues that her removal violates legal protections for independent agency officials, citing the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which limits a president's ability to fire certain officials without cause. Trump's decision to involve Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency in identifying federal job cuts adds urgency to the case. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle, as Gwynne Wilcox, another Democratic official fired from the National Labor Relations Board, has filed a similar claim.A hearing is set for Thursday before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, where Harris is seeking a temporary restraining order to regain her position. The White House defends Trump's authority to remove officials, setting up a potential Supreme Court fight over presidential power and the future of independent agencies.Member of US government employee appeals board sues over Trump firing | ReutersA federal court in Massachusetts has implemented new rules to curb "judge shopping" as lawsuits against President Trump's policies continue to mount. Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor issued an order requiring that cases seeking to block federal laws or policies be randomly assigned across the entire district, preventing litigants from filing in single-judge courthouses in Springfield and Worcester to secure favorable rulings.This move aligns with a 2024 U.S. Judicial Conference policy aimed at discouraging strategic case filings, a practice criticized when conservatives challenged Democratic policies in Texas courts with Republican-appointed judges. Massachusetts, a frequent battleground for legal challenges to Trump's agenda, has seen its judges temporarily block his administration's efforts on government employee buyouts, research funding cuts, and prison transfers for transgender individuals.With most of Massachusetts' federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, the concern was that plaintiffs could manipulate the system by filing in small courthouses with sympathetic judges. While some federal districts have adopted similar rules, others, including in Texas, have resisted. The issue remains contentious, with Senate Republicans and some conservative judges opposing the policy as unnecessary judicial interference.Massachusetts federal court curbs 'judge shopping' as Trump lawsuits mount | ReutersThe explosive growth of Bitcoin has brought with it a significant environmental toll, with mining now consuming up to 2.6% of U.S. electricity and producing emissions comparable to entire nations. Bitcoin's proof-of-work (PoW) system relies on energy-intensive mining, straining electrical grids, driving up prices, and using vast amounts of water for cooling. Despite these concerns, states like Texas have embraced miners, offering low-cost energy and deregulated markets.The Trump administration's January 2025 executive order on digital assets calls for “responsible growth,” but it remains unclear whether sustainability will be a priority. The order could enable states to integrate eco-friendly policies, such as tax incentives for green mining or licensing tied to renewable energy use. Addressing crypto's environmental impact could also be framed as an issue of energy independence and national security, potentially making it more politically viable.A carbon tax on PoW mining could be one way to push the industry toward cleaner energy, though it would be a tough sell under a deregulatory GOP administration. However, some conservatives, including economist Art Laffer, have supported carbon taxation in the past. If Bitcoin miners want to avoid future crackdowns, they may need to adopt sustainability measures before stricter policies are imposed. Whether the executive order leads to real change remains uncertain, but the environmental costs of crypto mining are only growing.Bitcoin's Boom Comes With Corresponding Booming Environmental Costs This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Closing music courtesy of Banjo HangOut -- The William Tell OvertureThis podcast continues with a “Constitutional Minute”It escapes our notice that the election of Abraham Lincoln was a seminal event. Not just because it triggered secession.The election of Lincoln was the birth of political parties as we now know that term. The nation was emerging from what historians have labeled “the era of good feeling” a monumental misnomer if there ever was one. It earned its name because there were no political parties. The House of Representatives comprised Federalists and “Anti” Federalists with a smattering of Whigs (Anti-Jacksonian-democrats).There were no political parties in The Senate, there was no direct election of senators that had to wait for the 17th Amendment 1913.During this so-called era of “good feeling” it forced two presidential elections into the House of Representatives 1801 & 1824. Both times in a dispute over electoral ballots.

Season 8 Episode 3The true spirit of industry and capitalism is emblematic of choice and to reflect that idea means there must be a multiparty system in America and the world.The growth of special interests means there must be a counteracting force to serve the interests and grievances of everyday workers and taxpayers. This is the genesis of the need for new parties to come on the seen to serve the many different needs, perspectives, and ideologies of a diverse community of people. There must be a movement of organized labor to petition for not just for better standards of living and economic opportunity but also to secure our fundamental rights and liberties in every generation. Students of Indian, American, and other national histories know this too well.The problem in America, is that the average citizen not only does not know the essential importance of new parties throughout US history, but they have also been conditioned to believe and rely upon a lie; the two party system is the only means to achieving their fundamental needs and wants. Third parties have served essential functions in garnering support for new policy agendas and perpetuating them to the forefront of federal and local discourse. Like many social movements, they have shifted the moral narrative to include more and more people to get involved in the political process.Madison understood that party spirit would be inevitable, but he wasn't a fortune teller. Nonetheless, he was one of the only founders to be involved with both major parties during his day, the Federalists and the Democrat-Republican Party. He saw the necessity of parties to offer diffing points of views and emphasis on particular goals in what President Barack Obama calls the "arena of ideas" so as Madison understood the most popular ideas would come to the forefront. Many questions still remain. Did Madison believe such types of popular democracy were more effective than age old ideas of the primacy of aristocracy and oligarchies? Many people would say no; the founding fathers did not believe in such types of democracy, rather those most knowledgable and entrusted with the reigns of power should steer the course of a nation.That is for our generation to figure out: Does democracy function better when more people are involved or should those more "capable" decide how political decisions are made? I for one believe a multiparty system both gets more people involved while simultaneously, in President Obama's words, encourages more capable individuals to enter the political arena and discourse as too socially and culturally reform society for the better.

Join Jay Scott as he uncovers the Anti-Federalist group that stood against George Washington, the Federalist, and the Constitution in the 1780's!  Natural Freedom, Equal Treatment, Right to Bear Arms, Accountability, and Limits to Power were some of the key points the Anti-Federalist group rallied for. They saw similarities of an Aristocracy rule in the first Constitution. VERY DANGEROUS!  Also important, no clear declarations of individual human rights were written. (Thank these guys for The Bill of Rights we have now.) Learn how these Hero's put their neck on the line for true freedom at a delicate moment in the beginning stages of the USA. You will never think of our origins the same again! Disclaimer: For legal reasons... !!! This show is for entertainment purposes only !!! ~ ENJOY! ____________________________________________________ ❤️Help -keeping it REAL- by being a supporter of the podcast! Support is as simple as giving whatever you feel the show is worth to you. I will always be dedicated to bringing you value. Please consider returning some value in return! Even a like, comment, or share helps. You have my gratitude.

Liberty is doomed where power is united - consolidated in the same hands. That's the warning Montesquieu gave us about separation of powers. This was one of the biggest battles between Federalists and Anti-Federalists But here's the twist: both sides used the exact same words to support opposite arguments. In this episode, we're diving into this critical debate over the ideas of the most-cited political writer of the ratification debates The post Anti-Federalist vs Federalist CLASH: Montesquieu and Separation of Powers first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Year(s) Discussed: 1814-1815 In the latter days of the War of 1812, President Madison had to rebuild a shattered administration and a decimated capital city while still working to bring the military conflict to a resolution. Meanwhile, in New England, the British took control of a large portion of Maine, and Federalists agitated against what they saw as a tyrannical Southern-dominated federal government. Also in this episode, we reach the end of the epic tale that is the long and scandalous career of General James Wilkinson. Source used for this episode can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Jay Treaty SignedOn November 19, 1794, the United States and Great Britain signed the Jay Treaty, formally titled the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation.” Negotiated by U.S. Chief Justice John Jay and British Foreign Secretary Lord Grenville, the treaty sought to resolve lingering tensions between the two nations following the American Revolutionary War. At its core, the agreement facilitated the withdrawal of British troops from forts in the Northwest Territory, a region that was still contested despite American sovereignty being recognized in the Treaty of Paris (1783).The treaty also addressed contentious issues such as British seizure of American ships and the debts owed by American citizens to British creditors. While the agreement provided for limited American trade rights in the British West Indies and a framework for resolving disputes over the U.S.-Canada border, it failed to stop British impressment of American sailors or guarantee broader trading rights. Domestically, the treaty sparked fierce political debate, with Federalists supporting it as a means of preserving peace and economic stability, while Jeffersonian Republicans decried it as overly conciliatory to British interests.The Jay Treaty is historically significant for establishing a precedent for diplomatic negotiation and emphasizing the importance of peaceful dispute resolution. While controversial at the time, it ultimately helped avert war with Britain and allowed the young United States to stabilize its economy and focus on internal growth. Its ratification in 1795 marked an important step in shaping U.S. foreign policy during its formative years. The treaty's mixed reception underscored the deepening political divisions in the United States, foreshadowing the partisan struggles that would define early American governance.Big Law firms are poised to see significant lobbying revenue gains under anticipated Republican control of the White House and Congress, as the GOP aims to advance a pro-business, “America First” agenda. Key areas of focus for lobbyists include revisiting elements of the 2017 tax law, reversing restrictions on fossil fuel development imposed by the Biden administration, and assisting with the confirmation of cabinet nominees. The Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which limits federal agencies' ability to interpret vague laws, adds another layer of legislative complexity, increasing demand for legal expertise in technical drafting.The potential uptick in lobbying activity echoes patterns seen in prior shifts of political power. Lobbying revenue rose sharply in 2017 and 2021 during transitions to unified party control. Firms like Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Akin Gump, Squire Patton Boggs, and K&L Gates are particularly well-positioned, with some deriving significant portions of their income from federal lobbying efforts. Brownstein Hyatt leads the pack, earning $50.9 million in lobbying revenue through the first three quarters of 2024.Major firms are already representing high-profile clients. For instance, Brownstein Hyatt has advocated for Apollo Global Management on portfolio-related issues, while Squire Patton Boggs has worked on food regulation for Mars Inc. Energy-related lobbying, such as advocating for liquefied natural gas export permits, is also expected to surge as Republicans aim to repeal Biden-era restrictions. Appropriations negotiations may further boost lobbying opportunities, as delayed bills give the GOP more leverage.Big Law Lobbyists See GOP Trifecta Haul Including Tax, EnergyThe State Bar of California has approved a proposal to expunge attorney discipline records from public view after eight years, provided the attorney has not faced subsequent disciplinary action during that time. This measure, which excludes cases of disbarment, aims to address racial disparities in the attorney discipline system. A 2019 study revealed that Black male attorneys in California were over three times more likely than their white counterparts to face probation, prompting a 2023 review committee to recommend changes to the system. The proposal now awaits approval from the California Supreme Court.The expungement policy is intended to balance accountability, transparency, and redemption opportunities, aligning California's attorney discipline practices with those in other states and professions like medicine and real estate. Critics, however, argue it could undermine transparency and public trust, with 74% of public comments opposing the plan. In contrast, a majority of attorney comments—69%—supported the change, noting it incentivizes maintaining clean records. If implemented, an estimated 2,353 attorneys would be immediately eligible for expungement. California, the second-largest state bar by membership, projects that this policy will reduce the long-term stigma attached to past disciplinary actions.California Bar aims to expunge attorney discipline records after 8 years | ReutersThe losing bidder for Alex Jones' bankrupt Infowars empire is challenging The Onion's winning bid, arguing it offered less cash and relied on questionable claim waivers. First United American Companies LLC (FUAC), which bid $3.5 million in cash, claims its offer was superior to The Onion parent company Global Tetrahedron LLC's $1.75 million bid. FUAC accuses The Onion of colluding with Sandy Hook families who supported the bid by waiving part of their claims against Jones.The bankruptcy trustee overseeing the sale, Christopher Murray, defended the auction as transparent and noted that the Sandy Hook families' waiver improved the overall value of The Onion's bid. The waiver was key in positioning The Onion's bid as the best-value offer, despite its lower cash amount. FUAC countered that these waivers are speculative and provide no real value to the bankruptcy estate, calling them akin to “monopoly” money.Judge Christopher M. Lopez, who previously raised concerns about the auction's transparency, is now considering the motion to disqualify The Onion's bid. The sale is part of an effort to liquidate Jones' estate and pay down the $1.5 billion in defamation judgments against him for spreading false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. The trustee dismissed FUAC's accusations as baseless and an attempt to mislead the court.In case you haven't figured it out already, FUAC is a company affiliated with Alex Jones' snake oil sales. Obviously, Jones has an interest in seeing his assets purchased by a friendly company rather than The Onion which … is not friendly to Jones' interests. Infowars Bidder Moves to Disqualify The Onion's Winning OfferThe 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared likely to dismiss appeals by Amazon and SpaceX challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing the companies acted prematurely. Both companies sought to block NLRB cases alleging labor violations, with Amazon opposing a unionization case and SpaceX contesting claims of retaliatory firings. However, the appeals panel suggested that Amazon and SpaceX did not give lower court judges enough time to rule before filing their appeals.  Amazon's case, initially in Texas, was transferred to Washington, D.C., and SpaceX's to California, though these transfers are on hold pending appeals. The judges questioned whether the delays cited by Amazon and SpaceX constituted "effective denials," a standard necessary for appeals. Judge James Graves noted Amazon's unrealistic deadline demands, while Judge Irma Ramirez questioned SpaceX's assertion of deliberate judicial delay.  The NLRB argued that the companies imposed arbitrary deadlines to expedite decisions and delayed proceedings by resisting case transfers. Both companies face significant underlying NLRB cases, with Amazon fighting unionization at a New York warehouse and SpaceX denying allegations of retaliatory firings. If the appeals are dismissed, the companies could request a review by the full 5th Circuit, known for its conservative leanings.Amazon, SpaceX challenges to NLRB may be thrown out of appeals court | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The first US Presidential Elections were held in 1789 and George Washington was elected President. John Adams polled the 2nd highest electoral votes and became Washington's VP. A tie in the Election of 1800 brought in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, which established separate votes for the President and the VP from the election of 1804.  The Slavery debate dominated politics through most of the second half of the 19th Century, triggering the American Civil War as Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as the 16th US President.

Piano Music courtesy of Harpeth Presbyterian Church, closing Banjo Music courtesy of Banjo HangOut "Waiting for The Robert E. Lee" used with permission.The so-called era of good feeling ended with the rise of our first named political party, Andrew Jackson was their first president…In that “Era of Good Feeling,” Congress had factions, not named parties….There were Federalists and anti/Federalists, Tomas Jefferson was an “agrarian” and a devout anti-federalist despite his work on The Declaration….That was the first division of Congress… — In his  (new) farewell address upon declining a third term, Washington warned against petty partisanship and foreign entanglements. It didn't take; the divisions were too great. Join me on Monday -- when we talk about preventive maintenance for your favorite ride how to change your oil.

Presented in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina on Saturday, October 12, 2024.Sponsored by Andy Hord.

Most of what they teach about the Bill of Rights completely skips over much of the real history. From the reason the Federalists opposed it, to Madison's flip-flop, and the totally ignored preamble - on this episode, I've got 5 key - and mostly hidden - truths about that just might change the way you view the Bill of Rights. The post Bill of Rights: 5 Hidden Truths They Never Teach first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Barry Shain talks about American Founding narratives. 00:00 American Visions02:13 The Declaration of Independence07:06 Equality10:00 Abraham Lincoln11:24 Victimology12:21 Self-Government14:26 Localism19:53 Lincoln Douglas Debates22:31 Civil, Natural & Inalienable Rights25:02 1619 Project27:34 Harry Jaffa32:26 Federalists and Nationalists37:01 The Federalist Papers39:02 ConservatismOur Sponsors:* Check out Express VPN: expressvpn.com/MATTER* Go to mymorningkick.com/HARRIS and watch Chuck Norris's video on how you can see incredible changes to your health. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This is the sixth episode in an occasional series examining influential elections in U.S. history. The most recent episode, Election of 2000, was published on July 11. If you believe American society has never been as politically polarized as it is now, you may not be familiar with the late 1790s. Federalists and Republicans viciously attacked each other, trading accusations of frittering away the Constitution and imperiling the legacy of the American Revolution. The incumbent president John Adams was beset by a crisis with France verging on war. His vice president, Thomas Jefferson, was the leader of the political opposition. In this episode, historian Alan Taylor takes us back to a crazy time: the XYZ Affair, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Aaron Burr! The election of 1800 had to be decided in the House of Representatives amid scheming to deny Jefferson the presidency. Jefferson's victory brought on the first peaceful transfer of power in the new republic, an important tradition that lasted until the election of 2020.

It almost seems like ancient history. But it was just seventeen days ago that the world watched as the opening ceremonies of the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris either baffled or offended pretty much ever one who isn't…. well… French. was it a parody of the Last supper painting – itself an inaccurate distortion of the actual Seder event. Or… was it a reenactment of several paintings of the behavior of the Greek god Dionysus? And if it was that, why did so many people not “get it?” while French people seemed to innately understand the whole thing.  In the aftermath of the Opening Ceremonies, Christians loudly objected while the Mayor of Paris blamed “far right reactionaries” for the outrage over what was, at best, confusing. So… is there any actual truth in any of this? Anything that we can learn from it all? Is there a cultural divide or was it just satanic Hollywood influence and art nouveau schtick? In the end, the idea that Americans are confused or have mixed reactions to the happenings in Paris is nothing new. This week in 1792, George Washington was just a few months from being unanimously elected as President. Things in American had stabilized after our Constitution had been at last ratified the year before. We had thrown off – or more accurately out – our own King. In the previous two years, newspapers had excitedly carried the reports of the French people, like us, rising up against the tyranny of the King. But this week in 1972, things would turn dark in Paris. King Louis XVI was arrested and declared an enemy of the people of France. Americans struggled to keep up with the happenings in Paris. Our focus was on our own mint and post office, politics, the new state of Kentucky, and indeed the first US Navy frigate began her construction. The New York Stock exchange was founded and the first true political party was formed, which strongly the policies of the Federalists. All those happenings in Paris were a long way off, across the Atlantic, and they were confusing. Weren't we anti-monarchial? wasn't one of the founding principles of the French revolutionaries “liberty,” just like our own revolution had been? Shouldn't we be supportive of the French people as they had supported us? Or was this French Revolution turning too dark, and apt to give rise to violence and instability – two things the Americans had all but eliminated? It may seem odd to us today, but this week in 1792, the French revolution was every bit as divisive and confusing to Americans as the Opening Ceremonies of the 2024 Olympics would be two hundred and thirty two years later. Almost to the day… “Claire… it's French…”

American presidents act almost like elected kings, with vast powers and very little accountability. But that wasn't the plan. Responding to anti-federalist warnings that presidents would eventually degenerate into a type of monarchy, Federalists like Tench Coxe, John Dickinson, James Iredell, and many others went into great detail explaining how the power of the executive branch would be extremely limited in comparison to the British Monarchy they fought a long, bloody war to free themselves from. The post Executive Branch: President, not a King (Federalist Arguments) first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Americans put up Liberty Poles to express political beliefs in the period of the Early Republic. These poles were massive, highly decorated, and highly contested. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists used them to promote their ideas of what the new Republic should reflect in terms of “liberty.” Join us to discuss how different early American political life was compared to the romantic version in the movies! Episode 555.

Shays' Rebellion was repeatedly cited by Federalists as a primary reason to replace the Articles of Confederation with a Constitution with a stronger central government. But what if the threat was exaggerated? Anti-Federalists sure thought so. In this episode, we'll dive into the debate and explore James Madison's surprising later admission about this pivotal moment in American history The post Was the Constitution Sold on a Lie? Shays' Rebellion and Ratification first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

How did political parties come about in the early American republic? Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains how the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans came to be the first two political parties in the United States. Center for Civic Education

What was the process of ratifying or rejecting the proposed plan of government after the 1787 convention? In this episode Dr. Lester Brooks, American history professor emeritus from Anne Arundel Community College, explains the process for ratifying the Constitution and the role played by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Center for Civic Education

This episode delves into the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 enacted by the Federalist-controlled Congress under President John Adams, highlighting the tension between national security and civil liberties and sparking debates on executive power, immigrant rights, and freedom of expression. The controversial laws ultimately contributed to the demise of the Federalists, shaped early American political discourse, and continue to influence modern political debates on balancing liberty and order.

[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I'm always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are deeply unethical. Their conflicts-of-interest are brazen and shameless, they are openly corrupt, and their general and open hostility toward those they believe are their political opponents is especially jarring given how they're not supposed to engage in such behavior as sitting justices. Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas do not belong on any federal bench, of course, let alone in seats on the Supreme Court. I feel every reasonable adult considering the evidence in good faith agrees.That's all well and good to acknowledge, and also: the harsh and sad truth that many folks need to hear is that Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas aren't going anywhere, unless by their own volition or the unyielding authority of mortality's sweet embrace.More to the point: Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas will not be removed from the Supreme Court. That is never going to happen. Ever. So long as they wish to be in those seats and their bodies don't fail them, both will remain sitting Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.I feel the need to point this out because I see a lot of well-meaning folks getting angry with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin and President Biden and whomever the hell else, as though of any these people have a magic wand that can spirit Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas out of power. So, let's review: by authority of the Constitution, federal judges can only be removed from the bench—that includes Supreme Court justices—by a two-thirds conviction of the U.S. Senate following impeachment by the U.S. House.So, for example, if Mr. Alito were to be impeached by the House, as damning as that may be, and even if a whopping 66 senators vote to convict after trial proceedings, he still would not be removed because it takes 67 senators (two-thirds of the body) to reach a conviction. This is not without precedent regarding accountability of federal judges, 15 of whom have been impeached in our country's history, eight of them convicted in the Senate, on charges ranging from abuse of power to soliciting bribes to intoxication while presiding.That exclusive club includes Justice Samuel Chase, the only member of the Supreme Court to be impeached, in a highly partisan war between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (the two major parties at the time). He was acquitted on all charges by the Senate.But folks, need I point out the obvious? We don't live in a rational time. We don't live in a good faith political environment. Mr. Alito would have to commit crimes so visceral—and the evidence brought against him would have to be so overwhelming—that numerous Republican senators would have no choice but to vote for a conviction.This is the same bunch that let Trump get away with blatant corruption in two separate impeachment trials. Please, raise your hand if you think the Senate would convict Mr. Alito short of him murdering someone and bragging about it on national television. I know it's frustrating. I know it can feel demoralizing. But I worry far more about the exacerbation of folks' exhaustion if they're led to believe Mr. Alito might be removed from the bench, only to realize, down the road, he will never be. It's not gonna happen. Ever.And before y'all mention it, yes, I read Congressman Raskin's elegantly penned op-ed in The Washington Post yesterday, in which he argues that Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas can be forced to recuse themselves from the Jan. 6th case. (Quick note for those not-in-the-know: “recusal” means a federal judge acknowledges a conflict-of-interest they may hold in a pending case and removes themselves from the process in the interest of fairness. This does not mean they are wholly removed from the bench. Two very different things.)Mr. Raskin has a brilliant mind, and I am regularly in awe of it. But there's one key problem with his argument: outside of Congress (see above), the only folks with an enforcement mechanism on recusal are Mr. Alito's and Mr. Thomas' fellow justices. He's absolutely right on the steps outlined: the Justice Department could petition the other seven justices to enforce recusal, and those justices have the legal authority to do so.I would even encourage the Justice Department to do exactly that, in order to further draw attention to all the ways in which the Supreme Court is failing the American people. I'm all for that as a tactic.But I want to be very clear: the conservatives on the Supreme Court will never support recusal enforcement. They cannot be shamed into it. Mr. Raskin is a truly wonderful man and a great patriot and a brilliant public servant, but he, too, knows—deep down—that will never happen. I believe Mr. Raskin's op-ed does have utility in an important way: bringing more attention to the blatant corruption of Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas, and that is an effort worth making. But I don't want folks to believe recusal will ever happen. It will not.Okay, so, that's the bad news: Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas will never be removed from the bench, and they will never be recused from cases before the Supreme Court that have high stakes for our democracy.Here's the good news for those with the guts to see it: we can focus all our energy on reelecting President Biden and holding the Senate and ensuring another four years of reshaping the federal judiciary, which may even include one or two conservative vacancies on the Supreme Court. Next year, Mr. Thomas will be 76, and Mr. Alito will be 75. We could very well see them both make the decision to step aside in the next four years due to extraordinary health problems. They could choose to spend their remaining time in retirement.I'm not trying to be pollyannaish here, I promise. I will certainly concede it's not likely this will happen. Probably not. But it could happen. By the 2028 election, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Supreme Court could slowly shift to a 5-4 majority of reasonable jurists. And it's a hell of a lot likelier we'll see that happen before Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas recuse themselves from a case, let alone be removed from the bench.We have a choice in this moment. We can focus on this election, put our hearts and minds into reelecting President Biden and holding the Senate and taking back the House and playing the long game. Or we can get distracted with things that will never happen and put our hard-earned energy into ventures that don't deserve it.Let's criticize the corruption of the Supreme Court and use it as potent messaging on the importance of this election, but let's also be realistic and understand that we're in a marathon for democracy, not a sprint.If we can do that, it'll be worth it. Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe

Do you think partisan intrigue and accusations of foreign meddling are new things? We talk with Tyson Reeder, author of Serpent in Eden: Foreign Meddling and Partisan Politics in James Madison's America,  about how threat of foreign influence propelled Madison's thoughts on forming a stronger union, and how Federalists and Republicans tried to secure their own advantage by accusing  each other of foreign entanglements. What was the destructive symbiosis between the two political sides, and did Madison—or do we—see a way to overcome the chasm of distrust?

A presentation from "Censorship and Official Lies: The End of Truth in America?" This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.Full Written Text (Audio link is above): Over the past three years, the word “sedition” has again become popular among regime agents and their friends in the media. It's certainly not the first time the word has enjoyed a renaissance. It's frequently employed whenever the ruling class wishes us to become hysterical about various real and imagined enemies, both domestic and foreign.This time, the regime's paranoia about sedition was prompted by the Capitol Riot in January 2021, when we were told that Trump supporters nearly carried out a coup d'etat. Since then, regime operatives have frequently referred to Trump supporters and Trump himself as seditionists.Yet, out of the approximately 850 people charged with crimes of various sorts, only a very small number have been charged with anything even close to treason or insurrection. Rather, most charges are various forms of infractions related to vandalism and trespassing. However, because these charges have to do with the regime's sacred office buildings, the penalties are outrageously harsh compared to similar acts, were they to occur on private property.For a small handful of defendants, however—the ones the Justice Department has most enthusiastically targeted—the federal prosecutors have brought the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”Why not charges of treason, rebellion or insurrection? Well, if federal prosecutors though they could get a conviction for actual rebellion, insurrection, or treason for the January 6 riot, they would have brought those charges.But they didn't.What they did do is turn to seditious conspiracy, which is far easier to prove in court, and is—like all conspiracy charges in American law—essentially a thought crime and a speech crime. Seditious conspiracy is not actual sedition, or rebellion, or insurrection. That is, there is no overt act necessary, nor is it necessary that the alleged sedition or insurrection actually take place or be executed. What really matters is that two or more people said things that prosecutors could later claim were part of a conspiracy to do something that may or may not have ever happened.Moreover, the regime now routinely employs other types of conspiracy charges for prosecuting Americans supposedly guilty for various crimes against the state. At the moment, for example, Donald Trump faces three different conspiracy charges for saying that the 2020 election was illegitimate.As we shall see, purported crimes like seditious conspiracy are crimes based largely on things people have said. They are a type of speech crime. Now, some may ask how that is even possible if there is freedom of speech in this country.Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.The federal government has long sought tools to get around the First amendment, and one of them is seditious conspiracy.Now, the term seditious conspiracy contains two pieces. There's the sedition part, and there is the conspiracy part. Let's explore both parts of this in a bit more detail to see what we can learn about this inventive way the regime has developed to silence those who question the legitimacy of the American state.Seditious Conspiracy Was Invented to Get Around Limitations on Treason Prosecutions From the very beginning, federal politicians have sought ways to create political crimes above and beyond the Constitution's very limited definition of treason. This began with the Sedition Act of 1798, and continued with the creation of the Seditious Conspiracy law in 1861, and carried on through to the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940, and a plethora of various types of “conspiracy” laws used to punish many different types of antiwar and dissident activities since then.All of these laws, involve restrictions on freedom of speech, and open up suspects to punishments for saying things.The reason why federal politicians believe they need extra sedition laws on top of treason can be found in the fact that the framers of the Constitution defined treason in very specific and limiting terms:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Note the use of the word “only” to specify that the definition of treason shall not be construed as something more broad than what is in the text. As with much of what we now find in the Bill of Rights, this language stems from fears that the US federal government would indulge in some of the same abuses that had occurred under the English crown, especially in the days of the Stuart monarchs. Kings had often construed “treason” to mean acts, thoughts, and alleged conspiracies far beyond the act of actually taking up arms against the state.Treason could have been anything the king didn't like, and it how you end up with a situation in which St. Thomas More was executed for treason simply for refusing to say that the king was head of the church.By contrast, in the US Constitution, the only flexibility given to Congress is in determining the punishment for treason.Naturally, those who favored greater federal power chafed at these limitations and sought more federal laws that would punish alleged crimes against the state. It only took the Federalists ten years to come up with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stated:That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States … or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, … from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.Note the references to “intent,” “counsel,” and “advise” as criminal acts so long as these types of speech are employed in a presumed effort to obstruct government officials. In the twentieth century, we will again see this type of language designed to ensnare Americans in so-called crimes of conspiracy.A great many Americans—some of whom who still took the radical liberalism of the revolutionary era seriously—saw the Sedition Act for what it was. A blatant assault on the rights of Americans, and an attack on freedom of speech. Thanks to the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 the Sedition Act was allowed to expire,Then, for sixty years, the United States government had no laws addressing sedition on the books. But the heart of the 1798 Sedition Act would be revived. As passed in July 1861, the new Seditious Conspiracy statute statedthat if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or … prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States. . . . Shall be guilty of a high crime.Note the crimes here are not overt acts like “overthrowing the government” of “delaying the execution of a law.” No, the crime here is conspiring to do something about it. That is, saying things about it to another person. That is what constitutes “conspiracy” here.Now, some people who have a rather benign view of the state might think, well, people shouldn't conspire to do bad things. Well, in real life, conspiracy as prosecuted, does not necessarily look like a group of bad guys getting together in a dark room and explaining how they're going to blow up some government building. That's Hollywood stuff.In real life, people can be found guilty of conspiring with people with whom they have never been in the same room, or with whom the "conspirator" expressed any actual violent intent.We'll return to this, and this is just something to keep in mind, whenever looking at government conspiracy laws.Given the timing of the seditious conspiracy legislation that I just read—i.e., in 1861, following the secession of several Southern states—it is assumed that the legislation originated to address alleged Confederate treason. This is not quite the case. The legislation did enjoy considerable support from those who were especially militant in their opposition to the Confederacy. However, Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio—who would later be exiled to the Confederacy for opposing Lincoln's war—supported the bill precisely because he thought it would help punish opponents of the fugitive slave laws.” Congress had initially become serious about punishing “conspiracies” not in response to Southern secession, but in response to John Brown's 1859 raid at Harper's Ferry.Thus, there was support for the idea in the South before the war. Soon thereafter, however, the Confederate secession and fears of rebellion helped enlarge the coalition in favor of a new sedition law. The new sedition law represented a significant expansion of the idea of “crimes against the state.” Senator Stephen Douglas, the bill's sponsor understood this perfectly well, statingYou must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. … If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, [a reference to John Brown] why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act?Others were more suspicious of expanding federal power in this way, however. Sen. Lazarus Powell and eight other Democrats presented a statement opposing the passage of the bill. Specifically, Powell and his allies believed the new seditious conspiracy law would be a de facto move in the direction of allowing the federal government to expand the definition of treason offered by the federal constitution. The statement read:The creation of an offense, resting in intention alone, without overt act, would render nugatory the provision last quoted, [i.e., the treason definition in the Constitution] and the door would be opened for those similar oppressions and cruelties which, under the excitement of political struggles, have so often disgraced the past history of the world.Powell is here describing what George Orwell would later call a “thoughtcrime.” This “crime” Powell tells us, rests “in intention alone, without overt act.” To anyone who actually valued freedom in 1861, this would set off major alarm bells.Even worse, Powell saw that the new legislation would provide to the federal government “the utmost latitude to prosecutions founded on personal enmity and political animosity and the suspicions as to intention which they inevitably engender.”Like so many political crimes invented by regimes, the legislation tends to grant unusual flexibility and discretion in prosecuting the state's perceived enemies. This opens up political dissidents to new kinds of prosecution.Such legislation COULD have been used against opponents of the fugitive slave acts, as well as against opponents of federal conscription during the war. After all, opponents of both the Civil War draft and the Vietnam War draft “conspired” to destroy government property—as with the heroic draft-card burnings of the Catonsville Nine, for example.It would be far harder to prove in court that such acts constituted treason, so sedition laws have paved to way for more frequently prosecuting various acts of resistance against the regime and its crimes.It's bad enough that federal policy makers schemed to insert into federal law new crimes against the state. But, as Powell correctly noted, the greater danger is in the part of the sedition law that enables prosecutions for conspiracy.What Is Conspiracy?So now we look at the other component of seditious conspiracy: the conspiracy part.Now conspiracy laws are used far more broadly than for political crimes. They are also used in the war on drugs and countless other federal legal crusades.Current federal conspiracy laws outlaw conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Other provisions include conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct, ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes, regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.This latter point is an important distinction. As was explicit in the Sedition Act of 1798, so it is today: it is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone —i.e., that there be any actual victim. Indeed, conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes that might occur, but have not.Moreover, it is not even necessary in all cases that a "conspirator" take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme, It is also the case that Many have no such explicit overt act requirement. Even in those cases where some "affirmative step" or overt act take place, it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The "act" could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.In a 2019 interview with the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted his own problem with conspiracy charges:If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But, at the present time in our history and in fact, for all of our history, regrettably, an agreement to commit a felony, agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement, constitutes an independent crime. ... In the world of freedom, where you and I and people reading this live, conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, all accepted [that] crime contained an element of harm. Today, crime is whatever the government says it is.Napolitano is right, and the fact that crime is whatever the government says it is becomes apparent in one of the other key problems with conspiracy laws. Namely, as one legal commentator put it, “few things [are] left so doubtful in the criminal law, as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.”That is, at what point do a bunch of people talking about things become a criminal act. The law is very vague on this, and it is why it's not so easy to say “well, golly, I won't ever be prosecuted for conspiracy, because I don't plan to do anything illegal.But you are not safe because it is not clear in the law, at what point, statements encouraging legal activities become illegal —or statements encouraging legal activities, but without real criminal intent, become felonies.So, you can imagine yourself mouthing off unseriously and saying “we oughta burn down the offices of the department of education.” And then your friend texts back and says “I agree.” Well, congratulations, a prosecutor could easily use that exchange as a way of building a case for conspiracy against you.Would a single expression of an opinion against the regime be enough to convict? Probably not, but combined with other unrelated acts and legal activities such as a stated plan to visit Washington DC or buy a gun for unrelated activities, a prosecutor could, with enough convincing, tie them together in the minds of jurors to get a conviction for conspiracy.Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard of when these disconnected, and often legal acts become crimes, and thus, prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. For an indictment, the prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really part of an illegal conspiracy. This is not difficult, as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich."Not surprisingly, people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.For example, Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in 1932, concluding "It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny, this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like, should find a home in our country."Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925 described conspiracy charges as "that darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery" for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely DefinedConspiracy crimes have been a favorite of government prosecutors in going after political opponents historically.And, In the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal government's many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes, many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges. Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial. The elastic and vague nature of conspiracy "crimes" means that, as legal scholar Thomas Emerson puts it, "the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor."One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters. That is, they were charged with saying things. Although prosecutors could never show the "conspirators" committed any illegal acts—or were ever even in the same room together—Spock and three of his "co-conspirators" were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal, but only on a legal technicality.Spock was able to avoid prison, but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spock's level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors don't like.The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spock—and against antiwar activists in general—was covered in detail in Jessica Mitford's 1969 book The Trial of Dr. Spock, in which she writesThe law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor's tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrate the absurdity of these prosecutions, pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.Again, we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words, rather than any actual criminal acts. Or, as legal scholar Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: "conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat."This ability to treat this "state of mind" as real crime means, in the words of legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller:the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone, and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that "even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing DissentConspiracy laws----including seditious conspiracy of course -- have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes.However, as the Dr. Spock case makes clear, conspiracy prosecutions are also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically, given that conspiracy "crimes" are essentially crimes of words and thoughts, conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970:Throughout various periods of xenophobia, chauvinism, and collective paranoia in American history, conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.Or, put another way by the Journal, through conspiracy prosecutions, the "government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression." Naturally, citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.So, if you and the other members of your gun club like to get a bit over-the-top in your comments about the crimes of America's political class, be careful. The federal informant in your midst may be taking notes.So it was the case with many government informants placed to investigate groups that opposed the War and the draft. Those who simply agreed with radical opinions could find themselves on the wrong end of a federal indictment.Yet, any strict interpretation of the First Amendment—which is the correct type of interpretation—would tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts, however, have long disagreed, and some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected.Yet, in real-life conspiracy prosecutions, it is not easy to determine whether or not a "conspirator" is actually inciting a crime. As legal scholar David Filvaroff notes, the actual intent and effect of the speech in question in these cases is difficult to interpret. Thus, judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:He writes:With a conspiracy to murder, one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little, if any, risk that either the defendants themselves, or the court or jury, will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high, however, in the case of conspiracy to incite.Back to our case about burning down the dept. of education. Was that casual comment a conspiracy to incite arson? Did the defendant intend it as such? This is largely up to the unilateral interpretation of the prosecutor.Most of the time, it is difficult for a "conspirator" to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result.Under these circumstances, innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.The fact that legal acts can become illegal, and the fact that intent need not be proven makes conspiracy crimes, especially seditious conspiracy an excellent avenue for political prosecutions against perceived enemies of the state. It is not a coincidence that most of the charges against Donald Trump are conspiracy charges. They largely come down to Trump making statement both public and private questioning the validity of the election. Prosecutors have turned these opinions into a legal theory that Trump “incited” others to commit crimes. Thanks to conspiracy laws, it is not necessary that any actual crimes take place, or that any actual victims materialize, to get a guilty verdict.Thanks to his wealth, Trump has been able to mount a defense. Most people accused of various conspiracy laws are not so lucky, and countless Americans have endured financial ruin and prison thanks to the vast and abusive powers handed over to prosecutors by conspiracy laws.These are most dangerous when wielded against political opponents because, conspiracy laws essentially nullify the First Amendment and enable prosecutors to turn words into crimes.End All Political CrimesSo what is to be done? Obviously, conspiracy laws, including seditious conspiracy laws, ought to be abolished. All sedition laws are especially ripe for repeal given that the United States survived for decades without any federal political crimes other than treason, narrowly defined.Yet, if we are to win any meaningful victory against the state, we ought to repeal all political crimes, including treason, altogether.For one, political crimes like treason and sedition are simply unnecessary.It is already illegal to blow up buildings. It's especially illegal to do it with people inside the building, whether those people are government employees or not. It is already illegal to murder people, regardless of whether or not they represent the state. Destruction of property is illegal in every state.What political crimes like treason and sedition do is create a special class of people and institutions: government employees and government property, to send the message—via harsher penalties and punishments—that the destruction of government property, or the killing of government employees is worse than crimes against the mere taxpayers who pay all the bills.Political crimes are often subject to fewer regulations protecting the rights of the accused, and are often prosecuted by authorities more directly under the control of the central executive power. In the United States, the federal government has taken over control of most political crimes, centralizing enforcement and thus strengthening the central state. Certainly this has been the case with sedition laws.This scam that all modern regimes embrace exists not to keep the public safe. It exists for propagandistic purposes. These laws exist to send a message.Treason and sedition laws create the illusion that loyalty to the regime to which on presently pays taxes is morally important.Or, as historian Mark Cornwell puts it, regimes have long used crimes such as these “as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance.”Freedom of speech has always been a grave threat to this manipulation of allegiance, and its why sedition and conspiracy laws have so long been employed to weaponize speech against dissidents.The remedy lies in taking a page from those early Jeffersonians who abolished early sedition laws and refused to create new ones. The regime does not need or deserve a way around the First Amendment. The country does not need these “wornout pieces of tyranny” that are sedition and conspiracy laws. Abolish them now.

     SEGMENT 1 Time 6:03am cst WE ARE LIVE on The King 1010 WXKG, Our Flagship Syndication Station in Atlanta Georgia, all week from 7am-10am! 6:03am cst.  Welcome to the Mike Church Show on www.crusadechannel.com  Call the show  844-5CRUSADE   Did you miss yesterday's LIVE Mike Church Show? Worry not, you can listen to all previously aired shows on CRUSADEchannel.com for just $15 a month! Plus get all of Mike Parrott's Parrott Talk Show, Brother André Marie's Reconquest, Fiorella de Maria's Mid-Day Show, The Barrett Brief Weekend Edition and much much more! Subscribe now and your first month is FREE! 20m HEADLINE: Pro-Hamas Agitators Block O'Hare Airport, Golden Gate Bridge, Valero and More With ‘Aim of Causing the Most Economic Impact' by Debra Heine  The anti-Israel activists targeted commerce in multiple cities, including Chicago, Oakland, San Francisco, New York, Miami, and San Antonio, in an effort “to disrupt and blockade economic logistical hubs and the flow of capital.” There are people that are Christians in Gaza and yes they are being killed indiscriminately.  Is it a crime to wave a Palestinian flag? It has parts of the Holy Land in it! The Middle East has always been a disaster. The “Dissenters” describe themselves as an “anti-militarism youth movement turning the tide against endless war in our communities here and abroad.”   Respect for Human Life FACE Act  This is from TJ - Thomas Jefferson This is the preamble to the Nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts -  In 1798, the United States stood on the brink of war with France. The Federalist Party, which advocated for a strong central government, believed that Democratic-Republican criticism of Federalist policies was disloyal and feared that "aliens," or non-citizens, living in the United States would sympathize with the French during a war. Sedition Act trials, along with the Senate's use of its contempt powers to suppress dissent, set off a firestorm of criticism against the Federalists and contributed to their defeat in the election of 1800, after which the acts were repealed or allowed to expire. The controversies surrounding them, however, provided for some of the first tests of the limits of freedom of speech and press. 6:35am cst SEGMENT 2 43m       Alien Friend vs Alien Enemy HEADLINE: 1798: Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft)  1. Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general Government for special purposes,—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. Congress in a panic they started treating Cajuns like Nazi's during WWII. As a matter of fact the sedition part would have applied to Jefferson who was the VP at the time. He could have been killed! Might makes right. Clearly states what an alien friend and enemy are. Let's take a look at Abraham Lincoln and what he did.

Elias Makos is joined by Andrew Caddell, a town councillor in Kamouraska, columnist for the Hill Times in Ottawa and President of the Task Force on Linguistic policy, and Neil Drabkin, Immigration Lawyer, Political Commentator & former chief-of-staff to the Harper Government. PSPP's relentless calls for a third referendum have some federalist Quebecers muttering another “p” word - partition Budget Day 2024! The former Bank of Canada governor says it's going to be the worst one in 40 years After Iran attacked Israel with a bombardment of drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles on Saturday and Sunday, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly is urging Israel to “take the win' and not retaliate How do we solve a problem like the Big O roof? Turns out there isn't one solution that everyone will be happy with The Lachine Canal has recently removed around 30 public trash cans

For part 2, Trevor is joined by Asha (@Herbo_Anarchist) of the "Swords, Sorcery, and Socialism" podcast (@SwordsNSocPod) to explain Secret Wars and discuss the first ever war fought by the United States' armed forces after gaining independence: a border dispute between Georgia and the Muskogee (Creek) Confederacy from 1785-1790.Patreon | Twitter | Facebook | InstagramSaunt - A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816Scurry - The Oconee War Parts 1-3Smith - History of the Georgia Militia, 1783-1861Chappell - Georgia History StoriesCoulter - Elijah Clarke's Foreign Intrigues and the "Trans-Oconee Republic"Haynes - Patrolling the Border: Theft and Violence on the Creek-Georgia Frontier, 1770-1796Kokomoor - Let Us Try to Make Each Other Happy, and Not Wretched": the Creek-Georgian FrontierKokomoor - Creeks, Federalists, and the Idea of Coexistence in the Early RepublicScurry - A Considerable Tract of Country

For the very first episode, Trevor is joined by Asha (@Herbo_Anarchist) of the "Swords, Sorcery, and Socialism" podcast (@SwordsNSocPod) to explain Secret Wars and discuss the first ever war fought by the United States' armed forces after gaining independence: a border dispute between Georgia and the Muskogee (Creek) Confederacy from 1785-1790.Patreon | Twitter | Facebook | InstagramSaunt - A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816Scurry - The Oconee War Parts 1-3Smith - History of the Georgia Militia, 1783-1861Chappell - Georgia History StoriesCoulter - Elijah Clarke's Foreign Intrigues and the "Trans-Oconee Republic"Haynes - Patrolling the Border: Theft and Violence on the Creek-Georgia Frontier, 1770-1796Kokomoor - Let Us Try to Make Each Other Happy, and Not Wretched": the Creek-Georgian FrontierKokomoor - Creeks, Federalists, and the Idea of Coexistence in the Early RepublicScurry - A Considerable Tract of Country

In this episode, Dr. John Ragosta, a historian at the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, discusses the political turmoil in the 1790s. The period saw hyper-partisanship, with Federalists like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton supporting a strong central government, while Democratic Republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison favored stronger state government. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which gave the President the authority to deport any alien deemed dangerous and made it illegal to criticize the President or Congress, were a significant point of contention. The episode also discusses how Jefferson and Madison realized they had gone too far with their partisan battles and pulled back, leading to a more unified political climate. The episode concludes with a discussion on the importance of a free press, the concept of a loyal opposition, and the principle that the majority rules but the minority must accept this until the next election.

“If we lose the American Dream, we lose our country.” ~ Mike LindellSHOW NOTES: Website: MyPillow.comTwitter: @realmikelindellFacebook: RealMikeLindellInstagram: @michaeljlindellOrganizations Mentioned: MyPillow, MyStore, FrankSocial, FrankSpeech, Lindell Offense Fund, Election Crime Bureau, Lindell Recovery NetworkVerses Mentioned: Proverbs 13:7, Mark 9:43-48, Romans 10:10, Romans 10:13, Ephesians 2: 8-9, Hebrews 11 REMARKABLE LISTENER SPECIAL OFFER(S):Visit MyPillow.com and enter your email address to receive Mike's eBook, What are the Odds?, for free!Purchase a hard copy of Mike's book and receive $10 off AND Free Shipping with promo code, “REMARKABLE“Best Special Offer Yet!

Welcome to 'The Adams Archive,' where host Austin Adams takes you on an enlightening journey into the heart of global conspiracies, cultural enigmas, and political intrigue. This podcast series sheds light on the most thought-provoking and underreported stories, exploring the unseen forces shaping our society and global politics. Unravel the complex narrative of Taylor Swift's alleged involvement in psychological operations, diving into the blurred lines between celebrity influence and political media manipulation. Explore the mystery of underground tunnels beneath a New York synagogue, probing their origins and potential purposes. Analyze the intricate dynamics of recent U.S.-UK joint military operations, uncovering their geopolitical motivations and strategic implications on a global scale. Dive into the art of media manipulation, examining historical and contemporary methods used to control public perception. Discover the profound influence of music and arts in shaping cultural narratives, reflecting on how artistic expression has been employed for political messaging and propaganda. Join 'The Adams Archive' for episodes that challenge perceptions and reveal the hidden truths behind current events and historical narratives. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform, follow our YouTube channel for engaging visual content, and get exclusive insights through our Substack newsletter. Participate in our dynamic social media community for ongoing discussions. Whether you're a conspiracy enthusiast, a curious observer, or a seeker of deeper understanding, this podcast is your portal to the untold stories of our world. Tune in, subscribe, and be part of our journey to uncover the hidden truths beneath the surface. All Links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams Substack: https://austinadams.substack.com/   ----more----  Full Transcription Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams archive. My name is Austin Adams. And thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we have some wild topics to get through. And I'm excited for it. So the very first topic that we're going to talk about today is going to be that the Pentagon actually responded to the idea that Taylor Swift Is a PSYOP.  So we'll look at what the response was. And that will actually look at the history of this because the fundamental idea around that is that there's a, uh, forces that be within our government that want to manipulate the art within our culture in order to influence the culture itself. And so we'll look at the history of that, whether it be Operation Mockingbird by the CIA, whether it be the CIA teaming up with certain artists during the cold war era, we'll look at all of that together. Then.  We'll jump into the next topic, which is going to be that there was some pretty shady stuff found in New York, which actually ended up being an underground tunnel underneath a Jewish synagogue, I believe.  So. We'll look at that  and why it's pretty, pretty crazy stuff. So there's a couple of theories on it. We'll actually dive into the history of the specific group, because the specific group that we're talking about is a little bit different than your average, uh, Practicer of Judaism. Um, so we will look at that as well. And then we will dive into some breaking news here, which is that the United States. In hand in hand with the, uh,  with Britain have the UK have actually, uh, conducted operations overseas against Houthi rebels, which some believe may be the spark of a war against.  So we'll look at the history of that as well.  So all of that more, but first I need you to go ahead and subscribe. If this is your first time, I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart, subscribe. And if you are here for your second time, third time around. 100th time, whatever, because we're actually about to hit that 100th episode. I believe we're on episode 96 right now, which is pretty wild. But thank you for being here. I appreciate you. I love doing this for you guys. Uh, we'll have some cool stuff coming up. Some interviews, some really awesome things that I am working on in the background. So thank you for being here. Leave a five star review and let's jump  into it.    The Adams archive.    Alright, so the very first topic that we're going to discuss today is going to be that the Pentagon actually responded to the idea that Taylor Swift is a PSYOP.  Now personally. I think this probably couldn't be more accurate. And so the reason that I think this, I think this is actually a lot of a part of the public psyche today surrounding Taylor Swift. We see everything that's happening with Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey and Pfizer and her recently saying that she believes that Joe Biden has done a great job and will continue to do a great job. And he's exactly what our country needs right now to stop the divisiveness like That the only way that you are saying such a thing,  even if you voted for Biden and you wholeheartedly believed in him at the very beginning of this, uh, I don't think there's a person out there who is not either  protecting their, their ego by, you know, not admitting that they are wrong or, uh, or Are being paid off  and the likelihood that you're being paid off if you're a multi whatever billionaire this Taylor Swift is at this time and a super famous actor, actress, musician, artist, whatever is probably pretty, pretty high if you're still sitting there banging the drum of Joe Biden, or you're just worried about not getting another job again. So you don't have to worry You go along with the, the river that is Hollywood.  So it's, it's, it's crazy to see how far these people can go. So here we go. Let's go ahead and read this article. This article comes from the Post Millennial  and it is titled, let me go ahead and pull it up here for you. It  is titled,  Pentagon Claims Taylor Swift PSYOP Speculation is a Conspiracy Theory. Hmm.  Okay,  you have my back. Attention.  All right. This article says after Jesse water show on Tuesday, where he said the government has been turning Taylor Swift into an asset through a Psy op Pentagon spokesperson, Sabrina sign has denied the claim. An idea that first came from human events, senior editor, Jack Posobiec  quoting from one of Swift songs and the statement to politics sign said, as for this conspiracy theory, we are going to shake it off. Wow, catchy.  She continued to make other Taylor Swift puns in her statement, which stated, but that does highlight that we still need Congress to approve other supplemental budget requests as Swift Lee as possible so that we can be out of the woods with potential fiscal concerns. Haha. On December 6th, 2023. Right after Taylor Swift won the Time's Person of the Year award, Posobiec posted to Axe, the Taylor Swift girlboss psyop has been fully activated in her hand selected vaccine show boyfriend to dink lifestyle to her upcoming 2024 voter operation for Democrats on abortion rights. It's all coming.  Uh, and that was in response to the Time Person of the Year being  Taylor Swift.  And I'm pretty sure that used to be Man of the Year? And now it's person of the year.  I don't know. Pretty sure I heard that following the post ax Posobiec had Evita Duffy on his show, where they talked about why Swift could rally support for president Joe Biden in the 2024 election year. She's a girl boss. She has lots of failed relationships where she blames the man every time. Duffy then asked, why are we pushing Taylor Swift? Here comes a clip from Jack Posobiec.  Uh, and let's go ahead and watch it here.   Evita Duffy from the Federalists joins us now. Evita, they've just named Taylor Swift the, uh, you know, she's, that's basically her song that was used for that ad, which is a mix of Taylor Swift and Barbie, just named Taylor Swift times person of the year, uh, I  was out about a month ago. You had a great show where he talked about the Taylor Swift army coming online for the 2024 election. Is this at what we're seeing now? Are they activating  The Taylor Swift psyop.  Yeah, it's not. It's not just happening now. This has been happening for pretty much a year. They've been pushing Taylor Swift on us.  The corporate media has these articles fawning over her. She's like the greatest thing that's ever happened to humanity. Meanwhile, her music's pretty mid. Um, if you, it's actually something actually to break down of her music and, uh, the melodies, she has like the same melody progressions over 20, over 20 different songs. Um, she's always complaining about the same melodies. Okay, I'm going to have to question how old this girl is. If you're going to use the word mid, you better have been born pre or post  2000.  You better be under the age of 23. If you're going to use the word mid, I'll just leave it at that.  Anyways, I actually agree with it. So so if you understand what tick tock did when tick tock First started, TikTok artificially inflated the views, at least this is the idea that people have been talking about, is it took a few select amount of influencers and it artificially inflated the views that they were getting on the platform.  Those people then, who felt like they were a big deal, went and talked to people about it and told people how many views they were getting on TikTok. As a result, a bunch of people fled into TikTok.  And so. What they've and they cared about the original a few official people that got their views artificially inflated I think one of the names of the girls is I don't know There was one girl that started tick tock as like the tick tock girl and now nobody really cares about her, right? She just did like a dance and whatever and then all of a sudden she got like a billion views And so the way that they did that is they artificially inflated the views they artificially created celebrity And then they made those celebrities influence  Be valued by the mass public, right? And so I think that that's exactly what happens with Taylor Swift here, I believe, because Her music to be fair is pretty mid. Although I am cannot say that with a straight face and never will  But  Taylor Swift's music is garbage. It's terrible. She's a great  Performer and by performer, I mean she has a great team of people around her with fireworks and laser shows and All of that, but I did Taylor Swift is a very  Un  impressive musician, completely unimpressive to me in the fact that she is the single most. highest earning musician, music, musician of all musicians is astounding to me because she's just a performer.  Anyways, so that to me lends into the idea. The same way that we will look at this in a minute is they artificially inflate these people's viewership. They, they get the mainstream media, the mainstream radio stations, the mainstream award shows to all.  Pump these people up, pump them up, pump them up. Meanwhile, these people are just puppets for whatever they say, from the powers that be, goes. And so that's where this idea of it being a PSYOP comes from. So let's finish out this clip, if we can,  tolerate this girl's  vocabulary, and then we'll continue on.  In breakups over and over again, these songs, Jake Gyllenhaal, somebody who she wrote the song all too well about, which is like a 10 minute song where she complains  about a man that she dated for no joke, three months. This is not a musical mastermind. The media is pushing her on us constantly. And if you say anything negative about Taylor,  the media, the Swifties and Taylor Swift herself.  Okay. I think I know what she's going to say. A misogynist. And here's why I think that is. Taylor Swift is the perfect.   Okay, Taylor Swift's music is absolute trash. So the only way that she got into the position that she's in is if she's working with the government.  So here's the, here's the rest of the article. And it says, and this was December 6th that this conversation happened on Real America's Voice. But it says, uh, Waters posted a clip of his segment to Axe on Wednesday where he had, uh, he said an idea was floated at a NATO meeting in 2019 where Swift could combat online misinformation. So maybe here's some actual evidence of this potential Taylor Swift's the biggest star in the world. Sorry, Gutfeld.  She's been blanketed across the sports media entertainment atmosphere. The New York Times just speculated she's a lesbian. And last year's tour broke Ticketmaster, a tour that's revenue tops the GDP of 50 countries. Wow, I like her music. She's all right. But I mean, have you ever wondered why or how she blew up like this?  Well, around four years ago. The Pentagon's Psychological Operations Unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset during a NATO meeting. What kind of asset? A psy op for combating online misinformation. Listen. You came in here wanting to understand how you just go out there and counter an information operation. The idea is that social influence can help, uh, It can help, uh, encourage or, uh, promote behavior change, so potentially as like a peaceful information operation. I include Taylor Swift in here because she's, um, you know, she's a fairly influential online person. I don't know if you've heard of her.  Yeah, that's real.  The Pentagon's PSYOP unit pitched NATO on turning Taylor Swift into an asset for combating misinformation online.  This is nothing new. In the 1950s, the government strong armed Louis Armstrong into doing propaganda tours across Africa.  The CIA did the same thing with jazz singer Nina Simone, except they did it without her really knowing.  In the 70s, Nixon enlisted Elvis in his war on drugs. He gave the king a badge and named him a covert federal law enforcement agent.  Michael Jackson was tapped by Reagan, using his song Beat It and his public service campaigns against teen drinking and driving.  Michael Jackson persuading minors not to drink,  anyway.  So is Swift a front for a covert political agenda? Primetime obviously has no evidence. If we did, we'd share it.  But we're curious. Because the pop star who endorsed Biden is urging millions of her followers to vote. She's sharing links. And her boyfriend, Travis Kelty, sponsored by Pfizer? And their relationships boosted the NFL ratings this season, bringing in a whole new demographic. So how's the  PSYOP going?  Well, as usual, Biden's not calling the shots because he doesn't even know who Taylor Swift is. He's confused her with Britney Spears and Beyoncé.  You could say even this harder than getting a ticket to the renaissance tour or, or, or  Britney's tour. She's down in, it's kind of warm in Brazil right now. Former FBI agent Stuart Kaplan. Wow, that is brutal. Stuart, is this feasible?  Jesse, the deployment of a PSYOP in the United States in this day and age is still illegal. Um, the national security law prohibits the deployment of PSYOPs or using an operative for psychological warfare. However, if I was running Biden's management perception team, I would identify someone who would align themselves with my agenda, such 600 million followers. I would target her, I would engage her, and I would get her what, get her to do what we used to see as like public service announcements, and that type of enlistment, that type of solicitation is analogous to the old days of deployment of a PSYOP. And so in modern times, with these people having such influence and such,  you know, immeasurable amount of followers. She can potentially, single handedly, swing voters because of just the amount of followers that she potentially can influence. So the answer is yes, Jesse.  Wow.  And I completely agree, right? We see even back historically between Elvis and Louis Armstrong, this has been done before. This isn't a new tactic.  And so as we go on, we'll see. And I wanted to kind of Preempt this for you. And he talked about it a little bit with Travis Kelsey,  all of, and even behind that was the tick tock. There was a whole trend around the Travis Kelsey, Taylor Swift relationship situation  on tick tock, right? People were going crazy. Girls were making jokes to their, their husbands and their boyfriends. And those were going viral. And I talked about this last time is If anything is going  quote unquote viral and you think it's organic, the likelihood of that is probably low.  If it's the number one most,  most popular trend at the time, it's very likely that that was at least in some way, shape, or form even allowed, potentially, if that's the word you want to use, instead of being  stifled, they at least allow it to happen because it fits their agenda. And if it didn't fit their agenda, they would slap it with a big misinformation, disinformation, or at the very least, they would shadow ban the content. And so we know that at this point,  and as we start to look at more around this, I guess there's even more.  situations, but it says,  uh, and I wonder if we can look at the response, but that was crazy. The fact that the Pentagon PSYOP organization within the Pentagon actually  came and pitched the idea. They pitched the idea that they could use Taylor Swift to conduct a PSYOP against the American people. That's an, that's actual footage available right now.  I had no idea before watching that. And that is. Just crazy.  So as we go back in history, I wanted to start to have a discussion surrounding this and see historically what ways has art and Culture been manipulated by governmental forces to align their agenda with yours. And so we can go back and we can look at this in a few different ways.  And historically there has been not only Elvis and Louis Armstrong, but historically there's been many. Many governments that have done this from Nazi Germany. And I listed a few here after doing some research and under Adolf Hitler, the Nazi regime used music as a propaganda tool to reinforce its ideologies and suppress any opposing or non Germanic. cultural expressions. Jewish musicians and composers were not only banned from performing, but many were also persecuted and sent to concentration camps. The regime particularly promoted classical composers like Richard Wagner and Ludwig van van van Beethoven, who were seen as epitomizing Aryan and Germanic culture. Music played a pivotal role in Nazi rallies and events being used to evoke emotions of pride and nationalistic fervor among the masses. Hitler Youth was also heavily indoctrinated with music that promoted Nazi ideology.  So there's one.  The Soviet government, under Joseph Stalin, reinforced strict control over the arts, including music. Composers like, forgive me, Dmitri Shostakovich and Sergei Prokofiev  faced severe restrictions and were often compelled to adapt their compositions to fit the state's demands for music that glorified socialism and the Soviet state.  The government established the Union of Soviet Composers, which played a key role in censoring music and ensuring it adhered to the principles of socialist realism.  Music that was considered formalist  or bourgeoisie  I don't know if I pronounced that right at all,  was condemned and composers risked persecution if their work did not align with state ideologies. You even go back to Footloose, right? If you eliminate music, it has an effect. There's a reason that we sing in church. There's a reason that every religion across every country, across every historical timeframe ever  incorporates music  because music influences. And so if you can make one person the most influential musician  in the world  and then utilize them as a puppet to parrot the  opinions that you want them to hold that align with your agenda, why wouldn't you do that?  The Cultural Revolution in China is another example. Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution sought to eradicate Chinese traditional culture, including its rich musical heritage. Western classical music was also banned. Instead, the government promoted revolutionary music, particularly the eight model operas that were sanctioned by Zhang Qing, Mao's wife. Those operas and revolutionary songs were designed to glorify the Communist Party, Mao Zedong's leadership, and the revolutionary spirit of the Chinese people. This was part of a broader attempt to reshape Chinese culture and align it with the Maoist ideology. In another example, people have talked about this before, I'm not sure if there's any evidence of this, just the same way that we can't say there's any evidence of the Taylor Swift Society,  but people have talked about how when it comes to black culture in the  Late 1980s talking about how rap music and not particularly any type of rap music, but well, I guess particularly a type of rap music, which was the, uh, you know, the violent and drug riddled gang, uh, promoting. type of rap that became popular. And we even see this today with the Travis Scotts, how much Satanism is incorporated into our music scene today. It's bizarre, but it's not bizarre because it's intentional.  And so when you go back to the 80s, even the times where the government was literally pushing crack cocaine into the ghetto areas, low income black communities, the very same time that rap music became what it was, and I love rap. I even love late 90s or early 90s rap about gangster shit and drugs and gang stuff. But like,  it, you can't deny the fact that it influences culture.  It influences how people act. It influences how people want to be when they grow up. How do, how, what makes them cool? What type of clothes should they wear?  What should they aspire to? Well  When all you hear about in music is selling drugs, making a bunch of money, how good they make you feel and the type of girls that you get when you do it.  What do you think you're going to do? Right? It goes hand in hand. Culture is music and music  creates culture.  And so, um, this goes on and on. I have other ones which talks about the apartheid South of South Africa. During the apartheid era, the South African government used music as a tool to support its racial segregation policies. Cambodia used it, Iran after the 1979 revolution, North Korea, and North Korea music is used as a tool of state propaganda to an extreme degree. All music in the country is strictly controlled by the government. Why? Why would they do that? They wouldn't. And of course they wouldn't do that here in the United States of America with us free people.  Right? Our government would never do that.  Songs are written in North Korea to glorify The Kim family, and the Workers Party of Korea, often incorporating themes of loyalty, patriotism, and devotion to the leaders. Music is used in schools, workplaces, and public events to instill loyalty to the regime and reinforce its ideologies. There is virtually no exposure at all to international music, and creating or listening to non state approved music can result in severe penalties. And when we talk about severe penalties in North Korea, we're talking about generational imprisonment.  Not just you go to jail.  Your sister, your brother, your mother, and your next three generations go to jail. Like, horrible, horrible stuff. And so Music has always been utilized as a weapon by governments, always, and to assume that we're just so far along that our government would never do that, they would never utilize our culture, our music, our art, our movies, against us in a way that would not be in our best interest? No, they just let us do whatever, and wherever our culture goes, they're perfectly okay with it.  Yeah,  okay.  And, and again, this is going to be an unraveling for everybody, and I think this is maybe a really good next one that we can get into as a society, as we've already unraveled the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industrial complex, the government, the politicians, the big money, the lobbying funds, all of that has happened. Now, as a society, I think it's time for us to realize that our culture has been infiltrated for decades. The music you listen to, the movies that you watch, the TV shows on Netflix, the articles that you read, the news media that you take in, every single piece of it, the art that you consume, the art on your walls, all of it.  The most famous artists  have historically, in some way, shape, or form, and we go back to even the, the,  the idea of post modernism. Post modernism is a somewhat new artistic theme, and we're seeing that artistic theme. Play out today in our own culture,  culture is shaped by art.  So that's where they start,  right? Postmodernism is the idea that there is no true reality. You have your truth. I have my truth and there's no two plus two equals five.  And so when you realize that  that's what they want to instill in your subconscious so that consciously you accept it when they tell you that a male is not a male. A male is a floating soul with no gender binary, and women are just women, and you can just declare it by standing on top of a desk and saying, I'm a woman now, even if you don't have ovaries or the ability to reproduce.  So that's postmodernism in action, and that's one way that they took art and implemented That subliminal idea into your subconscious so that later it can be activated and weaponized against you.  And so you could say, okay, I don't know any examples of that, Austin. I couldn't imagine our CIA working alongside artists. Well, let me clue you in, my friend.  For decades in art circles, it was either a rumor or a joke, but now it is confirmed as fact. The CIA used American modern art, including the works of such artists as such as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, William de Kooning, and Mark Rothko, right? Oh, a Rothko, right? You know, like the pretty sure that's like the square and a circle or whatever, as a weapon. In the Cold War.  Interesting. In the manner of a renaissance prince, except that it acted secretly, the CIA fostered and promoted American abstract expressionist paintings around the world for more than 20 years.  The connection is improbable. This was a period in the 1950s and 60s when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art. President Truman summed up a popular view when he said, If that's art, then I'm a  Hot, hot and taught. What  is a hot and taught as for the artists themselves, many were ex communists, barely acceptable in the American, in the America of the McCarthy era,  and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive us government backing. Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the United States.  Russian art strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket could not compete.  So basically what the idea was that our artists, the way of capitalism is just so much better than everything else. This free expression, the environment of freedom and democracy and all of this stuff is so amazing that we just allow brains to thrive. And artistic expression is just so much better here in the United States. And so they took Upwards of 20, what are they? It's 20 million and purchased this art specifically to prop up. It's like if you, if they funneled money into us companies. Through shell companies so that they could say that, Oh, but look at our democracy. Our organizations, our shell companies are so much more successful than Russian companies, because look at how much money they have. Well, you gave them the money so you could make that argument. That's the whole point. The existence of the policy rumored and disputed for many years has now been confirmed by the, for the first time by former CIA officials, unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the long. leash  arrangement, similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal encounter edited by Steven Spender. The decision to include culture and art in the U S cold war arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. This made that the appeal communism still have for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the propaganda assets. Inventory,  which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines, and public information organizations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox. When the CIA pushed a button, it could hear whatever tune it wanted to play across the entire.  The next key step came in 1950 when the international organizations division was set up under Tom Brayden. It was this office, which subsidized the animated version of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which sponsored American jazz artists. Opera recitals, the Boston symphonies, orchestra, international touring program.  It's agents were placed in the film industry in publishing houses, even as travel writers for the celebrated photo guides. And we now know it promoted the America's anarchic avant garde movement. Abstract. Expressionism.  Initially, more open attempts were made to support the new American art. In 1947, the State Department organized and paid for a touring international exhibition called Advancing American Art, which the aim of rebuting Soviet suggestions that America was a cultural desert. But the show caused outrage at home, prompting Truman to make his hot and taut remark in one bitter congressman to declare, I am just a dumb American who pays taxes. For this kind of trash,  the tour had to be canceled. The U S government now faced a dilemma. The fill in the fill Philistinism combined with Joseph McCarthy's hysterical denunciations of all that was avant garde or unorthodox was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the U S government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s.  To resolve the CIA to resolve the dilemma. The CIA was brought in.  Hmm.  Very interesting Now this goes on and on and on. This is an article written by independent  Independent dot co dot UK and the title of it is modern art was CIA Weapon and it was written written  on Sunday the 22nd October of 1995  Super interesting article, I absolutely think that you could dive into more of the history of that, but I just want to give you that background. That's just one aspect of it, where our CIA has been a part of influencing culture through art.  Now we can go into the next part of this, which is called Operation Mockingbird.  And Operation Mockingbird was the hand in hand  CIA operation between journalists, news networks, and Hollywood.  And I myself need to do a deeper dive into this, but I had just recalled about this when talking about the Taylor Swift conversation and honestly, I didn't think this conversation would go that long. I usually have some warm up articles sometimes before I get into the deep stuff, but man, this is so interesting to me that I think we could probably sit here for five hours and talk about this.  But it really is a culture death. You go back and listen to music, go back and listen to Led Zeppelin, go listen to a CDC, go listen to any of the, the great musicians of the 1970s and early eighties before the, the, the, the fingertips of the CIA started to get into our music and. We have done nothing but go downhill as a society musically.  There's very few examples that you can give me that would even rival any of that. The very first, I'll give you a side story, go down the memory lane real quick. When I was maybe, oh, I don't know,  8 years old, 8 to 10 years old probably, my grandparents, Took me on a train ride to Chicago from Detroit to go see my cousins And I had just gotten for the train ride a new Walkman. I believe it was a gray Sony Walkman and  My dad took me to go get my very first CD for my Walkman and I ended up getting the Led Zeppelin discography So all I listened to for probably Six months was every Led Zeppelin song ever and  that is still to this day my favorite album I have the vinyl upstairs right now that I listen to  greatest band of all time in my opinion  anyways Trip down memory lane, so  We have had a cultural death an artistic death here in the United States that has been unfolding for decades you even want to talk about architecture and I would love to do an interview with somebody who could speak more on this because I'm not an architect and I don't know the history of architecture But to me you go back and you look at even go back and look at Roman times Greek times go back and look at  the Gothic eras and and go back and look at  Pyramids like there go back and look at any history of time in the last 2000 years, and you will see if you took a time machine every 100 years, you would see beautiful architecture, cathedrals, and and  political buildings and and  courthouses and schools and all of these things are so beautifully created because when people used to create architecture, they used to do it to, to please the gods. They used to do it because there's a frequency within the building that you're in. And when you walk up to it and go through that door, there's a feeling that should be associated with that. And that is dead in the United States. Go drive your car around and the only thing you're going to see is a box and a box and a bigger box and a taller box and a wider box and you drive your box by the boxes and you see the boxes and you walk home to your box and you open up the box door to get into your box room to go into your box kitchen to create something in your box oven and pull something out of the box fridge to It's an endless cycle of squares in, in our culture, in our architecture. And it's, it's so sad to me to see that we just, that that's what we live in today.  And so when we look at  whether it's Project Mockingbird, whether we look at  the CIA working hand in hand with the art within the Cold War, whether we talk about the, the historical aspects of music.  There has been  nothing but death of creativity in the United States.  Every piece of culture that has been brought here has slowly dwindled and died, and it seems to me like it died at the hands of the organizations that are being funded by our tax dollars so that they can diminish our creativity, and so that they can control You are subconscious, and I think bringing it full circle back around to Taylor Swift is that's exactly what has happened. Here  and now I do have a full article on the project Mockingbird.  Let's see how far into this Well, we did 38 minutes on Taylor Swift  So I think we can move on but I did find a substack article because it was actually a little bit interesting It's called a media manipulation the operation Mockingbird. It was written October 14th 2024 and it is from the reveal revealed. I Substack so revealed I dot substack. com and it looks like they do a pretty I don't know decent breakdown I haven't read through it all yet, but  I think 38 minutes on  on  Media manipulation and Taylor Swift is probably a good start. So  On your own time, feel free to go watch that. Here's a quick video on Project Mockingbird. Then we'll move on  real concern  That planted story is intended to serve a national purpose abroad  Came home  And were circulated here, and believed here.  Because, uh,  this would mean that  the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through some foreign country. And we're looking at that very carefully. Do you have any  people being paid  by the CIA  who are contributing  to a major circulation American journal? We do have people who submit pieces to other, to American journals. Do you have any people  paid by the CIA  who are working for  television networks?  This, I think, gets into the kind of, uh, getting into the details, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to get into in an executive session.  Uh, at CBS, uh,  we, uh, Had been contacted by the CIA. As a matter of fact, by the time I became the head of the whole news and public affairs operation in 1954. Ships had been established and I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them. We have  quite a lot of detailed information,  uh, and we will  evaluate it and we will include any,  um,  evidence of wrongdoing  or any evidence of impropriety  in our final report and make recommendations.  Do you have any people  being paid by the CIA  who are contributing to the  National News Services, AP and UPI?  Well, again, I think we're getting into the kind of detail, Mr. Chairman, that I'd prefer to handle in an executive session.  Senator, do you think you named the new plan? So the answer is yes.  Uh, that remains to be decided. I think it was entirely in order for our correspondents at that time, uh, to make use of, uh, C. I. A. agent, uh, chiefs, uh, of station and other members of the executive staff of C. I. A. as source.  Alright, so there you have it. You can go, uh, read it through the article there, um, find it on Substack, uh, reveal. i. substack. com.  Alright, so, let's move on. on from that into the next topic, which is going to be  that in New York  over the past few days, there has been a A  bit of a debacle and one specifically between the Hasidic  Jewish community in New York and the New York police. So the New York police showed up  to a synagogue  in,  let's see here, let  me go ahead and pull it up.  All right.  Basically what happened is the police showed up and they decided that they needed to shut down a underground. Tunnel system  in New York, underneath a place of worship where these Hasidic Jews would go and  congregate.  And the idea behind this, the mainstream narrative is that the secret underground synagogue tunnels were causing destabilization  of the buildings that were surrounding it. So that's the mainstream narrative that's come out in the last day or so.  And nine of these Jews were arrested.  And now I do want to preempt this with.  Love my Jewish family.  I'm not Jewish, so I don't technically have Jewish family, but you know what I mean?  Love Jewish people. I love Christian people. I love Muslim people. I have no affinity towards any one class over the other. I have my own personal spiritual beliefs. I don't think that any religious beliefs in and of themselves make you a great or a bad person. I believe that there's Terrible people who are Jewish, and there's great people that are Jewish, there's terrible people who are Christians, there's great people that are Christians, there's terrible people who are Muslims, and there's great people who are Muslims. I've met them all.  Mostly good people across the board. I can't even look at one and be like, Hey, I've met a bunch of people in this. No, every religion has bad apples. Just like you can say, you know, there's a bunch of people who say, Oh, police are bad. No, they're not bad. There's bad people everywhere in every occupation, religion, uh,  country, uh, whatever it is.  There's bad people everywhere, in every type of thing, but mostly people are good, mostly people intend good, and I, so, there's your disclaimer,  as we go into this, because it's a very, um, very sensitive time, for this specific culture, and I get that, and so, I'm just going to preempt that. There's your disclaimer. All right. Now, everything from here forward is just me  talking, but, uh, understand it from that framework. Um, so just as we were discussing, there has been a Jewish synagogue. That was creating underground tunnels. They were digging, digging, digging underground tunnels. And so the idea from the Jewish community that was there, and this is a very specific Jewish community. It's the Hasidic Jews, the, uh, I can see if I can pull up the exact names of them here for you. Cause it, it does matter because the specific culture is known for having to deal with some very specific, uh,  um, pushback in certain situations in this small area. So this specific. Uh, Jewish culture, I believe is a, um, more Orthodox culture and I actually have a whole thing here, but  to me, it's of Russian descent and So here's the general idea is that they were digging these holes and they claim that they were digging these holes because they were six. They started digging these holes six months ago because of the COVID restrictions or they dug them during COVID because they wanted to Uh, congregate and practice their faith during a time where they were being told, no, you cannot do that.  Okay. Now there's a secondary theory, which is that they are digging these tunnels because the person that they, the, the,  the Messiah, I believe that they believe in  says that you have to consistently expand your place of worship. And maybe I'm getting that wrong because we'll get into a thread here in just a moment. Um, but let's, let's dive into the timeline of this. So on January 8th, videos circulated that showed a tunnel network under the Lubavitch, that's the specific one, the Lubavitch HQ in Crown Heights and several Jewish men being arrested. More videos show another Jewish man escaping through another tunnel and a group. resisting officers. The building was shut down afterwards.  Initially, the claim was that the tunnels were made to pray during COVID. This, according to this thread,  okay, and this thread is not, this is not CNN. This is not Fox. This is not, um, it's not a news organization. So  In, I guess, everything you hear from every organization because I'm talking about those two, too. I wouldn't believe Fox or CNN on everything either, but this is the individual account on X, so take it with a grain of salt, but this seemed to be the most, uh,  factually and organized article that I could find on this.  It says initially the claim was the tunnels were made to pray during COVID. This is most likely false. Neighbor with Mikva access, as of six months ago, no work on the tunnel had begun. Since renovation was the main reason the tunnels were noticed, they could have Um,  and now they add some receipts here, which says that the tunnel found burrowed under the women's section of 770, possibly destabilizing the building. And there's three, four other articles that are attached to this to back up the idea that they were just stating there.  And so the next thing that it states here as we go into that, and so that's the,  the general idea is that they were saying, Oh, we were doing this. During COVID because we weren't allowed to worship. Well, it seems to be that that was according to this false because these tunnels weren't started, but six months ago  now where it really started to get some fuel on the fire is during one of these videos, as these people are.  Resisting arrest. There was a, quite the scene. They're flipping over pews and creating these wall barriers as the police are grabbing them and they're pushing back and forth. And like this, this, the whole chaos ensuing inside of the synagogue.  And as that's happening, a guy is breaking down the walls and like a police officer is like, or is breaking down the walls and starting to pull people out of it.  And one of the, the, um, Jewish people that are there  pull out a mattress and on this mattress, this is a soiled mattress that looks to be whether it's old blood or,  uh, feces or something that's on this mattress. And it seems to be a small mattress. Um, Uh, that some people were saying was meant for, uh, a child and that's kind of what it looks like. Okay. But we won't make any assumptions yet, but that's, that's what's probably one of the biggest fuels of the fire. Now, the other thing that was very questionable about the situation is one of the people, one of the Jewish guys was escaping and he went through the tunnel system and he came up, right? Next to a child's museum.  Hmm. Now that's not to say that there's children in the museum, but it is to say that the museum is meant for children.  And so there has been  theories  that these individuals were using this for some sort of human trafficking.  Okay. Now again, unfounded, a couple of weird coincidences  and. Here's the side part. If these people were just digging tunnels so that they could pray during COVID, more power to them. That's awesome. You should do that. Fuck the government. They can't tell you what you can and cannot do, especially when it comes to your religious practices. So,  wholeheartedly believe that. If that's what they were doing, awesome. They should do it. Um, but, there's a lot of skepticism around maybe some more nefarious reasons why this was happening.  And so, as we go deeper into this thread and deeper into this article,  It starts to talk about some of those things. It talks about the mattress, talks about the, um, the pushing and shoving that ensued, I believe nine people total were arrested that were a part of this synagogue.    so the next portion of this says, The contents of the tunnel are very disturbing and don't seem like items extremists students would keep. A mattress with a dark stain was found. A baby high chair? Was found as well. So that's a weird one.  The crowd protecting the tunnels isn't small. They are also aren't of student age.  Here's the full video of the tunnel network that we have access to. The video shows passageways that extend that aren't explored. It's unclear whether the other passages might contain does this tunnel network look like something done in six months? So it's absolutely does not look like something done in six months. So let me share this with you here.  Um, this is.  It looks old, almost, to me. It looks like it's been used. There's, there's like, old chipped paint hanging off of door frames, and there's a big, uh, like, sand  Let me go ahead and  expand this for you here, but there's the, the high chair,  there's what looks like some wheel barrels,  a bunch of just stuff thrown around, cinder blocks thrown around some carved little tunnel doorways that they're crawling into now with a flashlight. And so as they walk back, it's just a crawl space now, essentially from the more.  Substantial part of it that is where  could have been where that person  came up into that right right outside of that Children's Museum. So that's bizarre. I don't think this was built six months ago. Again, I'm not a  archaeologist or whatever the hell you need to be to date that stuff. But it says where does the tunnel exit to using geomapping one of the tunnels exit near the local Children's Museum. It's also unclear how large the tunnel network is and where the other passages lead. As more information comes in, we will know how extensive the network is. And they show you the photos as to how they know this. This is where the video where the guy came out of it. This is the photo where they actually found that same portion of it. Um, discussion of the tunnels online has been avoided by many accounts. Some accounts claimed the tunnels were even fake. Israel War Room labeled such discussions of the tunnel anti Semitic. They claim that it's just a simple building code violation. Hmm, then why are we getting in, like, fights and arrested over  building code violations? You get a  fine for that. You don't get arrested. You don't get into pushing, shoving matches with the police over building codes. It says the label conspiracy theorist has been applied to people who believe tunnels could have been used to harm kids. No explanation has been given for the stained mattress and baby high chair in the tunnels. Is the conspiracy or is there more to the Brooklyn community?  Research reveals a dark history of sexual assault in the Brooklyn area. If you do speak out about it, you are shunned from the community and harassed. Disturbing testimony in the article speculates that the number of young boys sexually assaulted could be as high as 50%.  The community is, and there's four different articles that it attaches there. The community is very secretive and will oftentimes cover up or silence people who have been assaulted. The community is very religious and strict. If you go against the grain, the community turns against you.  Hmm. And they have a video  about this specific here with a religious look at the Satmar sect. John, good morning. Good morning. Fascinating case. And it's a case that's being watched closely Anthony, not just because of the allegation that a trusted community leader sexually abused a young girl. He was  assigned to help, but also because the trial has.  Hmm.  Okay.  So it sounded like maybe a different name of a different sect. That he was mentioning here, but within the Brooklyn area, a specific Jewish Pull back the veil, concealing the inner workings of a closed community.  The trial of the  Alright.  So, here's shuns those who have been traumatized. They send threats to the survivors, harass them, and have total control over their lives. Police confirm it is very tough to get convictions and to have victims.  While we wait for more information, here are some of the questions I and many others have about the tunnels. What was the liquid on the stained mattress? Why was there a baby high chair in the tunnel?  Has a full forensic analysis been performed in the area? Where does the tunnels lead?  Hmm. All good questions. Do any security cameras have clear view of entrances to the tunnels? If so, have they been subpoenaed? Have there been any people who reported this before the renovations in December 2023? Who anonymously  tipped off the fire department? Who used the tunnels?  How many minors entered the tunnels? Have any minors displayed behavior of a survivor upon exiting the tunnels? Okay, this is like, it's very specific. So, there's, there's the thread for you. Now, as we go into the  culture  surrounding this community that we are referencing here, which again is not just the normal Orthodox Judaism, it's not, um, it's a specific religious sect within Brooklyn. It's a very small, tight knit community, um, that are, uh, uh, uh, uh, Hasidic, uh, Yadkivik, right? Is that the name of it? So, very specific, uh, religious sect. So it says, okay. Once upon a time, it says, okay, for real. Once upon a time in Eastern Europe, a movement called Shabbat was founded. Its founder was Rabbi Schnur Zalman of Laity. This was in 1812. He was many things, among them a genius, Talmudist, and rabbi, the Kalbalist and mystic, and the rarest of things, a true original thinker. A Kabbalist, sorry, a Talmudist, meaning he follows the Talmud, um, and a rabbi and a Kabbalist and a mystic. So, there is a really interesting conversation surrounding the mystical Judaism, uh, there is a whole subsection of, of Judaism, uh, and historically much more prevalent. Back then, but that believed in mysticism and there is certain sections of this that still do, but like literal magic, um,  while a true original of, and one of, in my opinion, the greatest philosophers and theologians in the history of humankind, he was also profoundly devoted to his own teachers in the Hasidic tradition and saw himself as the natural successor. The Hasidic tradition was founded a couple of generations earlier, and one of the prophecies is connection and devotion to a master in Hasidic parlance above all. Hasidism love and devote themselves to their rabbi as the one who helps connect the soul of the Jew with godliness. Okay, sounds a little bit like Catholicism, right? The aspect of Hasidic Judaism made into a lesser extent continues to make some people nervous. However, it has also been extremely thoroughly defended and broadly accepted as a legitimate manifestation of Judaism, which always has its Moses, Rabbi Akiva, and Vilna.  And again, this is a single account. This isn't a religious text. This isn't a official person that is sitting here giving me this information, but it is, seems to be pretty legit to me. Um, but I haven't done a ton of research on the theology behind Hasidic mystic Judaism. Um, Rabbi, Rabbi Schnur Shabbat, uh, Rabbi Schnur Zalman Shabbat movement. So it's the Shabbat. Hasidic Judaism is one movement within a much broader Hasidic world full of dynasties of Rees, which each of their own rich traditions in ways, and it's R-E-B-B-E-S, not rabbis, although it is not a widely studied, they're al always emphasized point has has Hasidism  Hasidism as part of their devotion. Generally see their rabbi as a Masonic figure. The word is loaded and makes people extremely uncomfortable. It may worth pausing briefly to explain that Hasidism is seen by,  um, the founding of the movement as a redemptive revelation of Torah, a movement whose original Geist is to raise the Jewish people from the spiritual and physical malaise of exile and return them to their deepest soul and identity, a holy nation. with God.  The more that holiness and redemptive soul is brought into the world, the more the time of the general redemption, the macronism of that inner redemption draws near. The rabbi is a Torah of flesh and blood, that general reality in state instantiated in a holy and saintly individual.  Uh, so much for the brief explanation. They said fast forward to the 20th century, the descendant of Rabbi Schnur Zalman, Rabbi Joseph Yitzhak of Lubavitch  survives imprisonment. and near execution by the KGB in the Nazi bombing of Warsaw, and after much deliberation, moves to New York City. Wow, that's wild. the known reasons for this choice are varied. Some are spiritual, New York becoming a center of influence on world Jewry.  Not sure that's a word. Um, and some are very pragmatic. The Jews of the U. S. are already monetarily feeding most of the Eastern Bloc Jewry.  Thus, the sixth Lubavitcher rabbi, Lubavitch is a tiny town in Belarus that has the home of the longest surviving branch of the Shabbat movement, um, comes to Brooklyn and moves into 770 Eastern Parkway in Crown Heights. The sixth rabbi passes away in 1950 and is succeeded by his son in law and distant cousin, Rabbi Menchem, Mendel Schneerson. In 1951, though he doesn't live in the building, 770 is where his office is located and remains the HQ of the Shabab movement.  Now you have to understand the Shabab movement in the U. S. in 1951 can practically fit into a single small room. It is a tiny poor immigrant community, remnants of a world for that the Nazis and Bolsheviks destroyed between them. They had nothing, no resources, no connections, barely any English, a tiny immigrant community in what was then a prestigious middle class Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn. What they got in 1951, however, was capital L leadership. Not sure what that means.  The 7th Rebbi, henceforth the Rebbi, declares in his first official speech as Rebbi that this is the generation that will bring a final end to exile and usher in the messianic age. He declares this about a long room full of people.  He then sets about changing world Jewry.  Again, don't know if that's a word. Books could be written about the Rebbi and have been, but suffice to say the Rebbi creates from nothing a mass movement devoting to hunting down and love the Jews that Hitler hunted and hatred. I'm not going to read all of it. hunting down  in love, the Jews that hunter, that Hitler hunted in hatred with bringing Torah and mitzvoth, in love. The commandments to every single Jew. Shabbat centers, so it sounds like they're trying to just expand among all of the Jewish people. Shabbat centers with no central funding whatsoever, by the way, are opened all over the world. The rabbi pushes and pushes for a single Jew to perform a single commandment. He seeks to revive a broken and orphaned generation. He expands Shabbat and massive global movement.  All of this is just an atheist, know nothing  All of this is just what an atheist know nothing can appreciate about the Rebbe. He barely slept and was totally publicly devoted to other people for decades. Stories of Jews and non Jews meeting with him are countless, and always he emphases the imminent redemption and how to get there.  Okay, now it says we get to the sensitive part of the story, but I'm going to try to stick to simple public fact. The Rebbe's emphasis on, um, The Messiah grows greater and greater in his final years of leadership. The Rebbe passes away in 1994. The Rebbe's Hasidism very much believed, and believe, that if anyone in this generation was a candidate to become the final Redeemer according to Jewish law and tradition, it was and is the Lubavitcher Rebbe. However, following the Rebbe's passing, as the dust settles, there is a bit of a split.  Some hedonism fervently believe that spreading the awareness of the Rebbe as the Redeemer is a core part of bringing about the Redemption. They are the Masik, Mes, Mesh, Ikitism.  M E S H I C H I S T I M. Their flag is yellow and ubiquitous. The majority of Hasidism and ever growing consolidated core of Shabbat official organs believe that this is not the Rebbe's will. Okay. Um.  Now another issue, 770, the home and place, let's see if there's anything specific we want to get into here. Uh, now you know a lot about a certain subsection of Jewish culture that you probably never needed to know so much about. Um, another thing you should know is that even beyond the, by now, old distinction between, uh, the maschicatism  and the anti S, as they are known, Shabbat is highly decentralized and full of typical politics. Territorialism fights over money and all sorts of very human issues.  Okay,  uh, let's see what else.  Um, this person is very thorough in their study of this.  Um, and so, to the current contremps, you have a global, decentralized, massively successful organization that runs charities and synagogues and helps Jews with problems, physical and spiritual, all over the world  with an official HQ partially occupied by something like a street gang. Sounds like we missed that part, but I'm not going to go back for you. Um, and so, uh, This basically just says they're not above violence to claim their own turf. There's a big turf war between that split off between one subsection of this and the other subsection. In any case, this week, the actual ownership of 7770 called the cement trucks to repair this damage and stop the progress on the expansionism. Um  Interesting.  Uh, basically it says that as a result of this expansionism and taking over this territory, they wanted to, uh, start breaking into,  uh, the, the, so basically one portion of this subsection lives in the top floor and one portion lives on the bottom floor. And so, uh, you have a global decentralized, right? Like a streaking. This, uh, Fat Tim. have taken upon themselves in recent months unilaterally to expand 770. Their way was doing was starting to break into an adjoining basement. The main synagogue of 770 is in the basement and old decommissioned ritual bath. Or mitzvah.  770 is indeed, which a mikvah is basically where you're supposed to go bath, bathe yourselves. Women are supposed to go there before they have their period. Men are supposed to go there before and after they have sex. It's like a, it's like you cleanse yourself in this area. Um, 770 is, Uh, is indeed far too small for the massive number of people who wish to pray there, study there, or something that more and more Hasidism have been seeking a proper solution to for years. However, a bunch of teenagers breaking down walls in their free time, you be the judge. In any case, this week, the actual ownership of 770 called in the cement trucks to repair this damage and stop the progress on the expansion. Um, the Fatim responded territorially, the police became involved, and you have videos of Yeshiva students escaping arrest through sewer gates. I think that's most of the factual context. You're welcome.  Wow! Uh, okay. Super super interesting.  Uh, if you wish to read more about these topics, here are some good books. The Philosophy of Shabbat by Rabbi Nisan Mindel, The Rebbe's Army by Sue Fishcough, and Rebbe by Josef Tolskien. Hmmm.  Very interesting.  Uh, the broad interest in this story on Twitter and beyond is largely antisemitic with filth like this, uh, is a dime a dozen. Looks like something was, uh, deleted there. Um, interesting. Okay. So this makes much more sense to me and I think was probably. important to actually get into the details on, uh, then, uh, then  long term human trafficking under the streets of New York. Uh, so we have come to a conclusion and that is I vote. Not human trafficking. That is my, that is my conclusion here. I have debunked this, uh, maybe not completely, but it seems much more likely that that was the case, is that there's a bunch of territorial, uh, Jew fights going on and they're fighting over territory and expanding their territory and the landlord called on them and they were digging into the basement and now we see what we have. A little weird that there was a high chair.  There, so there's your competing threads, I guess, and one thread being these, uh, this Jewish sect is creating underground tunnels for human trafficking, the other one being this is a territory war between very  somewhat poor, um, and,  uh,  emotionally charged organizations for territory. Um, so that, that seems to make a lot more sense to me guys than, than underground human trafficking. Jewish rabbis.  I don't know. Um, but there is some articles out there of, of, you know, just as you can find for Christians and Catholics of wrongdoings, which if that's the, the  ruler that you measure everybody's affiliations by, then you can basically say that everybody is running a human trafficking organization then, I guess.  All right, so let's move on.  The last thing that we're going to talk about, and we're going to talk about this somewhat briefly, is the fact that, uh, and let me go ahead and actually just pull this article up, because I haven't been, I haven't had time to read through this completely yet, because this just happened. So, this is breaking news, is the fact that the United States and the UK coalition conducted a strike  on Houthi rebels. A joint strike, and So, as this article loads, we'll learn more and more, but I guess the, the, uh, the concern around this is that the reason that,  the concern around this is obviously that the Houthi rebels are backed by Iran. Right? So, this is, this comes from Fox News, and it says, hold  this over a little bit.  Alright, this comes from Fox News, where it says,  as it loaded and unloaded on me, um,  That the U. S. and U. K. coalition strike  Iran backed Houthi targets in Yemen after spat of ship attacks in the Red Sea. So you've been hearing this back and forth, right?  The drone strikes, and the aircraft carriers shooting down the drones, and all of this has been going on with these rebel militants that are backed by Iran. And so what I think is interesting is it's always Iran backed militants.  Is, is, are Ukraine, in every article by Russia, U. S. backed?  Ukrainian militants?  Do they? I'm sure they understand the proxy war just as much there as we do here, right? So if we're calling that every single thing, it's not it's not a war with Houthi rebels. It's a war with Iran. And that's what they're preempting for us. And that's that's what the priming that we're seeing here is before they put Houthi, they put Iran backed and that's for a reason. So Yemen's Iran backed Houthi militants have stepped up attacks or commercial on commercial vessels in the Red Sea and  It says the United States and Britain carried out a series of strikes on military organizations and locations belonging to Iran backed  Houthis in Yemen early Friday in response to militant groups ongoing attacks on vessels traveling through the Red Sea. Fox News is told that there were attacks on more than a dozen Houthi targets by air, surface, and subsurface platforms. The attacks were carried out with support from Australia, Netherlands, Iran and Canada, a U. S. defense official says the U. K. contributed aircraft.  President Biden said he'd authorize strikes in direct response to unprecedented  Houthi attacks against the International Maritime Vessels in the Red Sea, including the use of anti ship ballistic missiles for the very first time in history. These Houthi attacks, Biden said, have endangered U. S. personnel and its allies and have threatened freedom of navigation.  These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation in one of the world's most critical commercial routes. I would love to hear President Biden say imperil freedom of navigation together. That would be impressive.  I will not hesitate. He said to direct further measurements to protect our people.  And the free flow of international commerce as necessary.  The strikes came shortly after the White House called a lid on President Biden's engagements for the evening as he was not expected to discuss the matter publicly. It follows news that the Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had not notified the President or other officials of his whereabouts for several days. Okay. A joint statement from the government

During the ratification debates, Federalists repeatedly warned that adding a bill of rights would be unnecessary - and even dangerous. Learn what they had to say - where they made good points - and missed the mark too. The post Bill of Rights: Unnecessary and Dangerous? first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

In September 1787, after months of deliberation, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia presented a new Constitution to the states for ratification. Pennsylvania, hosting the convention, was poised to play a critical role in the unfolding drama. The state was a microcosm of the broader national debate, encapsulating the tension between the desire for a strong central government and the fear of losing individual and state rights. The Federalists in Pennsylvania, led by figures like James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris, were ardent supporters of a strong central government. They believed that the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation necessitated a new constitution to provide stability and unity. Their strategy was marked by a sense of urgency; they moved quickly to call a state convention to ratify the Constitution. This rapid mobilization was partly a tactical move to outpace the Anti-Federalists, who were scrambling to articulate their opposition. The Anti-Federalists in Pennsylvania, though vocal, were caught off-guard by the Federalists' speed. They raised concerns about the lack of a Bill of Rights and the potential for governmental overreach. However, their efforts to slow down the process and garner more support were outmaneuvered by the Federalists' swift action. Pennsylvania's decision to quickly ratify the Constitution, by a vote of 46 to 23 in December 1787, was significant for several reasons. Firstly, it positioned Pennsylvania as the second state to ratify, following Delaware, sending a strong message of support for the new Constitution. This early endorsement from a large and influential state added momentum to the ratification process nationally. Moreover, Pennsylvania's rapid ratification effectively minimized the impact of Anti-Federalist arguments within the state. The speed of the process did not allow Anti-Federalists sufficient time to rally opposition. This outcome in Pennsylvania was a strategic blow to the Anti-Federalist cause, as it undermined their efforts to present a united front against ratification. However, the expedited ratification process in Pennsylvania was not without its criticisms. Some historians argue that the rush to ratify undermined the democratic process, depriving citizens of the time needed to fully consider the implications of the new Constitution. The debate over this rushed process highlighted the tension between the urgency felt by Federalists to rectify the weaknesses of the Confederation and the caution urged by Anti-Federalists wary of potential governmental overreach. Pennsylvania's swift ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787 was a tactical victory for Federalists and a significant moment in the broader narrative of American constitutional history. It underscored the complexities of the ratification process and the strategic maneuvering that played a crucial role in shaping the early political landscape of the United States. The events in Pennsylvania not only reflected the national debate over federalism but also influenced the trajectory of the ratification process across the country. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/plausibly-live/message

The framers of the Constitution warned against forming political parties, buy they happened anyway. H.W. Brands is Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin, and he joins guest host John McCaa to discuss the early days of the Republic, when Federalists and Anti-Federalists battled it out and planted the seeds of our current state of division. His book is “Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the Brawling Birth of American Politics.”

America's top Covid vaccine skeptics are sounding the alert: New findings regarding DNA contamination of Covid mRNA shots might invalidate Big Pharma's liability shield and pave the way for major lawsuits. But will any lawyers or state AGs be brave enough to bring the case? And will any judges be brave enough to rule in their favor? Dr. Robert Malone helps guide Charlie through the findings. Plus, Margot Cleveland of The Federalists digests Chuck Grassley's new revelations of a widespread FBI cover-up to protect the Biden clan from investigation.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the debates over the ratification of the US Constitution, the Anti-Federalists often resorted to predictions of the worst case of the future. The understood human nature better than the Federalists did, but they lacked the ability to hope that the American people would rise above that nature. George Washington had strongly supported ratification, but by this day in 1796, he was exhausted. Not just by war, but by the Presidency not being quite what he had hoped or expected it to be. As he said farewell to the nation, he was seeing the Anti-Federalist warnings beginning to come to fruition. He himself would not become one of them, but his warning to the nation would be along so many of the same lines of thinking. As we take a few moments today to consider the Farewell Address of Washington, we must ask those same questions of ourselves. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/plausibly-live/message

Mike Gaddy and David Scorpio – Today's program explores why the departure from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution; were the Federalists really Benign Monarchists and what happened to

Mike Gaddy and David Scorpio – Today's program explores why the departure from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution; were the Federalists really Benign Monarchists and what happened to

Today, the Two Mikes were joined by Stella Morabito, a staff writer for the The Federalist, and the author of a new book called The Weaponization of Loneliness:How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer (Available from Amazon). Ms. Morabito argues that the federal government and its bureaucrats, doctors, and business/tech allies, used the Covid Pandemic to push the isolation of Americans as far as possible. Imagine, Ms. Morabito said, if there is anything more isolating and sadistic than U.S. government orders preventing children from visiting their dying parents who were forced into old folks' homes and hospitals. The entire Covid sham was a federal government effort -- on orders from the UN's WHO and the World Economic Forum -- to oppress its opponents, manipulate the presidential election, attack religion by closing places of worship, and isolate Americans from each other as much as possible. The impact of the latter has created a spike in mental health problems in adults and children across America, and the federal government is using that fact to take measures that will further isolate Americans by claiming that another Covid attack is coming and will be accompanied by another nationwide lockdown. The first fake pandemic weakened the ties of Americans to family, friends, community, and faith in God, the second is intended to break those ties. Ms. Morabito also said -- and remember this one -- that the federal government wants to isolate Americans because isolation promotes conformity, and because it fears the non-conformity that is empowered and supported by an individual's close ties to family, friends, community, and faith. The degree of this fear i s clearly shown in a recent report from the U.S. Surgeon which urges the federal government to take over the problem of isolation and create laws that will allow the government to "fix" the problem of isolation. Who knows? The government has a lot of those cages that Obama used for children at the border and they may be the first step the Congress approves to "fix" the isolation problem. The next step probably is the elimination of free speech, which Ms.Morabito accurately says is the great "connector" of people. Ms. Morbito's essays in the Federalists can be found at https;//www.thefederalist.com/authors/stellamorabita Ms. Sorabito's website is https://www.stellamorabito.net SponsorsCARES Act Stimulus (COVID-19) Employee Retention Tax Credits (ERC): https://www.jornscpa.com/snap/?refid=11454757Cambridge Credit: https://www.cambridge-credit.org/twomikes/ EMP Shield: https://www.empshield.com/?coupon=twomikesOur Gold Guy: https://www.ourgoldguy.com www.TwoMikes.us

How did political parties come about in the early American republic? Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains how the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans came to be the first two political parties in the United States. Center for Civic Education

What was the process of ratifying or rejecting the proposed plan of government after the 1787 convention? In this episode Dr. Lester Brooks, American history professor emeritus from Anne Arundel Community College, explains the process for ratifying the Constitution and the role played by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Center for Civic Education

How did political parties come about in the early American republic? Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains how the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans came to be the first two political parties in the United States. Center for Civic Education

Topics covered: United States Constitution Article I, Section 6 addresses how members of the Congress (members of the House of Representatives and the US Senate) are compensated and paid, and who pays their salary. Learn about the debates over Congressional Pay - including who should pay (the federal or State governments?), how they should be paid (money or wheat?), whether compensation should be uniform across the country, and why some members of the Constitutional Convention, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists thought pay by the federal government was important to the integrity of the Congress, and why others fought against paying them (especially United States Senators) anything at all. Special tribute to Vietnam Veteran War Hero R. Frank Cuff, Bombastic Brent Bassett's father-in-law. Check out PatriotWeek.org, Judge Warren's book at www.AmericasSurvivalGuide.com, and the Save our Republic! video series on Patriot Week's YouTube Channel. Support this podcast at: https://anchor.fm/michael-warren9 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michael-warren9/support

John Singer Sargent, Henry Cabot Lodge At the 1920 Republican Convention the journalist and H.L. Mencken observed with great amusement and interest the behavior of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the chair of the convention. “Lodge's keynote speech, of course, was bosh,” wrote Mencken, “but it was bosh delivered with an air…Lodge got away with it because he was Lodge—because there was behind it his unescapable confidence in himself, his disarming disdain of discontent below, his unapologetic superiority. This superiority was and is quite real. Lodge is above the common level of his party, his country and his race, and he knows it very well, and is not disposed toward the puerile hypocrisy of denying it.”  It is extraordinary, given how Mencken saw Lodge, that we are much more likely to know who H.L. Mencken was then to recognize the name of Henry Cabot Lodge. Of a prominent seafaring family, he received one of the very first PhDs granted by Harvard, was involved in Massachusetts politics from 1880, and in 1892 was elected to the United States Senate—where he served until his death in 1924. He was one of the great political personalities of his age, alongside Theodore Roosevelt, his friend of 35 years, Theodore Roosevelt. Together, as Laurence Jurdem describes in his new book, The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History, they formed an unbeatable team, with Roosevelt thrusting ahead, while Lodge offered canny tactics and strategy, serving as Roosevelt's one man think tank and advisory group. Though their friendship was threatened by Roosevelt's third-party run for the White House, their final years were warmed by their mutual detest for Woodrow Wilson.  Laurence Jurdem is currently an adjunct professor of history at Fairfield University and Fordham College's Lincoln Center campus.  The author of Paving the Way for Reagan: The Influence of Conservative Media on U.S. Foreign Policy, he is a frequent commentator on American politics. For Further Investigation Think of this conversation as begin the third of a Summer 2023 trilogy on late 19th century American politicians and political culture. It began with President Garfield, then moved backward to describe the context and foundation of "Civil War politics" in the "Age of Lincoln", and now moves out of the Age of Lincoln with two men who were very much born in the Age of Lincoln, but then shaped the foundations of progressivism. Henry Cabot Lodge, Alexander Hamilton–some have said that Roosevelt was one of the few people to respect Hamilton between his death and the late twentieth century. If so, he learned to do it from Lodge, for whom Hamilton was symbolic of what he desired to be as a politician and a policymaker. Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt, Hero Tales from American History–a co-written book, composed of biographical essays they wrote for The Century Magazine. Lodge's heroes are George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, John Quincy Adams, Francis Parkman, Grant at Vicksburg, Robert Gould Shaw, James Russell Lowell, Sheridan at Cedar Creek, and Abraham Lincoln. With the exception of Grant and Sheridan, it's a collection of Federalists and Bostonians, which is about right. I quoted several times in the podcast from H.L. Mencken's "Lodge", an essay that he included in his A Mencken Chrestomathy. Very much worth seeking out.  H.W. Brands, T.R: The Last Romantic Two by Patricia O'Toole, The Five of Hearts: An Intimate Portrait of Henry Adams and  his Friends, 1880-1918, and  When Trumpets Fade: Theodore Roosevelt After The White House John Garraty, Henry Cabot Lodge: A Biography William H. Harbaugh, Power and Responsibility: The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt

This week, Clay Jenkinson discusses Jefferson's first inaugural address with regular guest Lindsay Chervinsky. The speech, inaudibly delivered on March 4, 1801, is regarded as one of the top five in American history. After a hotly contested election, Jefferson was able to say, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” Part utopian vision for America, part political theater, part endorsement of the strength and durability of a republican form of government, the first inaugural address was one of the handful of Jefferson's greatest written statements.  Support the show by joining the 1776 Club or by donating to the Thomas Jefferson Hour, Inc. You can learn more about Clay's cultural tours and retreats at jeffersonhour.com/tours. Check out our merch. You can find Clay's books on our website, along with a list of his favorite books on Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and other topics. Thomas Jefferson is interpreted and portrayed by Clay S. Jenkinson.

In a huge change from the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution eliminated “requisitions,” what many saw as a primary reason for the new system of taxation. Rejecting Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists in this debate were Patrick Henry and the anti-federalists. The post Tax Battle! Henry vs Hamilton on the Requisition System first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Today on Foundations of Freedom Thursday, we answer listener questions- What was George Washington's view of the bipartisan system? How can we prevent court packing? How did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists get their names? After this, we look at what summer programs are available and recommended by the WallBuilders Team. All of this and more, on Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Emma hosts Timothy Shenk, Co-Editor of Dissent and Assistant Professor of Modern U.S. History at George Washington University, to discuss his recent book Realigners: Partisan Hacks, Political Visionaries, and the Struggle to Rule American Democracy. First, Emma runs through updates on Sinema jumping right back into working with the Right, Kari Lake's lawsuit against Arizona, and polls revealing that the only thing the public wants less than a Trump candidacy, is a Biden one, before diving deeper into this weekend's Keystone Pipeline spill, and the complete joke that is letting corporations regulate themselves. Timothy Shenk then joins as he dives right into the inspiration he found in the failure of the US political system leading up to the election of Donald Trump, with the inability of either party to build a durable majority following the collapse of the New Deal Coalition in 1968. Next, Shenk jumps back to the 18th Century as he begins the walk through the major political realignment that set up this coalition-stifling system, first parsing through the aristocratic civil war between Federalists and Jeffersonians in the 1790s that set up the two-party system that centered the ability to sway the electorate (rather than the belief in an aristocracy naturally rising to the top), before moving forwards through the 1800s and Andrew Jackson's rallying of a populist coalition of his Jacksonian Democrats to bolster this political party machine. Next, Timothy and Emma explore the shift away from the Jacksonian Democrats as Martin Van Buren and the “Radical Republicans” began to take on the institution of slavery, and walk through the impact of changing party politics in the leadup to the Civil War, before shifting to the third realignment under Lincoln and beyond, as reconstruction's vision of a multiracial democracy began to fall apart. They then discuss the rise of FDR's New Deal Coalition in the 20th Century, as the Great Depression forced Americans to get over their lingering resentment from the Civil War, and for the first time centered class as the major political divide in the US, before they wrap up the interview by walking through the Right's various coalition attempts (largely shrouded in a populist veneer) from Phyllis Schlafly to Donald Trump and tackling the failure of Democrats to ever see a return of FDR's labor coalition. And in the Fun Half: Emma and the crew bask in the jeers Elon Musk received at Dave Chapelle's recent SF show, despite Dave's best efforts, Jesse James from the Hudson Valley dives into reactionaries and pop-culture race swaps, and Sunil from San Jose discusses various elements of Democrats' campaigning strategies. They also tackle Christian Walker refusing to back down to the weirdos on the Right that blame him for his father's loss, Zack from Missouri discusses the role of religion in various elements of our politics, and Serena from Tucson walks through serious tenants' rights issues going on in her complex, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Timothy's book here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374138004/realigners Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: LiquidIV: Cooler weather makes it easier to miss signs of dehydration like overheating or perspiration, which means it's even more important to keep your body properly hydrated. Liquid I.V. contains 5 essential vitamins—more Vitamin C than an orange and as much potassium as a banana. Healthier than sugary sports drinks, there are no artificial flavors or preservatives and less sugar than an apple. Grab your favorite Liquid I.V. flavors nationwide at Walmart or you can get 25% off when you go to https://www.liquid-iv.com/ and use code MAJORITYREP at checkout. That's 25% off ANYTHING you order when you get better hydration today using promo code MAJORITYREP at https://www.liquid-iv.com/. Givewell: Many of us open our hearts and make donations during the holiday season. But when you donate, how can you feel confident that your donations are really making a big impact? GiveWell spends over 30,000 hours each year researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to a few of the HIGHEST-IMPACT, EVIDENCE-BACKED opportunities they've found.If you've never donated to GiveWell's recommended charities before, you can have your donation matched up to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to https://givewell.org/ and pick PODCAST and enter The Majority Report with Sam Seder at checkout. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/