Podcasts about Jeffersonian

In this special Q&A episode, Mark recaps the inaugural Curious Builder Bootcamp held in Zion National Park. From early morning journaling and kettlebell workouts to canyon rappelling and Jeffersonian-style campfire chats, hear how 12 builders unplugged from daily life to reconnect with themselves and each other. It wasn't just a retreat—it was a reset.   Support the show - https://www.curiousbuilderpodcast.com/shop   See our upcoming live events - https://www.curiousbuilderpodcast.com/events   The host of the Curious Builder Podcast is Mark D. Williams, the founder of Mark D. Williams Custom Homes Inc. They are an award-winning Twin Cities-based home builder, creating quality custom homes and remodels — one-of-a-kind dream homes of all styles and scopes. Whether you're looking to reimagine your current space or start fresh with a new construction, we build homes that reflect how you live your everyday life.   Sponsors for the Episode:    Lake Society Magazine: Website: https://www.lakesocietymagazine.com/   Where to find the Host: Website - https://www.mdwilliamshomes.com/ Podcast Website - https://www.curiousbuilderpodcast.com Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/markdwilliams_customhomes/ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/MarkDWilliamsCustomHomesInc/ LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-williams-968a3420/ Houzz - https://www.houzz.com/pro/markdwilliamscustomhomes/mark-d-williams-custom-homes-inc

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveIs it possible to move up in this world? Are Americans stuck? Our guest today is Yoni Appelbaum, an American historian and staff writer at The Atlantic magazine. His new book, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity, explores the various ways the American dream has been stymied — by the consolidation of property and wealth, the abuse of environmental regulations, the legacy of redlining, among other factors. But the book is not a diatribe; it offers a hopeful program for how we can make America better. Samuel Kimbriel and Damir Marusic engage in a lively conversation with Yoni that will leave you looking at America in a different, more hopeful way.Yoni's book is personal in its inspiration: he found himself living in a working-class neighborhood — a so-called “zone of emergence,” where underprivileged immigrants once gained a foothold on the American dream — that was no longer affordable to middle-class families. But it is also a political book. Yoni got the sense that something had gone profoundly wrong in America: “This was a contrarian thought in the Obama era. Now it is conventional wisdom.”What can be done to help the American dream become real again? Is mobility a “central American value”? Do policies that help communities stay alive and stable actually worsen inequality and class stratification? Should the Democratic Party become a party of economic growth, rather than regulation or even “degrowth”? These are the questions that Damir and Sam invite Yoni to wrestle with in a lively and deeply informed episode.In our bonus section for paid subscribers, Yoni discusses how to harness market power in a way that “centers mobility”; the three talk about the gap between intent and impact in environmental regulations; Yoni explains why technocrats will always be needed but will never be enough; and Yoni speculates as to why Americans long for a strong leader — for better or worse.Required Reading and Listening:* Yoni Appelbaum, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity (Amazon). * Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Amazon).* Reihan Salam, “Want Abundance in Housing? Acknowledge that Greed Is Good” (City Journal). * Frederick Jackson Turner, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” (Project Gutenberg). * Jeffersonian democracy (CrashCourse).* Podcast with Martha Nussbaum (WoC). This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Free preview video:Full video for paid subscribers below:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been a great case study in the limits of religious liberty and tolerance in America. But what can the history of Mormonism tell us about U.S. tax history? According to Loyola University Chicago School of Law Professor Sam Brunson, quite a lot!Kicking off this new season of Scholars & Saints, Dr. Brunson sits down with host Nicholas Shrum to discuss his new book, Between the Temple and the Tax Collector: The Intersection of Mormonism and the State. Dr. Brunson details the rich history of tax law as it relates to the LDS Church, from tithing in Nauvoo to Brigham Young's hefty federal income tax liability. Throughout this history, Dr. Brunson examines specifically how taxable status—notably tax exemptions—are a cornerstone of American religious liberty that tie the church and the state together more intricately than the Jeffersonian doctrine of a "wall of separation" might imply.To find out more about Dr. Brunson and his upcoming projects, click here.

Today I have the privilege of welcoming Marc Dunkelman to the podcast. Marc is a research fellow in International and Public Affairs at Brown University and the author of a new book, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring it Back. We begin by discussing a key premise of his book: progressivism is, and always has been, split between a Hamiltonian impulse to push power up and a Jeffersonian impulse to push power down. Marc describes how the later impulse took over left-wing movements by the late 60s and has produced a government that seems startlingly ineffective. How did the "establishment" become so hated? How can our government prove that it is a capable institution? Will Trump's failures give Democrats an easy out and stop a needed course correction? Tune in for a great conversation on all that and more.A transcript of this podcast is available on the post page on our website. Get full access to The Liberal Patriot at www.liberalpatriot.com/subscribe

As MAGA continues to vandalize the Federal bureaucracy, some progressives are beginning to publicly acknowledge their role in the historic undermining of the US government. In his provocative new book Why Nothing Works, the self-styled “progressive” Marc Dunkelman argues that it was the left - in their cultural aversion to power over the last half century - who have broken the U.S. government. If progressives want to get something…. anything, in fact, done in America - from building high speed railways to more affordable housing - Dunkelman argues that the Democrats need to once again embrace positive government. Don't blame Trump for Musk's chainsaw, Dunkelman tells the Democrats. Blame yourselves.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in this conversation with Dunkelman:* The Progressive Dilemma: Progressivism has two competing impulses that need to be in balance - one that seeks to centralize power to accomplish major projects (the "Hamiltonian" approach), and another that is suspicious of centralized authority and seeks to distribute power (the "Jeffersonian" approach). Since the 1960s, the balance has shifted heavily toward suspicion of power.* Crisis of Effective Governance: The current system has so many checks and constraints that even widely supported public interest projects can't get off the ground. Dunkelman cites the Biden administration's EV charger initiative that produced only 58 chargers from $5 billion in funding due to regulatory barriers and implementation challenges.* Historical Shift in Progressive Attitude: The 1960s-70s marked a turning point when progressive attitudes shifted from trusting centralized authority to deep skepticism. Dunkelman points to figures like Robert Moses (exposed in "The Power Broker") and Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley as embodying a form of centralized power that became viewed as problematic.* Political Consequences: This dysfunction in government has contributed to populist backlash, with voters supporting figures like Trump who promise to take a "sledgehammer" to institutions they see as failing. The inability to deliver visible results has undermined progressive credibility.* Path Forward: Progressives need to develop a new narrative focused on making government work effectively rather than just opposing power. Dunkelman suggests "permitting reform" and similar practical measures need to be central to the progressive agenda, rather than continuing the stale debate about moving left or right.Marc J. Dunkelman is a fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and a former fellow at NYU's Marron Institute of Urban Management. During more than a decade working in politics, he worked for Democratic members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and as a senior fellow at the Clinton Foundation. The author of The Vanishing Neighbor, Dunkelman's work has also appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Atlantic, and Politico. He lives in Providence, Rhode Island.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Why can't America do big things anymore? Marc Dunkelman, a fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, addresses this question in his new book, Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Get It Back. The book's inspiration came from his thinking about the now-vanished Pennsylvania Station, formerly New York City's majestic gateway, which was one of the most beautiful buildings in the country and a monument to metropolitan greatness. Its closure and demolition in the early 1960s amounted to what a New York Times editorial called a “monumental act of vandalism,” made more painful by the ugliness and disfunctionality of the modern facility that replaced it. New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, starting in the early 1990s, made it his top legislative priority to build a new train hall in the nearby neoclassical post office building. Moynihan was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the most powerful Democratic politicians in the land, and he secured agreement and funding from all of the relevant stakeholders — but still he could not get the new station built. The Moynihan Train Hall would not open until 2021, after nearly three decades of delays and setbacks. Marc Dunkelman for many years commuted into the seemingly unfixable Penn Station and wondered why New York's Democratic leaders were unable to make any progress in replacing it. The stagnation struck him as a vivid contrast to Robert Moses, the towering urban planner and public official, who had run roughshod over all opposition in mid-20th-century New York in the course of his massive redevelopment of the city, as described in Robert Caro's 1974 bestseller The Power Broker. When he looked into the history, Dunkelman realized that progressives have long swung back and forth between two opposing impulses. One is what he calls Hamiltonianism: the desire to achieve progress by empowering government and institutions to tackle big problems at the direction of strong leaders (like Robert Moses) and informed experts. The other is what he calls Jeffersonianism: the desire to prevent unaccountable centralized authorities (also like Robert Moses) from abusing ordinary citizens by empowering them to fight back. In this podcast discussion, Dunkelman analyzes the historic roots of these opposing impulses and explains how progressives ever since the 1960s have swung too far toward the Jeffersonian extreme. He describes how progressives lost working-class support by rendering government unable to deliver public goods like abundant and cheap housing, energy, and infrastructure. And he warns that incompetent government inevitably plays into the hands of populists who vilify government and claim: “I alone can fix it.”

REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comMarc J. Dunkelman, author of Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress―and How to Bring It Back and a Fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, joins The Realignment. Marc and Marshall discuss the central causes of government's inability to accomplish big projects, why America and the progressive movement swing between "Hamiltonian" and "Jeffersonian" moments, why the Hamiltonian nature of ambitious eras like the New Deal, New Frontier, and Great Society lead to Jeffersonian backlash, the limited impact and political failure of the Biden administration's EV charging station policy, and how to balance our need to protect the rights of individuals and local communities with the need to accomplish big goals. 

This week Jeff and Dave leave aside that French guy (H.I. Marsomething) and go back to their OTHER book series, Carl Richard. What was happening in the early 19th century after the American founding? Pastoralism! Oh, the idyllic life of lounging with livestock, as the kine low loudly through the meadows. But there is also the counterattack of utilitarianism. After all, the business of America is business. So which view is going to dominate American culture? Will it be the Jeffersonian gentleman farmer, with his 40 acres, picturesque outhouses and a landscape larded with Roman villas (paging Wendell Berry)? Or will it be a Hamiltonian mercantile paradise, with everyone trading with their neighbor? And where do the Classics fit in all this? Come along as we take a Thoreau look at this question, complete with the Yale Report of Jeremiah Day, the full-scale assult on Classical languages, the counter-attack, and the daring denouement. You won't wanna miss this one. Listen up, or go barbarian.

Clay's discussion with Pulitzer Prize winning historian Joseph Ellis, author of over a dozen outstanding, award-winning books on the Founding Fathers and America's early national period. Joe shares his comments and insights on the 2024 election and the return of Donald Trump to the White House, only the second time this has occurred in American history. And who was Grover Cleveland anyway? Joe and Clay discuss the tenacity of racial tension in American history, the failure of Jeffersonian democracy to create conditions of harmony, compromise, and mutual respect, and the need for a new constitutional convention to address fundamental problems in American public life. Joe is, at heart, an American optimist. He believes we are going through a predictable reaction to rapid social and technological change and that we will get through this as we always have. He thinks the America, which will emerge in the next couple of decades, will come closer to the Founders' visions than might seem presently apparent. 

While bleak and gray at times, winter can be the prime time for observational and behavioral learnings in our local environments. Sneckdowns (snow + neckdowns), multi-day snow-covered cars, and unmaintained/disregarded sidewalks each tell us something. We also touch briefly on takeaways from convictions of the Jeffersonian grid: foresight and planning to widen our ideological tent, republican ideals (the governmental structure, not the political party), and balancing differing vantages on housing. We spend a moment on the recent TikTok events, too. Apologies for last week's delay. Appreciate your patience! We discuss: 00:00 We are so back. 07:40 Winter urban design insights. 21:10 Exploring republicanism, the Jeffersonian grid, and the NYC Commissioners' plan. 30:07 Reflections on TikTok, and content creation's fruits and shortfalls. 34:43 Wrapping up. For context: Sneckdowns (via a TikTok I made for Better Block). Design cues taken from snow (via Bloomberg CityLab). A map of proposed NYC growth, from 1807 (via the Library of Congress). More on the Jeffersonian grid (via NYT).

This week we delve into what is sort of a pre-history of the American Socialist movement. Though the populist movement undeniably kept its Jeffersonian character, it was the first (arguably only) significant challenge to the dominance of the two major capitalist parties in the US. Much of the energy and the spirit of American populism flowed into and colored the burgeoning American workers' movement. From Populism to Socialism and Backhttps://jacobin.com/2019/08/populism-socialism-daniel-de-leon-eugene-debs American Populism, 1876-1896https://digital.lib.niu.edu/illinois/gildedage/populism Populist Party Platform July 4, 1892https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/populist-party-platform-july-4-1892.php Cantrell, Gregg, and D. Scott Barton. “Texas Populists and the Failure of Biracial Politics.” The Journal of Southern History 55, no. 4 (1989): 659–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2209044.Send us a textSupport the show

In this thought-provoking episode of The Free Thought Project Podcast, Jason, Matt, and Don Via Jr. sit down with historian Dave Benner to explore the state of our political system, the cracks in the narratives, and the tools for fostering a mass awakening. Dave Benner is a historian, author, and contributor to platforms like The Tenth Amendment Center, Mises Institute, and the Abbeville Institute. He has penned books such as Thomas Paine: A Lifetime of Radicalism, Compact of the Republic: The League of States and the Constitution, and The 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine. A staunch advocate of Jeffersonian principles, Dave is an outspoken critic of centralized authority and federal overreach, offering an insightful historical lens to today's pressing issues. In this episode, we tackle political theater, exposing how hollow rhetoric and promises are weaponized by politicians, while also highlighting the potential for even symbolic dissent to spark mass consciousness. Dave's unique and optimistic perspective shines through as he shares how history, decentralized systems, and grassroots efforts can be leveraged to create real change. We close on a white pill, discussing solutions for ensuring the mass awakening continues and how exposing corruption, even rhetorically, plays a vital role in challenging the status quo. Join us for a rich, insightful conversation about the path forward, the power of knowledge, and the tools we have to resist authoritarianism and foster a freer world. Don't miss this one! (Length: 1:05:31) Dave's Website: https://www.davebenner.com/ Dave on Twitter: https://x.com/dbenner83

Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas! May everyone be devoid of osteoarthritis!The BTBs have a bit of an abbreviated holiday schedule this year but they knew if there's one thing all BTB-heads out there needed, it's more David Boreanaz and more Bones. So Van takes the helm and leads everyone through the bone-dust infected halls of the Jeffersonian institute once againThis time around most of the cast is trapped in quarantine thanks to an eggnog related incident. This causes Booth to miss Christmas with his dumb little boy son, Parker, and as long time Bones fans might know, that's a big deal to the block shaped man. But while stuck in the institute the crew have a murder to solve! Sure it's from over 50 years ago, but maybe, just maybe everyone will learn to love each other in the endDon't forget to check out our new friends at the Oh Crap! Our Fecal Misfortunes and Foibles podcast on Spotify!https://open.spotify.com/show/1WChL23RFp0PtSOm2qsPBJ?si=5c64ede598084fba

This week, we've got something special for you. It's time to head back to the Jeffersonian with Emily Deschanel and Carla Gallo, hosts of Boneheads, the ultimate insider rewatch of one of the longest-running primetime dramas in TV history—Bones.In Boneheads, Emily and Carla, who became besties on set, take you behind the scenes of one of TV's longest-running primetime dramas. They're ready to walk you through each episode, share hilarious behind-the-scenes stories, and give you all the details on how Bones came together.In it, Emily spills all the juicy details of the Bones audition process and reveals how she landed the role of Dr. Temperance Brennan. Meanwhile, Carla takes us on a hilarious tour of the pilot's sexiest moments. If you want to hear more episodes, search for Boneheads wherever you get your podcasts. If you're hooked and want to hear more, search for Boneheads wherever you get your podcasts or click here.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, we've got something special for you. It's time to head back to the Jeffersonian with Emily Deschanel and Carla Gallo, hosts of Boneheads, the ultimate insider rewatch of one of the longest-running primetime dramas in TV history—Bones. In Boneheads, Emily and Carla, who became besties on set, take you behind the scenes of one of TV's longest-running primetime dramas. They're ready to walk you through each episode, share hilarious behind-the-scenes stories, and give you all the details on how Bones came together. In it, Emily spills all the juicy details of the Bones audition process and reveals how she landed the role of Dr. Temperance Brennan. Meanwhile, Carla takes us on a hilarious tour of the pilot's sexiest moments. If you want to hear more episodes, search for Boneheads wherever you get your podcasts.  If you're hooked and want to hear more, search for Boneheads wherever you get your podcasts or click here.

In this episode: Shannon & Amy discuss their innovative approach to networking through Jeffersonian-style mastermind dinners. Frustrated with traditional networking events, they began hosting intimate dinners focused on meaningful, in-depth conversations around a central theme. This format has not only enriched their personal connections but also expanded their professional networks, leading to new collaborations and opportunities.Join our FB community: www.joyfulbusinessrevolution.com/fb

Tom, Molly, and Producer Rich clear out the bullpen, our list of things that didn't make it into a regular episode. Some of them we remember quite clearly why we added it. Others, we try to reconstruct our reasoning. Enjoy! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Twice 5 Miles Radio. I'm your host, James Navé. Today, I'm re-airing a special interview from the fall of 2016, recorded just before the U.S. presidential election. My guest was one of the most well-read, brilliant minds I've ever known—my mother, Bobbi Sue Nave. She left us a few years after this interview, at age 93, and her insights remain as timeless as ever. Bobbi Sue possessed what I call a "Jeffersonian mind." By the time she reached 90, she had devoured over 20,000 books, spanning authors from Robert Hughes to Camille Paglia. In this interview, she reflects on her early life, her first memories of the 1920s and 30s, attending her parents' voting for Herbert Hoover in 1928, and even witnessing the funeral of author Thomas Wolfe. Bobbi Sue also shares her thoughts on our current times, offering perspectives that transcend today's chaotic landscape. Her reflections on Donald Trump and our modern state of affairs demonstrate my mother's deep theological understanding of our world and all the people who live in it. This conversation mirrors countless discussions we shared for over 60 years, probing deeply into politics, culture, and faith. In 2024, as we navigate turbulent times, I invite you to hear my mother's lifetime commitment to thoughtful, independent reflection. Enjoy the show.

 Welcome back to then & now!  To kick off our 5th season, we are joined by Professor Amir Alexander, a historian of mathematics in UCLA's Luskin Department of History.  His latest book, Liberty's Grid, examines how Founding Father Thomas Jefferson transformed early America into a mathematical landscape. Jefferson's vision of an empty, gridded space was intended to create a framework for people to act freely. Alexander delves into the paradox: though this grid symbolized American ideals of freedom, it also reinforced hierarchies and constraints. Natural obstacles such as bodies of water or geological features, as well as Native Americans who had lived on the land for centuries, were perceived as obstacles in Jefferson's quest to overlay order on an unordered natural world. Over time, opponents of the Jeffersonian grid developed alternative visions of how to organize the American landscape, but we still see remnants of this system in the rigid grids of middle America and in cities such as New York City, particularly Manhatten. We reflect on how this story and the perception of ordering nature is relevant to us today. Amir Alexander is an adjunct professor in the UCLA Meyer and Renee Luskin Department of History. Professor Alexander's work illuminates the deep interconnections between mathematics and its social, cultural, and political setting, and highlights the intertwined relationship between critical mathematical developments and broader historical trends that motivated these developments and gave them meaning and purpose. Professor Alexander has written multiple books on this topic, and his 2014 book, Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern World, was selected as a finalist for the Phi Beta Kappa Science Award in 2015.

Lindsay Chervinsky is the Executive Director of the George Washington Library at Mount Vernon. She is also the author of a much celebrated new book on the John Adams presidency that is focused primarily on the national security decision-making of the second president and how it set norms for the conduct of the presidency and its powers with which we still live today. She sat down with Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about how Adams defended presidential power while it was under assault by both his Jeffersonian foes and the radicals of his own Federalist party.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Timon is joined by Kevin Gutzman, professor of history at Western Connecticut University, for a conversation about originalism, the American Revolution, and the presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.   To learn more about Kevin Gutzman and to view his books, visit: kevingutzman.com

Weighing more than half a ton, the completed cheese was marked with the Jeffersonian motto ‘Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God' and was presented to President Jefferson on January 1, ...

How can we make every gift transformational instead of transactional?Helen Quinn is an inspiring figure in the fundraising landscape, here to unveil how The CLEO Institute's "RISE" monthly giving program is rallying their community to face the urgency of climate action—one dollar at a time. As a client of my Monthly Giving Mastermind, Helen delves into the strategic branding and inclusive structure of the RISE program, tailored to resonate with every donor, especially local youth who are driven to make a difference. Plus, you'll hear how Helen uses Givebutter to streamline donations and cultivate growth!There are so many GOLDEN growth strategies in this episode, including the workflows behind their Earth Day 5K, a documentary screening, and the intricacies of hosting Jeffersonian dinners to create authentic conversations and community.Resources & LinksConnect with Helen on LinkedIn, Instagram, or email at hquinn@cleoinstitute.org and learn about The CLEO Institute on their website.Applications are open for Round 5 of my Monthly Giving Mastermind that will start in July! Head to positiveequation.com/mastermind to apply!Thanks to our sponsor, Givebutter, the all-in-one nonprofit fundraising platform that's empowering millions of changemakers like you to raise more, pay less, and give better - FOR FREE. Sign up for your free Givebutter account: https://bit.ly/3UWh7EfJoin me and host Floyd Jones for a free Givebutter webinar on Wednesday, June 12th to catapult your monthly donor program into long-term success. Claim your free spot for “Your Monthly Giving Mastermind: Build, grow, and sustain recurring donations.” Click here: https://bit.ly/4bRriRq Can we meet in Nashville? The 8th annual Raise fundraising conference, hosted by OneCause, will be held at the Country Music Hall of Fame & Museum in Nashville, TN September 9-10, 2024. Use code MISSIONS200 to receive $200 off: https://bit.ly/4bNqihi Let's Connect! Send a DM on Instagram or LinkedIn and let us know what you think of the show! Head to YouTube for digital marketing how-to videos and podcast teasers Want to book Dana as a speaker for your event? Click here! ...

Happy Monday! Sam & Emma speak with author and historian William Hogeland, proprietor of the “Hogeland's Bad History” newsletter on SubStack, to discuss his recent book The Hamilton Scheme: An Epic Tale of Money and Power in the American Founding. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on México's election of Claudia Sheinbaum, Israel's rejection of what was supposedly their own peace proposal as they blast through Biden's Rafah red line, Hunter Biden's legal woes, Bibi's joint congressional address, reactions to Trump's conviction, Fauci's testimony, the Affordable Connectivity Program, climate change, the IRS' free tax-filing service, and Dinesh D'Souza's publisher issues an apology for publishing Dinesh D'Souza, before diving into Biden's absurd claim that Israel was the one pushing the ongoing peace negotiations with Hamas, and how Israel's offensive is likely to continue as Biden's “red lines” shift ever backward. William Hogeland then joins, first reflecting on the introduction of Alexander Hamilton into popular culture with the recent musical phenomena, and how that provides the opportunity to present a more three-dimensional view of Hamilton's political philosophy and impact. Now, Hogeland steps back to the inception of the US, and the central role Hamilton played in establishing a financial system that centered on the use of national debt to leverage the economic ambitions of the capitalist class in favor of a nationalist project by allowing them massive ownership stakes, while additionally reinforcing the elitist and anti-democratic makeup of the political class that Hamilton desired. After expanding on Hamilton's relationship to the US Constitution, including unpacking the relatively subdued role that the Federalist Papers played in the actual ratification, Hogeland walks Sam and Emma through the backlashed faced by the US Federal government due to Hamilton's wildly anti-democratic financial scheme, looking to both Shays' Rebellion in 1786 and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 as clear cut examples of a coherent dissent and attack on Hamilton's system of debt and regressive taxation, demanding follow through on the demand of “no taxation without representation” that Americans had fought for, also briefly touching on the greater makeup of this pro-democracy labor movement led by folks with Herman Husband and Thomas Payne. Next, Hogeland looks back to the enemies Hamilton had inside of the US political structures, from State Sovereigntists during the framing of the Constitution, to the Jeffersonian attempts to undermine and overturn his financial system throughout the start of the 19th Century, before wrapping up with the redemption of Hamilton's legacy over the last few decades, and the particular role his thought played in the US' response to the 2008 Financial crisis. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma watch an American nurse reflect on the harrowing experience of treating burn victims in Rafah, and discuss the myriad resignations-in-protests by Biden State Department officials, with the most recent accusing the agency of actively lying about Israel's role in blocking aid to Gaza. They also dive into the incredible aftermath of the conviction of Donald Trump, with everyone from the Donald on Fox & Friends, Maria Bartiromo, Benny Johnson, and Megyn Kelly pondering the backlash from a potential GOP regime. Lauren Boebert addresses her Beetlejuicing controversy, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Bill's book here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374167837/thehamiltonscheme Check out "Hogeland's Bad History" here: https://williamhogeland.substack.com/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift 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: Cozy Earth: Remember to go to https://CozyEarth.com/MAJORITYREPORT to enjoy 30% off using the code MAJORITYREPORT. And after placing your order, select “podcast” in the survey and then select “Majority Report with Sam Seder'' in the dropdown menu that follows. Nutrafol: Take the first step towards achieving your hair growth goals. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com/men and enter the promo code TMR.  Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. https://Nutrafol.com/men, promo code TMR. Manukora Honey: Now, it's easier than ever to try Manukora honey with the Starter Kit. Just head to https://Manukora.com/MAJORITY to get $25 off. The Starter Kit comes with an MGO 850+ Manuka honey, 5 honey travel sticks, a wooden spoon, plus a guidebook! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Year(s) Discussed: 1800-1801 The election rematch between President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson in 1800 did not go quite according to plan thanks to the original method of electors casting ballots. In this episode, I am joined by friend and fellow podcaster, Howard Dorre from Plodding Through the Presidents, to discuss the ins and outs of that complicated election that devolved into a constitutional crisis and what we felt were the key takeaways from it. More sources for learning about this election can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While technology may make it seem like we are constantly connected, the truth is that in many ways we have never been more disconnected from one another. The same devices that can bring the world to our fingertips can at the same time drive a barrier in between real moments of authentic connection. In many ways, this divorces us from ourselves regarding our true human nature. As human beings, we not only crave connection but also need connection. While Maslow put love and belonging in the middle of his pyramid, we could easily argue it should be at the top. Or at least, without feelings of belonging and connection, can we ever truly be our selves. For experience designers, we should be wondering how we can create experiences that provide for connection and belonging. As social scientists, none of this is new for we have long recognized the fundamental need for connection. However, in a society like the US that seems to prioritize the individual, we can forget that we can't have an individual without a social. The trick then is how might we turn spaces into conduits for connection and belonging. Or, in order words, how do we reverse the ongoing atomization of our lives.Today in the Experience by Design Studio, we have the honor of delving into the world of event planning and harnessing serendipity with our special guest, David Adler, CEO of Bizbash.Throughout our conversation, we'll be diving into the details of soft power, collaboration, and emotional contagion. We'll explore how David's insights can help us create new opportunities and possibilities that might not otherwise exist. David is a pioneer in understanding the power of collaboration artists and how they can generate unique ideas and solutions while mobilizing diverse networks towards common goals. We'll also explore his thoughts on fostering collaboration and innovation, intergenerational interaction, and the impact of technology on our social connections. Oh and how to have a good Jeffersonian dinner party.It's a great convo we can't wait to share, so sit back, relax, put your tray tables in an upright position and get ready to explore the art of experience by design with our guest David Adler.

In this episode, Elaine Parker sits down with Lisa B. Nelson. Lisa is the CEO of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a 50-year-old nonprofit think tank dedicated to the Jeffersonian principles of limited government, free markets and federalism. It is the largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators in the United States and counts nearly one-quarter of all state legislators and hundreds of business leaders and entrepreneurs as members. Main Street Matters is part of the Salem Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Wednesday & Friday. For more information visit JobCreatorsNetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this special episode of GatherGeeks, BizBash chairman and founder David Adler sits in on a special event planners' luncheon—co-hosted by Melva LaJoy Legrend of LaJoy Plans and Margo Fischer of Bright Occasions—in Washington, D.C. These luncheons, known as Head Table Talks, aim to build community within the events industry and provide a safe space for event profs to network and collaborate. At this particular Head Table Talk, held in late October at Dauphine's, Adler brings his Jeffersonian-style of discussion to the six planners gathered and asks each of them: What was your first job? And what did you learn from it? This is just part one of this thought-provoking discussion. Part two, to be released next week, will shift its focus to the latest happenings in the event business and provide valuable insights into the industry's latest trends and challenges. These are two episodes you don't want to miss.  In this special episode of GatherGeeks, BizBash chairman and founder David Adler sits in on a special event planners' luncheon—co-hosted by Melva LaJoy Legrend of LaJoy Plans and Margo Fischer of Bright Occasions—in Washington, D.C. These luncheons, known as Head Table Talks, aim to build community within the events industry and provide a safe space for event profs to network and collaborate. At this particular Head Table Talk, held in late October at Dauphine's, Adler brings his Jeffersonian-style of discussion to the six planners gathered and asks each of them: What was your first job? And what did you learn from it? This is just part one of this thought-provoking discussion. Part two, to be released next week, will shift its focus to the latest happenings in the event business and provide valuable insights into the industry's latest trends and challenges. These are two episodes you don't want to miss. Keep scrolling to learn more about our distinguished guests. Melva LaJoy Legrand As a self-made entrepreneur recognized for her work in the live events industry, as well as causes rooted in social equality as it pertains to women, health, and race and identity, Melva LaJoy Legrand is a public speaker, event producer/director, community leader, and storyteller. As the founder/CEO of LaJoy Plans, an event planning firm she re-launched in 2019, Melva has been recognized as a trailblazer in the events industry receiving the BizBash Top Event Industry Innovator Award and the Events Industry Council, Global Social Impact Award in 2022. As of 2023, Melva has spearheaded two new initiatives: Mondays With Melva, exclusive monthly content for her subscribers, offering career guidance as well as event planning tips, and Head Table Talks, an annual luncheon that she co-created as a safe space for event planners. Margo Fischer Margo Fischer is the owner of Bright Occasions, a full-service event planning company specializing in bespoke weddings and milestone occasions. Margo brings a wealth of industry knowledge and hands-on experience to her clients, from previous roles in corporate event planning and private event catering. She has a passion for curating unforgettable events. With a strong foundation in event planning and an impressive career in some of Washington, D.C.'s most prestigious venues, Margo boasts over 14 years of expertise in the event industry. In addition to helping couples and families, Margo has worked on community events such as the annual Art in Bloom museum experience and gala reception at Anderson House. And she co-produced the Beyond the Blackout series to highlight diversity and inclusivity within the event industry and is currently co-producing Head Table Talks networking luncheons to create a space for event planners to gather, mingle, and learn from one another. Kawania Wooten Kawania Wooten, CMP, brings a unique mix of experience and skills to her businesses, Howerton+Wooten Events and the Enlightened Creative. Her vast experience in the hospitality world includes hotel management, casino and gaming, the culinary industry, and 30 years as a professional meeting and event planner for the Washington D.C. elite. Kawania strives for professionalism, creativity, and impeccable organization within every function planned by the Howerton+Wooten Events team. She is an adjunct instructor in the Hospitality, Tourism, and Culinary Arts Department at Prince George's Community College.  Aisha Malik Rodriguez Aisha Malik Rodriguez is the founder and owner of Aim Aro Logistics LLC, a dynamic company specializing in production and event management on a global scale. With a career spanning over 25 years in the event and hospitality industry, Aisha has become a true expert in her field. Born and raised in Fairfax County, Va., and hailing from a rich Pakistani cultural background, Aisha brings a unique blend of experiences and perspectives to her work. Her family, which is large and spread across the world, has instilled in her a deep appreciation for diverse cultures and traditions. Aisha's company, Aim Aro Logistics LLC, excels in a wide range of services, including vendor management, event permitting, and emergency response management. With a passion for creating unforgettable experiences, she and her team are dedicated to helping clients navigate the entire event process, from start to finish. Whether it's a festival, a government or military event, a corporate gathering, a nonprofit initiative, or a private celebration, Aisha's expertise shines through. Jennifer Charles Jennifer Charles is a co-founder and the chief creative officer at Something Fabulous. Jennifer's specialty is in designing experience and storytelling marketing. Jennifer has a degree from the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City. She began her career in radio, television, and film. From interning at The Today Show and Good Morning America to working in production with The Food Network and New Line Cinema, she has experienced storytelling from many different angles and industries. Becca Mai Becca Mai is a West Virginia native who transplanted to the D.C. area shortly after launching a career in hospitality. She has been in the wedding industry for over 10 years specializing in planning for LBGTQ+, multicultural, and fusion weddings and events. While the majority of her career has been geared toward wedding operations, she has spent a lengthy portion of it building out platforms, training programs, and more. She is now a business strategist for wedding professionals and an inclusive wedding planner, assisting wedding business owners on the back of the business to streamline, automate, and organize with hospitality 100% in mind. 

Paul Knight, a planner with the design firm Historical Concepts, can give you a dozen reasons for just about anything. More importantly, he can give you reasons for brushing up on the lectures of former Georgia Tech professor Douglas Allen. Allen was a giant in the field of urban planning, and fortunately some of his former students and colleagues have carried on his work following his passing. Paul is one of them, helping form the Douglas Allen Institute.This may all sound very academic, and I know I often take shots at academia. But, when it works well, it's amazing the impact one really great professor can have on so many people. I wanted to talk with Doug, because I know just how brilliant the man was, and how it's even better that his work will live on for future generations. For example, the Institute was able to videotape his lectures from his “History of Urban Form” course, and they've made them available for free on YouTube. If you're at all interested in the history of cities and towns, I couldn't recommend something more highly.Several years ago, Paul also opened my eyes to the whole rabbit hole of base 12 versus base 10 measurements. I'm now a firm believer in base 12. In this episode, Paul even lets me know there's a Dozenal Society. I should've guessed, but had no idea.Since we made a few minor errors in the podcast, here are the official corrections:* In regards to the “Jeffersonian” grid, and what it really should be called, here's what Allen had in his lecture notes: “Congress formed a committee originally chaired by Thomas Jefferson, but  eventually by Hugh Williamson of North Carolina. Jefferson had proposed ten states and  a measurement system of his own invention based on the nautical mile. After Jefferson was called away to Paris, Williamson's committee adopted the Gunter Chain and the system of feet and inches that are in use today.”* I was trying to think of the “4 rod Main Street,” which is a historic pattern throughout much of the United Kingdom and the US. The rod is 16.5 feet, and the four rod street was thus 66 feet wide. 66 feet is also one chain.* The reason a mile is 5,280 feet is that it's exactly 320 rods.* The book I couldn't remember was “Measuring America: How the United States was Shaped by the Greatest Land Sale in History.”Please look at the work of the Douglas Allen Institute, and the Urban Form Standard that Paul mentions. It's really pretty terrific work.Find more content on The Messy City on Kevin's Substack page.Music notes: all songs by low standards, ca. 2010. Videos here. If you'd like a CD for low standards, message me and you can have one for only $5.Intro: “Why Be Friends”Outro: “Fairweather Friend” Get full access to The Messy City at kevinklinkenberg.substack.com/subscribe

Nov 10, 1798 - Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions were passed by the General Assembly. Learn 5 core Jeffersonian principles about the nature of the Constitution - rooted in the principles of the American Revolution. The post Jefferson: Top-5 Principles from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

José Miguel Vivanco, adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and former executive director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, leads the conversation on human rights in Latin America. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Fall 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. The video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have José Miguel Vivanco with us to discuss human rights in Latin America. Mr. Vivanco is an adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and partner at Dentons Global Advisors. He formerly served as the executive director of the Americas Division at Human Rights Watch, where he supervised fact-finding research for numerous reports on gross violations of human rights and advocated strengthening international legal standards and domestic compliance throughout the region. He is the founder of the Center for Justice and International Law, an international civil society organization providing legal and technical assistance with the Inter-American Human Rights System. So, José Miguel, thank you very much for being with us today. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of what you see as the most important human rights challenges and advances in Latin America today. VIVANCO: Well, thank you very much for this invitation. It is a pleasure to be with you all and to talk for an hour about human rights problems, human rights issues in Latin America. Let me first make a couple of points. First, I think it's very important that, in retrospect, if you look at Latin America in the 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s, it was a region that was pretty much run by military dictatorships. So if you look at historically, the region is not in such a bad shape. I know that this comment is quite controversial and many experts who follow the region closely might disagree with that statement, but objectively speaking I think we need to recognize that most of the region is run today—with the exception, obviously, of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua—by democracies, weak democracies, the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America are facing very serious challenges and with endemic problems such as corruption, abuse of power, lack of transparency, lack of proper accountability, and so on and so forth. But in general terms, this is a region that has a chance to conduct some self-correction. In other words, electoral democracy is a very, very important value in the region, and the citizens—most of the people are able to either reward or punish the incumbent government at the times of elections. That is not a minor detail. It is extremely important, especially if you take into account that during the last twenty years in Latin America, if I'm not wrong, the vast majority of the governments elected were from the opposition. The statistics, I think, show that in eighteen of the twenty last presidential elections, the winner has been the party of the opposition; which means that even though our democracies in Latin America are dysfunctional, weak, messy, slow, you know, short-term-oriented, obviously, but at least citizens take their rights seriously and they exercise their powers so that is why you see a regular zigzag or, you know, transfer of power from a left-wing government to a right-wing government or vice versa. And that is, again, something that is, obviously, a very, very important tool of self-correction. And that, obviously, includes or has an impact in terms of the human rights record of those countries. You know, I'm not—I'm not addressing yet—I will leave it for the Q&A section—conditions in those three dictatorships in Latin America. Let me just make some few more remarks about one of the biggest challenges that I see in the region. And that is, obviously, the rise of autocracy or autocratic leaders, populist leaders, leaders who are not interested or as a matter of fact are very hostile to the concept of rule of law and the concept of independence of the judiciary. And they usually are very charismatic. They have high level of popular support. And they run and govern the country in a style that is like a permanent campaign, where they normally go against minorities and against the opposition, against the free media, against judges and prosecutors who dare to investigate them or investigate the government. Anyone who challenges them are subject of this type of reaction. And that is, unfortunately, something that we have seen in Mexico recently and until today, and in Brazil, especially during the administration of President Bolsonaro. The good news about, in the case of Brazil, is that, thanks to electoral democracy, it was possible to defeat him and—democratically. And the second very important piece of information is that even though Brazil is not a model of rule of law and separation of power, we have to acknowledge that, thanks to the checks-and-balance exercise by the Supreme Court of Brazil, it was possible to do some permanent, constant damage control against the most outrageous initiatives promoted by the administration of President Bolsonaro. That, I think, is one of the biggest challenges in the region. Let me conclude my—make crystal clear that there are serious human rights problems in Latin America today regarding, for instance, abuse of power, police brutality, prison problems. Prisons are really, in most of the countries in the region, a disaster. And you know, a big number of prisoners are awaiting trial, in detention and unable to really exercise their rights. And unfortunately, populist leaders use the prison system or essentially criminal law, by expanding the practice and enlarging the numbers of crimes that could be subject of pretrial detention, and—you know, regardless of the time that it will take for that case to be prosecuted in full respect for the rule—due process, and so on and so forth. And that—the reason is very simple. There is a real demand in Latin America for policies that will address insecurity, citizen security. If you look at statistics in terms of crime rate, it is going up in most of the country. Obviously, there are big difference between countries like Mexico, for instance, or Colombia, and if you link—if you look at the power of cartels and big mafias, and gangs in other countries, or petty crime impacting the daily life of the citizens. Regardless of that point, one of the biggest demands in Latin America is for better and more public security. And that's why political leaders, usually the solution for that request and demand is to put people in prison with essentially no real due process and increase the number of prisoners without conviction. There are challenges for free speech occasionally, of those leaders who resent scrutiny of their practice. And normally there is a campaign against free media. And there are some attempts in some countries to constantly look for ways to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Keep in mind, for instance, that now in Argentina the whole Supreme Court is under impeachment, and it's essentially an impeachment promoted by the current government because they disagree with the rulings, positions of the Supreme Court. All the justices on the Supreme Court are subject of this political trial conducted by the Argentine Congress. That is a concrete example of the kinds of risks that are present for judges and the judiciary in general, when they exercise their power and they attempt to protect the integrity of the constitution. So let me stop here and we can move on to the most interesting part of this event. FASKIANOS: Well, that was quite interesting. So, thank you, José Miguel. We appreciate it. We going to go to all of you now for your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) We already have some hands up. We will go first to Karla Soto Valdes. Q: My name is Karla Soto. I'm from Lewis University. My question is, what specific measures could be implemented to address and/or prevent trafficking within the asylum-seeking community during their journey to the U.S.? VIVANCO: Irina, are we going to take several questions, or? FASKIANOS: I think we should do one at a time. VIVANCO: Well, Karla, there are multiple tools to address that specific issue. But this applies to essentially most of the human rights problems all over the world. The menu is pretty ample, but depends on one important factor—whether the government involved cares about its own reputation. That is a very important premise here, because if you we are dealing with a democratic government, once again, it's not—when I refer to a democratic government, I don't have in mind a sort of Jeffersonian model, I'm referring to the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America. But, if the leaders in charge are—you know, they care about their own reputation, they care about domestic debate, very important, because these types of revelations usually have ramifications at the local level. If they pay close attention to those issues, I think it's possible to apply, essentially, the technique of naming and shaming. In other words, collecting information, documenting what exactly is happening, and revealing that information to the public, locally and internationally. That is going to create naturally a reaction, a process, an awareness, and local pressure is—hopefully, it's not just twenty-four hours news, so splash—big splash, but also will trigger some dynamics. If we are dealing with a country that is run by a dictatorship, it is a very, very different question, because normally you're facing a leader, a government, who couldn't care less about its own reputation. They have taken already and assume the cost of doing business in that type of context. Now, sometimes conditions are kind of mixed, where you have democratic country in general—so there is still free media, there is an opposition, there is Congress, there are elections. But the government in charge is so—is run by an autocratic leader. That makes, you know, quite—a little more challenging to just document and reveal that information. And you need to think about some particular agenda, governmental agenda. Some specific interests of the government in different areas. Let me see—let me give you an example. Let's say that the Bolsonaro administration is seriously interested in an incorporation into the OECD in Paris. That is an important piece of information. Whatever you think that is relevant information regarding the record of that government, you could provide information to an entity that is precisely evaluating the record of the government. And the government will be much more willing to address those issues because they have a genuine interest in achieving some specific goal at the international level. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. We're going to go to Nicole Ambar De Santos, who is an undergraduate student at the Washington University in St. Louis: When we consider weak democracy in a more personal sense, like Peru, the controversy of obligation to help these nations arises. How much third party or other nations, such as the United States, intervene? VIVANCO: Tricky question. Peruvian democracy is quite messy. Part of the problem is that the system, the political system, needs some real reform to avoid the proliferation of small political parties and to create the real link or relationship between leaders, especially in Congress, and their constituencies, and so they are much more accountable to their community, the ones who elected them. I don't think the U.S., or any other government, has a direct role to play in that area. My sense is that when we are looking into a dysfunctional democracy that deserve some probably even constitutional reforms, that is essentially a domestic job. That is the work that needs to be done by Peruvians. Without a local consensus about the reforms that need to be implemented in the political system, my sense is that it's going to be very difficult for the U.S. or any other large democracy, to address those kinds of points. It's very different, that type of conversation, from a conversation or an assessment of universal values, such as human rights. When we are looking into cases of police brutality, for instance, the international community has a role to play. But if I were part of the conversation or evaluation by the U.S. government or the European Union with regard to this dysfunctional democracy in Peru, I would approach very carefully by suggesting creating the right type of incentives, more than questions of punishment, or sanctions. It's incentives for them to create the right conditions to address the domestic problem that is—has become quite endemic, in the case of Peru. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Matthew. Matthew, you don't have a last name, so can you identify yourself? Q: Hello. Yes, my name is Matthew. I am a junior student from Arizona State University studying business, but working on a thesis that has to do with human rights and the ethics of supply chain management. My question is, you were talking at the very beginning kind of just about history and how understanding history is important. And what I was hoping to get was, why is understanding history and culture important when working to address human rights issues, history of dictatorship, colonialism? In cultures it's socially acceptable things, like child labor, in some countries, that's not acceptable in Western ideology. So, yeah, just how is history and culture important when working to address human rights for the future? VIVANCO: Matthew, I think you're referring to two different issues. History is central. It's really, really relevant. Because that helps you—if you—if you follow your history, especially periods of time when massive and gross violations were committed in Latin America, it's important to put things in context and value what you have today. And the job is to—not only to preserve democracy, but also to look for ways to strengthen democracy. Because part of the problem is that domestic debate is so polarized today, not just in Latin America, all over the world, that sometimes people—different, you know, segments of society—in their positions, they're so dismissive of the other side, that they don't realize that we need to frame our debate in a constructive way. Let me put it—one specific example. If the government of Argentina, who is a government very receptive and very sensitive to vast and gross violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship, so in other words, I don't need to lecture that government on that subject. They are actually the people who vote for the current government of Argentina—not the new government, the current government of Argentina—is deeply committed to those kinds of issues. I think that one of the biggest lessons that you should learn from the past is the relevance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. If you don't have an independent judiciary, and the judiciary becomes an entity that is an appendix of the ruling party or is intimidated by politics, and they could be subject of impeachment procedures every time that they rule something, that the powerful—the establishment disagree, I think they're playing with fire, and they're not really paying attention to the lessons that you learn from recent history in Latin America. That would be my first comment regarding that type of issue. And the second one, about you mentioned specifically cultural problems, culture, tensions or conflicts. And you mentioned—your example was child labor. And, and you suggested that that—the combination of child labor is something typical of Western ideology. If I'm not wrong, that was the language that you used. I would—I would push back on that point. And because this is not just a Western or European commitment. This is a universal one. And this is reflected on international treaties, and that are supposed to eradicate that kind of practice. If you give up to the concept of local traditions, you know, cultural, you know, issues that you need to pay attention, sure, as long as they are not to be in conflict with fundamental human rights. Otherwise, in half of the planet you're not going to have women rights, and women will be subject of traditional control. And you wouldn't have rights for minorities, and especially—and not only, but especially—the LGBTQ community. And you wouldn't have rights for racial minorities, or different religious beliefs. So, we have to watch and be very careful about what type of concessions we make to cultural traditions. I am happy to understand that different communities in Latin America might have different traditions, but there is some firm, solid, and unquestionable minimum that are the these universal human rights values that are not the property or monopoly of anyone. You know, these are—and this is not an ethical conversation. This is a legal one, because these values are protected under international law. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to combine or take two questions. The first question is from Lindsay Bert, who is at the department of political science at Muhlenberg College, who asks if you could speak on the efficacy of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in addressing the human rights violations you described. And the second question is from Leonard Onyebuchi Ophoke, a graduate student at Cavendish University in Uganda: Why is it almost impossible to hold the actors that violate human rights accountable? What could be done to make the mechanism more enforceable? VIVANCO: The inter-American system of human rights protection, there is nothing similar to inter-American system of human rights protection in the Global South. You don't have something similar in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East. In other words, you don't have a mechanism where ultimately a court, a court of law—not just a commission, a court of law—handle individual cases, specific complaints of human rights abuses, and governments participate in public hearings. The parties involved have the obligation to present evidence before the court, and the court finally ruled on the specific matters where its decisions are binding. The number of issues that have been addressed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the last thirty years in Latin America are really incredible. And the impact—this is most important point—the impact at a local level is remarkable. In the area, for instance, of torture, disappearances. I'm referring to the elaboration of concepts and the imposing the obligation of local governments to adjust their legislation and practice, and to address specific problems or issues by providing remedies to victims. That is quite unusual. And the court has remarkable rulings on free speech, on discrimination issues, on indigenous populations, on military jurisdiction. One of the typical recourse of governments in the region when security forces were involved in human rights atrocities was to invoke military jurisdiction. So they say, no worries, we are going to investigate our own crimes. And the court has been actually very, very firm, challenging that notion to the point that I don't think there is a single case in Latin America today—once again, with the exception of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, that I hope that somebody will ask me a question about those three countries—and I don't think there is a single case where today security forces try to—or attempt to shield themselves from investigation invoking military jurisdiction. And the credit is to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I can elaborate, and give you—provide you with a long list of examples of areas where the court has been actually really, really critical in advancing human rights in the region. Let me give you actually one last example that I think is very—is very illustrative, very revealing. In Chile, something like probably twenty years ago or fifteen years ago, full democracy. Full democracy. No Chile under Pinochet. The Supreme Court of Chile ruled that a mother who was openly lesbian did not qualify for the custody of her children because she was lesbian. And she had a couple. So that was sufficient grounds to rule in favor of the father, because the mother didn't have the moral grounds to educate her own kids, children. And this was decided by the Supreme Court of Chile. Not just a small first instance tribunal. And I will point out that the vast majority of the—I mean, the public in Chile was pretty much divided, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of Chileans thought that the Supreme Court was right, you know? The case went to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. And fortunately, after a few years, the court not only challenged that decision of the Supreme Court, forced Chile to change its legislation, and to change the ruling of the Supreme Court of Chile, which is supposed to be the last judgment in the country. And the impact of that one, not only in Chile, in the rest of the region, because it shapes the common wisdom, the assumptions of many people. It helps for them to think carefully about this kind of issues. And the good news is that that mother was able to have the custody of her kids. And not only that, the impact in Chilean society and in the rest of the region was remarkable. Now, the second question that was asked was about how difficult it is to establish accountability for human rights abuses against the perpetrators of those abuses. I mean, it's a real challenge. It depends on whether or not you have locally an independent judiciary. If you do have an independent judiciary, the process is slow, it's messy, it's complicated. But there is a chance that atrocities could be addressed. And that is— especially human rights atrocities or abuses committed during the military dictatorship. There are countries in the region, like for instance, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, where there are people in prison for those type of atrocities. In Brazil, thanks to an amnesty law that was passed in 1978, real investigation and prosecution of those atrocities actually never happened. And an important lesson that you could bear in mind is that Brazilian military are very dismissive of these type of issues, of human rights issues. But not only that, my sense is that Brazilian military officers at very high level are not afraid of stepping into politics, and give their opinion, and challenge the government. In other words, they were actually very, very active, and I'm referring to top officials in the Brazilian Army, during the Bolsonaro administration. There were top leaders who actually publicly argued that if they have to organize a coup again in Brazil, they are ready. That kind of language you don't find in Argentina, in Chile, in other countries where there have been some accountability. For one simple reason, the top military officers running the show are very much aware that if they get involved in politics, that they are part tomorrow of a coup d'état or something like that, at the end of the day they will be responsible. And they might be subject of criminal prosecution for atrocities committed during that period. And so there is a price to pay. So their calculation is much more, shall we say, prudent regarding this issue. But again, once again, how difficult it is? It's very difficult to establish accountability, and much more difficult when you're dealing with dictatorship, where you need to rely on the work done by, for instance, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which is pretty active in the case of Venezuela. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Fordham. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Vivanco. My name is Carlos Ortiz de la Pena Gomez Urguiza, and I have a question for you. El Salvador is currently battling crime and gangs with strategies such as mano dura, which have shown a significant decrease in crime at the cost of violating human rights. Do you see a possible effective integration of such policies in high-crime-rate countries, such as Mexico, to stop the growth of narco and crime gang activity? And if so, how? VIVANCO: Well, look, yeah, Carlos, very good question. Bukele in El Salvador is a real, real challenge. It's really, really a complicated case, for several reasons. He's incredibly popular. No question about it. He has managed to—thanks to that popularity—to concentrate power in his own hands. He fully controls Congress. But, much more relevant, he fully controls the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court today is subordinated to the executive branch. And he is constantly going after the civil society, and free media, and the opposition. Now, in violation of the Salvadorean constitution, he's going to run for reelection. And he will be reelected, because he's also very popular. And his policies to go after gangs are cruel, inhuman, and without—not even a facade of respect for due process. Essentially, the policy which is not sustainable and is—I don't think is something that you could export to other countries—is a policy—unless you have full control, unless you have some sort of dictatorship or quasi dictatorship. Which is based, in essence, in the appearance, in the number of tattoos that people, especially in the marginal communities in the periferia in El Salvador, where shanty towns are located. The police has a, you know, green light to arrest anyone who fit that profile. And then good luck, because it's going to be very, very difficult for that person to avoid something like several months in prison. The whole point of having an independent judiciary and due process is that law enforcement agencies have the—obviously, not only the right, the duty to prevent crimes and to punish criminals. Not physically punish them. You know, it's to arrest them, to detain them, and to use proportional force to produce that attention. But they need to follow certain rules. They cannot just go around and arrest anyone who they have some sort of gut feelings that they are involved in crimes, because then you don't—you're not—the whole system is not able to distinguish and to make a distinction between potential criminals and innocent people. But it is complicated, the case of Bukele, because, for instance, I was referring initially to the technique of naming and shaming as a technique, as a methodology to expose governments with deplorable human rights record. But in the case of Bukele, he couldn't care less about. In other words, actually, I think he used the poor perception that exists, already that is established outside El Salvador as a result of his persecution of gangs in El Salvador—he used that kind of criticism as a way to improve his support domestically. In other words, when the New York Times published a whole report about massive abuses committed by Bukele's criminal system, in the prison system in El Salvador, what Bukele does is to take that one, that criticism, as actually ammunition to project himself as a tough guy who is actually, you know, doing the right thing for El Salvador. It's a question of time. It's a question of time. All of this is very sad for El Salvador, one of the few democracies in Central America with some future, I think, because I think they managed after the war to create institutions that are—that were much more credible than in the neighboring countries, like Guatemala, Honduras, and I'm not going to even mention Nicaragua. But under the control of this strongman, everything is possible today in El Salvador. He will be able to govern El Salvador this way as long as he's popular. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has relaxed its attention and pressure on that government, based on the question of migration. So they are hostage by the cooperation of Bukele government to try or attempt to control illegal immigration into the U.S. So that point trumps or, I mean, supersedes everything else. And that is actually very unfortunate. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next two questions, written questions. One is on the subject that you wanted, from Brittney Thomas, who is an undergraduate at Arizona State University: How come the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are socialist or communist while other Latin America countries are predominantly democracies? And then from Roger— VIVANCO: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the question. Obviously, it's about Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but? FASKIANOS: Why are they socialist or communist while other Latin American countries are predominantly democracies? VIVANCO: Oh, I see. OK. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And then the next question is from Roger Rose, who is an associate professor of political science at University of Minnesota, Morris: Given the recent decline in the norms of U.S. democracy in the last seven years, does the U.S. have any credibility and influence in the region in promoting democracy? And, again, if you could comment specifically on nations with the least democratic systems—Venezuela, Nicaragua—how could the U.S. play a more constructive role than it is currently? VIVANCO: The U.S. is always a very important player, very, very important. I mean, it's the largest economy in the world and the influence of the U.S. government in Latin America is huge. However, obviously, I have to acknowledge that our domestic problems here and serious challenges to the fundamentals of the rule of law, and just the notion that we respect the system according to which one who wins the election is—you know, has the legitimacy and the mandate to form a new government. If that notion is in question, and there are millions of American citizens who are willing to challenge that premise, obviously undermines the capacity of the U.S. to exercise leadership on this—in this context. And the autocrats and the autocracies in the region—I'm not referring to the dictatorships, but I'm referring to the Andrés Manuel López Obrador, once again, from Mexico, or Bolsonaro in Brazil—they take those kinds of developments in the U.S. as green lights to do whatever they want at local level. So that is a serious—obviously, it's a serious problem. And what is going on here has ramifications not only in the region, but also in the rest of the world. Now, Cuba is a historical problem. It's going to be too long to address the question in terms of why Cuba is a dictatorship and the rest of the region. Part of the problem with Cuba is that you have a government that violates the most fundamental rights and persecutes everyone who challenges the official line. And most of the Cubans today are willing to leave the country and to go into exile. But the problem is that we don't have the right tool, the right instrument in place, to exercise pressure on Cuba. And the right instrument today is the embargo. And that embargo, that policy is a total failure. The Cuban government is the same, exactly the same dictatorship. There has been no progress. And there's going to be no progress, in my view, as long as the U.S. government insist on a policy of isolation. You should be aware that every year 99 percentage of the states in the world condemned the isolation against Cuba, with the exception and the opposition of the U.S. government, Israel, and in the past was the Marshall Islands. Now, I don't think even the Marshall Islands joined the U.S. government defending that policy. So the policy is incredibly unpopular. And the debate at international level is about the U.S. government policy on Cuba and not about the deplorable human rights record of Cuba. That's why I was actually very supportive of the change of policy attempted during the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the isolation policy depends on Congress. And since the times of Clinton, this is a matter of who is the one in control of Congress. And the policy of isolation, it once again makes Cuba a victim of Washington. And Cuba, by the way, is not isolated from the rest of the world. So the U.S. is incredibly, I would say, powerless with regard to the lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba. And at the time, offers a fantastic justification for the Cuban government to present itself as a victim. I think that is the—this is one of the most serious mistakes of the U.S. foreign policy in Latin America that I hope that one day will be—will be addressed effectively. The case of Nicaragua and Venezuela is different, in the sense that we are looking into countries that—Venezuela in particular—have democracy for—a very questionable democracy, very weak, subject of tremendous corruption, and so on and so forth. But they have a system of political parties, free media, and so on, for many, many years. And they end up electing a populist leader whose marching orders and, you know, actually first majors was to establish some effective control of the judiciary. And the Supreme Court became an appendage of the government many, many, many years ago, which means that they managed during the Chavez administration to run the country with some sort of facade of democracy. Today, under Maduro it's no a longer a façade, it's a clear dictatorship responsible for atrocities. Fortunately, it is under investigation by the ICC. And the case of Nicaragua is an extreme case, similar to Venezuela. And it's—it's a dictator who has managed to put in prison everyone who is not in full alliance with the government, including religious leaders, and academics, and opposition leaders, civil society, et cetera. The case of Nicaragua is more complicated because Nicaragua is subject of sanctions by the U.S. government, and the European Union, and Canada, and some governments in the region. But still, we don't see much progress there. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Nassar Nassar, who has a raised hand. You can unmute yourself and state your affiliation. Q: Yes. Hello. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Q: Hi. My name is Nassar Nassar. I'm from Lewis University. So my question is, which are the most significant actors in the global governance of human trafficking? And how effective are they in tackling that? VIVANCO: Well, this is a matter that is usually—the main actors—so this is organized crime. This is organized crime. This is a question regarding—this is a—it's a huge business, and extremely profitable. And if you want to address these kinds of issues, you need regional cooperation, which is very challenging. Keep in mind that at a local level, in many of the most democratic countries in the region, you have tremendous tensions among the local police and different police. For instance, the local FBI—equivalent to an FBI, is usually in tension with other branches of law enforcement. And if you expect to have cooperation from the rest of the countries in the region, it's extremely challenging. So these type of issues require effective cooperation, adjustment on legislation. Require more better intelligence. The reason why you have this type—proliferation of this type of business is because, obviously, corruption and lack of accountability. So this is—my point is that it is a reflection of how weak is our law enforcement system, and how unprofessional, and subject many times of corruption. FASKIANOS: Just to follow up on that, a written question from Patricia Drown, who's at Regent University. How are the cartels and mafia being armed, and by whom? VIVANCO: Well, in the case of, for instance, Mexico, weapons comes from the U.S. Sometimes even legally. You know, the Second Amendment plays a role here. It's so easy to have access to weapons, all kind of weapons, in the U.S. So that helps. And a lack of actually an effective control mechanism to stop that type of traffic. The amount of money that cartels moved in countries like Mexico, but Colombia as well, and this mafia scene in Central America is significant. So they do have capacity to corrupt local enforcement officials that belongs to the police, the army, even the judiciary. And as long as you don't address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of presence of the state—in other words, there are vast—as you know, there are regions of Colombia that are not under the control of the government, the territories in Colombia. And there are regions of Mexico that, unfortunately, are increasingly under more effective control of cartels than law enforcement and legitimate officials. So that unfortunately, is the—in my view, one of the reasons why it is relatively easy to witness this type of proliferation of illegal business. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. I think we are out of time. We have so many written questions and raised hands. Maybe I'll just try to sneak in one more from Andrea Cuervo Prados. You have your hand raised. I think you also wrote a question. So if you can be brief and tell us who you are. Q: OK. Hello. I'm adjunct faculty at Dickinson State University. And, Mr. Vivanco, I have a question related to Colombia. What do you think about the state of the human rights in Colombia under the new leftist president, Gustavo Petro, compared to the previous president, Ivan Duque? VIVANCO: Andrea, I think it's pretty much the same. When we witness actually an improvement of human rights conditions in Colombia, it was during the negotiations with the FARC. I'm referring to the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. And with the signature of the peace agreement, when they signed the peace agreement, the numbers shows a serious decline in the cases of, for instance, internally displaced people, torture cases, executions, abductions, and many other of those typical abuses that are committed in Colombia in rural areas where this organized crime and irregular armed groups are historically present. But then the policies implemented during the Duque administration were actually not very effective. There was a sort of relaxation during that period, and not effective implementation of those commitments negotiated with the FARC. That had an implication in terms of abuses. And today I don't see a major shift. My sense is that the local communities are subject of similar abuses, including human rights activists as well as social leaders, in areas where there is a very weak presence of the state. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. José Miguel Vivanco. We really appreciate your being with us today. And I apologize. Great questions. I'm sorry, we couldn't get to all of the written ones or raised hands. It's clear we will have to do this—focus in on this again and have you back. You can follow José Miguel on X at @VivancoJM. And the next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, November 29, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Shibley Telhami, who's a professor at the University of Maryland, will lead a conversation on public opinion on Israel and Palestine. And in the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_Academic. And visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, José Miguel, thank you very much for today, and to all of you for joining us. VIVANCO: Thanks a lot. FASKIANOS: Take care. (END)

José Miguel Vivanco, adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and former executive director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, leads the conversation on human rights in Latin America. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Fall 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. The video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have José Miguel Vivanco with us to discuss human rights in Latin America. Mr. Vivanco is an adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and partner at Dentons Global Advisors. He formerly served as the executive director of the Americas Division at Human Rights Watch, where he supervised fact-finding research for numerous reports on gross violations of human rights and advocated strengthening international legal standards and domestic compliance throughout the region. He is the founder of the Center for Justice and International Law, an international civil society organization providing legal and technical assistance with the Inter-American Human Rights System. So, José Miguel, thank you very much for being with us today. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of what you see as the most important human rights challenges and advances in Latin America today. VIVANCO: Well, thank you very much for this invitation. It is a pleasure to be with you all and to talk for an hour about human rights problems, human rights issues in Latin America. Let me first make a couple of points. First, I think it's very important that, in retrospect, if you look at Latin America in the 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s, it was a region that was pretty much run by military dictatorships. So if you look at historically, the region is not in such a bad shape. I know that this comment is quite controversial and many experts who follow the region closely might disagree with that statement, but objectively speaking I think we need to recognize that most of the region is run today—with the exception, obviously, of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua—by democracies, weak democracies, the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America are facing very serious challenges and with endemic problems such as corruption, abuse of power, lack of transparency, lack of proper accountability, and so on and so forth. But in general terms, this is a region that has a chance to conduct some self-correction. In other words, electoral democracy is a very, very important value in the region, and the citizens—most of the people are able to either reward or punish the incumbent government at the times of elections. That is not a minor detail. It is extremely important, especially if you take into account that during the last twenty years in Latin America, if I'm not wrong, the vast majority of the governments elected were from the opposition. The statistics, I think, show that in eighteen of the twenty last presidential elections, the winner has been the party of the opposition; which means that even though our democracies in Latin America are dysfunctional, weak, messy, slow, you know, short-term-oriented, obviously, but at least citizens take their rights seriously and they exercise their powers so that is why you see a regular zigzag or, you know, transfer of power from a left-wing government to a right-wing government or vice versa. And that is, again, something that is, obviously, a very, very important tool of self-correction. And that, obviously, includes or has an impact in terms of the human rights record of those countries. You know, I'm not—I'm not addressing yet—I will leave it for the Q&A section—conditions in those three dictatorships in Latin America. Let me just make some few more remarks about one of the biggest challenges that I see in the region. And that is, obviously, the rise of autocracy or autocratic leaders, populist leaders, leaders who are not interested or as a matter of fact are very hostile to the concept of rule of law and the concept of independence of the judiciary. And they usually are very charismatic. They have high level of popular support. And they run and govern the country in a style that is like a permanent campaign, where they normally go against minorities and against the opposition, against the free media, against judges and prosecutors who dare to investigate them or investigate the government. Anyone who challenges them are subject of this type of reaction. And that is, unfortunately, something that we have seen in Mexico recently and until today, and in Brazil, especially during the administration of President Bolsonaro. The good news about, in the case of Brazil, is that, thanks to electoral democracy, it was possible to defeat him and—democratically. And the second very important piece of information is that even though Brazil is not a model of rule of law and separation of power, we have to acknowledge that, thanks to the checks-and-balance exercise by the Supreme Court of Brazil, it was possible to do some permanent, constant damage control against the most outrageous initiatives promoted by the administration of President Bolsonaro. That, I think, is one of the biggest challenges in the region. Let me conclude my—make crystal clear that there are serious human rights problems in Latin America today regarding, for instance, abuse of power, police brutality, prison problems. Prisons are really, in most of the countries in the region, a disaster. And you know, a big number of prisoners are awaiting trial, in detention and unable to really exercise their rights. And unfortunately, populist leaders use the prison system or essentially criminal law, by expanding the practice and enlarging the numbers of crimes that could be subject of pretrial detention, and—you know, regardless of the time that it will take for that case to be prosecuted in full respect for the rule—due process, and so on and so forth. And that—the reason is very simple. There is a real demand in Latin America for policies that will address insecurity, citizen security. If you look at statistics in terms of crime rate, it is going up in most of the country. Obviously, there are big difference between countries like Mexico, for instance, or Colombia, and if you link—if you look at the power of cartels and big mafias, and gangs in other countries, or petty crime impacting the daily life of the citizens. Regardless of that point, one of the biggest demands in Latin America is for better and more public security. And that's why political leaders, usually the solution for that request and demand is to put people in prison with essentially no real due process and increase the number of prisoners without conviction. There are challenges for free speech occasionally, of those leaders who resent scrutiny of their practice. And normally there is a campaign against free media. And there are some attempts in some countries to constantly look for ways to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Keep in mind, for instance, that now in Argentina the whole Supreme Court is under impeachment, and it's essentially an impeachment promoted by the current government because they disagree with the rulings, positions of the Supreme Court. All the justices on the Supreme Court are subject of this political trial conducted by the Argentine Congress. That is a concrete example of the kinds of risks that are present for judges and the judiciary in general, when they exercise their power and they attempt to protect the integrity of the constitution. So let me stop here and we can move on to the most interesting part of this event. FASKIANOS: Well, that was quite interesting. So, thank you, José Miguel. We appreciate it. We going to go to all of you now for your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) We already have some hands up. We will go first to Karla Soto Valdes. Q: My name is Karla Soto. I'm from Lewis University. My question is, what specific measures could be implemented to address and/or prevent trafficking within the asylum-seeking community during their journey to the U.S.? VIVANCO: Irina, are we going to take several questions, or? FASKIANOS: I think we should do one at a time. VIVANCO: Well, Karla, there are multiple tools to address that specific issue. But this applies to essentially most of the human rights problems all over the world. The menu is pretty ample, but depends on one important factor—whether the government involved cares about its own reputation. That is a very important premise here, because if you we are dealing with a democratic government, once again, it's not—when I refer to a democratic government, I don't have in mind a sort of Jeffersonian model, I'm referring to the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America. But, if the leaders in charge are—you know, they care about their own reputation, they care about domestic debate, very important, because these types of revelations usually have ramifications at the local level. If they pay close attention to those issues, I think it's possible to apply, essentially, the technique of naming and shaming. In other words, collecting information, documenting what exactly is happening, and revealing that information to the public, locally and internationally. That is going to create naturally a reaction, a process, an awareness, and local pressure is—hopefully, it's not just twenty-four hours news, so splash—big splash, but also will trigger some dynamics. If we are dealing with a country that is run by a dictatorship, it is a very, very different question, because normally you're facing a leader, a government, who couldn't care less about its own reputation. They have taken already and assume the cost of doing business in that type of context. Now, sometimes conditions are kind of mixed, where you have democratic country in general—so there is still free media, there is an opposition, there is Congress, there are elections. But the government in charge is so—is run by an autocratic leader. That makes, you know, quite—a little more challenging to just document and reveal that information. And you need to think about some particular agenda, governmental agenda. Some specific interests of the government in different areas. Let me see—let me give you an example. Let's say that the Bolsonaro administration is seriously interested in an incorporation into the OECD in Paris. That is an important piece of information. Whatever you think that is relevant information regarding the record of that government, you could provide information to an entity that is precisely evaluating the record of the government. And the government will be much more willing to address those issues because they have a genuine interest in achieving some specific goal at the international level. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. We're going to go to Nicole Ambar De Santos, who is an undergraduate student at the Washington University in St. Louis: When we consider weak democracy in a more personal sense, like Peru, the controversy of obligation to help these nations arises. How much third party or other nations, such as the United States, intervene? VIVANCO: Tricky question. Peruvian democracy is quite messy. Part of the problem is that the system, the political system, needs some real reform to avoid the proliferation of small political parties and to create the real link or relationship between leaders, especially in Congress, and their constituencies, and so they are much more accountable to their community, the ones who elected them. I don't think the U.S., or any other government, has a direct role to play in that area. My sense is that when we are looking into a dysfunctional democracy that deserve some probably even constitutional reforms, that is essentially a domestic job. That is the work that needs to be done by Peruvians. Without a local consensus about the reforms that need to be implemented in the political system, my sense is that it's going to be very difficult for the U.S. or any other large democracy, to address those kinds of points. It's very different, that type of conversation, from a conversation or an assessment of universal values, such as human rights. When we are looking into cases of police brutality, for instance, the international community has a role to play. But if I were part of the conversation or evaluation by the U.S. government or the European Union with regard to this dysfunctional democracy in Peru, I would approach very carefully by suggesting creating the right type of incentives, more than questions of punishment, or sanctions. It's incentives for them to create the right conditions to address the domestic problem that is—has become quite endemic, in the case of Peru. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Matthew. Matthew, you don't have a last name, so can you identify yourself? Q: Hello. Yes, my name is Matthew. I am a junior student from Arizona State University studying business, but working on a thesis that has to do with human rights and the ethics of supply chain management. My question is, you were talking at the very beginning kind of just about history and how understanding history is important. And what I was hoping to get was, why is understanding history and culture important when working to address human rights issues, history of dictatorship, colonialism? In cultures it's socially acceptable things, like child labor, in some countries, that's not acceptable in Western ideology. So, yeah, just how is history and culture important when working to address human rights for the future? VIVANCO: Matthew, I think you're referring to two different issues. History is central. It's really, really relevant. Because that helps you—if you—if you follow your history, especially periods of time when massive and gross violations were committed in Latin America, it's important to put things in context and value what you have today. And the job is to—not only to preserve democracy, but also to look for ways to strengthen democracy. Because part of the problem is that domestic debate is so polarized today, not just in Latin America, all over the world, that sometimes people—different, you know, segments of society—in their positions, they're so dismissive of the other side, that they don't realize that we need to frame our debate in a constructive way. Let me put it—one specific example. If the government of Argentina, who is a government very receptive and very sensitive to vast and gross violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship, so in other words, I don't need to lecture that government on that subject. They are actually the people who vote for the current government of Argentina—not the new government, the current government of Argentina—is deeply committed to those kinds of issues. I think that one of the biggest lessons that you should learn from the past is the relevance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. If you don't have an independent judiciary, and the judiciary becomes an entity that is an appendix of the ruling party or is intimidated by politics, and they could be subject of impeachment procedures every time that they rule something, that the powerful—the establishment disagree, I think they're playing with fire, and they're not really paying attention to the lessons that you learn from recent history in Latin America. That would be my first comment regarding that type of issue. And the second one, about you mentioned specifically cultural problems, culture, tensions or conflicts. And you mentioned—your example was child labor. And, and you suggested that that—the combination of child labor is something typical of Western ideology. If I'm not wrong, that was the language that you used. I would—I would push back on that point. And because this is not just a Western or European commitment. This is a universal one. And this is reflected on international treaties, and that are supposed to eradicate that kind of practice. If you give up to the concept of local traditions, you know, cultural, you know, issues that you need to pay attention, sure, as long as they are not to be in conflict with fundamental human rights. Otherwise, in half of the planet you're not going to have women rights, and women will be subject of traditional control. And you wouldn't have rights for minorities, and especially—and not only, but especially—the LGBTQ community. And you wouldn't have rights for racial minorities, or different religious beliefs. So, we have to watch and be very careful about what type of concessions we make to cultural traditions. I am happy to understand that different communities in Latin America might have different traditions, but there is some firm, solid, and unquestionable minimum that are the these universal human rights values that are not the property or monopoly of anyone. You know, these are—and this is not an ethical conversation. This is a legal one, because these values are protected under international law. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to combine or take two questions. The first question is from Lindsay Bert, who is at the department of political science at Muhlenberg College, who asks if you could speak on the efficacy of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in addressing the human rights violations you described. And the second question is from Leonard Onyebuchi Ophoke, a graduate student at Cavendish University in Uganda: Why is it almost impossible to hold the actors that violate human rights accountable? What could be done to make the mechanism more enforceable? VIVANCO: The inter-American system of human rights protection, there is nothing similar to inter-American system of human rights protection in the Global South. You don't have something similar in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East. In other words, you don't have a mechanism where ultimately a court, a court of law—not just a commission, a court of law—handle individual cases, specific complaints of human rights abuses, and governments participate in public hearings. The parties involved have the obligation to present evidence before the court, and the court finally ruled on the specific matters where its decisions are binding. The number of issues that have been addressed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the last thirty years in Latin America are really incredible. And the impact—this is most important point—the impact at a local level is remarkable. In the area, for instance, of torture, disappearances. I'm referring to the elaboration of concepts and the imposing the obligation of local governments to adjust their legislation and practice, and to address specific problems or issues by providing remedies to victims. That is quite unusual. And the court has remarkable rulings on free speech, on discrimination issues, on indigenous populations, on military jurisdiction. One of the typical recourse of governments in the region when security forces were involved in human rights atrocities was to invoke military jurisdiction. So they say, no worries, we are going to investigate our own crimes. And the court has been actually very, very firm, challenging that notion to the point that I don't think there is a single case in Latin America today—once again, with the exception of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, that I hope that somebody will ask me a question about those three countries—and I don't think there is a single case where today security forces try to—or attempt to shield themselves from investigation invoking military jurisdiction. And the credit is to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I can elaborate, and give you—provide you with a long list of examples of areas where the court has been actually really, really critical in advancing human rights in the region. Let me give you actually one last example that I think is very—is very illustrative, very revealing. In Chile, something like probably twenty years ago or fifteen years ago, full democracy. Full democracy. No Chile under Pinochet. The Supreme Court of Chile ruled that a mother who was openly lesbian did not qualify for the custody of her children because she was lesbian. And she had a couple. So that was sufficient grounds to rule in favor of the father, because the mother didn't have the moral grounds to educate her own kids, children. And this was decided by the Supreme Court of Chile. Not just a small first instance tribunal. And I will point out that the vast majority of the—I mean, the public in Chile was pretty much divided, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of Chileans thought that the Supreme Court was right, you know? The case went to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. And fortunately, after a few years, the court not only challenged that decision of the Supreme Court, forced Chile to change its legislation, and to change the ruling of the Supreme Court of Chile, which is supposed to be the last judgment in the country. And the impact of that one, not only in Chile, in the rest of the region, because it shapes the common wisdom, the assumptions of many people. It helps for them to think carefully about this kind of issues. And the good news is that that mother was able to have the custody of her kids. And not only that, the impact in Chilean society and in the rest of the region was remarkable. Now, the second question that was asked was about how difficult it is to establish accountability for human rights abuses against the perpetrators of those abuses. I mean, it's a real challenge. It depends on whether or not you have locally an independent judiciary. If you do have an independent judiciary, the process is slow, it's messy, it's complicated. But there is a chance that atrocities could be addressed. And that is— especially human rights atrocities or abuses committed during the military dictatorship. There are countries in the region, like for instance, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, where there are people in prison for those type of atrocities. In Brazil, thanks to an amnesty law that was passed in 1978, real investigation and prosecution of those atrocities actually never happened. And an important lesson that you could bear in mind is that Brazilian military are very dismissive of these type of issues, of human rights issues. But not only that, my sense is that Brazilian military officers at very high level are not afraid of stepping into politics, and give their opinion, and challenge the government. In other words, they were actually very, very active, and I'm referring to top officials in the Brazilian Army, during the Bolsonaro administration. There were top leaders who actually publicly argued that if they have to organize a coup again in Brazil, they are ready. That kind of language you don't find in Argentina, in Chile, in other countries where there have been some accountability. For one simple reason, the top military officers running the show are very much aware that if they get involved in politics, that they are part tomorrow of a coup d'état or something like that, at the end of the day they will be responsible. And they might be subject of criminal prosecution for atrocities committed during that period. And so there is a price to pay. So their calculation is much more, shall we say, prudent regarding this issue. But again, once again, how difficult it is? It's very difficult to establish accountability, and much more difficult when you're dealing with dictatorship, where you need to rely on the work done by, for instance, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which is pretty active in the case of Venezuela. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Fordham. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Vivanco. My name is Carlos Ortiz de la Pena Gomez Urguiza, and I have a question for you. El Salvador is currently battling crime and gangs with strategies such as mano dura, which have shown a significant decrease in crime at the cost of violating human rights. Do you see a possible effective integration of such policies in high-crime-rate countries, such as Mexico, to stop the growth of narco and crime gang activity? And if so, how? VIVANCO: Well, look, yeah, Carlos, very good question. Bukele in El Salvador is a real, real challenge. It's really, really a complicated case, for several reasons. He's incredibly popular. No question about it. He has managed to—thanks to that popularity—to concentrate power in his own hands. He fully controls Congress. But, much more relevant, he fully controls the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court today is subordinated to the executive branch. And he is constantly going after the civil society, and free media, and the opposition. Now, in violation of the Salvadorean constitution, he's going to run for reelection. And he will be reelected, because he's also very popular. And his policies to go after gangs are cruel, inhuman, and without—not even a facade of respect for due process. Essentially, the policy which is not sustainable and is—I don't think is something that you could export to other countries—is a policy—unless you have full control, unless you have some sort of dictatorship or quasi dictatorship. Which is based, in essence, in the appearance, in the number of tattoos that people, especially in the marginal communities in the periferia in El Salvador, where shanty towns are located. The police has a, you know, green light to arrest anyone who fit that profile. And then good luck, because it's going to be very, very difficult for that person to avoid something like several months in prison. The whole point of having an independent judiciary and due process is that law enforcement agencies have the—obviously, not only the right, the duty to prevent crimes and to punish criminals. Not physically punish them. You know, it's to arrest them, to detain them, and to use proportional force to produce that attention. But they need to follow certain rules. They cannot just go around and arrest anyone who they have some sort of gut feelings that they are involved in crimes, because then you don't—you're not—the whole system is not able to distinguish and to make a distinction between potential criminals and innocent people. But it is complicated, the case of Bukele, because, for instance, I was referring initially to the technique of naming and shaming as a technique, as a methodology to expose governments with deplorable human rights record. But in the case of Bukele, he couldn't care less about. In other words, actually, I think he used the poor perception that exists, already that is established outside El Salvador as a result of his persecution of gangs in El Salvador—he used that kind of criticism as a way to improve his support domestically. In other words, when the New York Times published a whole report about massive abuses committed by Bukele's criminal system, in the prison system in El Salvador, what Bukele does is to take that one, that criticism, as actually ammunition to project himself as a tough guy who is actually, you know, doing the right thing for El Salvador. It's a question of time. It's a question of time. All of this is very sad for El Salvador, one of the few democracies in Central America with some future, I think, because I think they managed after the war to create institutions that are—that were much more credible than in the neighboring countries, like Guatemala, Honduras, and I'm not going to even mention Nicaragua. But under the control of this strongman, everything is possible today in El Salvador. He will be able to govern El Salvador this way as long as he's popular. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has relaxed its attention and pressure on that government, based on the question of migration. So they are hostage by the cooperation of Bukele government to try or attempt to control illegal immigration into the U.S. So that point trumps or, I mean, supersedes everything else. And that is actually very unfortunate. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next two questions, written questions. One is on the subject that you wanted, from Brittney Thomas, who is an undergraduate at Arizona State University: How come the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are socialist or communist while other Latin America countries are predominantly democracies? And then from Roger— VIVANCO: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the question. Obviously, it's about Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but? FASKIANOS: Why are they socialist or communist while other Latin American countries are predominantly democracies? VIVANCO: Oh, I see. OK. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And then the next question is from Roger Rose, who is an associate professor of political science at University of Minnesota, Morris: Given the recent decline in the norms of U.S. democracy in the last seven years, does the U.S. have any credibility and influence in the region in promoting democracy? And, again, if you could comment specifically on nations with the least democratic systems—Venezuela, Nicaragua—how could the U.S. play a more constructive role than it is currently? VIVANCO: The U.S. is always a very important player, very, very important. I mean, it's the largest economy in the world and the influence of the U.S. government in Latin America is huge. However, obviously, I have to acknowledge that our domestic problems here and serious challenges to the fundamentals of the rule of law, and just the notion that we respect the system according to which one who wins the election is—you know, has the legitimacy and the mandate to form a new government. If that notion is in question, and there are millions of American citizens who are willing to challenge that premise, obviously undermines the capacity of the U.S. to exercise leadership on this—in this context. And the autocrats and the autocracies in the region—I'm not referring to the dictatorships, but I'm referring to the Andrés Manuel López Obrador, once again, from Mexico, or Bolsonaro in Brazil—they take those kinds of developments in the U.S. as green lights to do whatever they want at local level. So that is a serious—obviously, it's a serious problem. And what is going on here has ramifications not only in the region, but also in the rest of the world. Now, Cuba is a historical problem. It's going to be too long to address the question in terms of why Cuba is a dictatorship and the rest of the region. Part of the problem with Cuba is that you have a government that violates the most fundamental rights and persecutes everyone who challenges the official line. And most of the Cubans today are willing to leave the country and to go into exile. But the problem is that we don't have the right tool, the right instrument in place, to exercise pressure on Cuba. And the right instrument today is the embargo. And that embargo, that policy is a total failure. The Cuban government is the same, exactly the same dictatorship. There has been no progress. And there's going to be no progress, in my view, as long as the U.S. government insist on a policy of isolation. You should be aware that every year 99 percentage of the states in the world condemned the isolation against Cuba, with the exception and the opposition of the U.S. government, Israel, and in the past was the Marshall Islands. Now, I don't think even the Marshall Islands joined the U.S. government defending that policy. So the policy is incredibly unpopular. And the debate at international level is about the U.S. government policy on Cuba and not about the deplorable human rights record of Cuba. That's why I was actually very supportive of the change of policy attempted during the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the isolation policy depends on Congress. And since the times of Clinton, this is a matter of who is the one in control of Congress. And the policy of isolation, it once again makes Cuba a victim of Washington. And Cuba, by the way, is not isolated from the rest of the world. So the U.S. is incredibly, I would say, powerless with regard to the lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba. And at the time, offers a fantastic justification for the Cuban government to present itself as a victim. I think that is the—this is one of the most serious mistakes of the U.S. foreign policy in Latin America that I hope that one day will be—will be addressed effectively. The case of Nicaragua and Venezuela is different, in the sense that we are looking into countries that—Venezuela in particular—have democracy for—a very questionable democracy, very weak, subject of tremendous corruption, and so on and so forth. But they have a system of political parties, free media, and so on, for many, many years. And they end up electing a populist leader whose marching orders and, you know, actually first majors was to establish some effective control of the judiciary. And the Supreme Court became an appendage of the government many, many, many years ago, which means that they managed during the Chavez administration to run the country with some sort of facade of democracy. Today, under Maduro it's no a longer a façade, it's a clear dictatorship responsible for atrocities. Fortunately, it is under investigation by the ICC. And the case of Nicaragua is an extreme case, similar to Venezuela. And it's—it's a dictator who has managed to put in prison everyone who is not in full alliance with the government, including religious leaders, and academics, and opposition leaders, civil society, et cetera. The case of Nicaragua is more complicated because Nicaragua is subject of sanctions by the U.S. government, and the European Union, and Canada, and some governments in the region. But still, we don't see much progress there. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Nassar Nassar, who has a raised hand. You can unmute yourself and state your affiliation. Q: Yes. Hello. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Q: Hi. My name is Nassar Nassar. I'm from Lewis University. So my question is, which are the most significant actors in the global governance of human trafficking? And how effective are they in tackling that? VIVANCO: Well, this is a matter that is usually—the main actors—so this is organized crime. This is organized crime. This is a question regarding—this is a—it's a huge business, and extremely profitable. And if you want to address these kinds of issues, you need regional cooperation, which is very challenging. Keep in mind that at a local level, in many of the most democratic countries in the region, you have tremendous tensions among the local police and different police. For instance, the local FBI—equivalent to an FBI, is usually in tension with other branches of law enforcement. And if you expect to have cooperation from the rest of the countries in the region, it's extremely challenging. So these type of issues require effective cooperation, adjustment on legislation. Require more better intelligence. The reason why you have this type—proliferation of this type of business is because, obviously, corruption and lack of accountability. So this is—my point is that it is a reflection of how weak is our law enforcement system, and how unprofessional, and subject many times of corruption. FASKIANOS: Just to follow up on that, a written question from Patricia Drown, who's at Regent University. How are the cartels and mafia being armed, and by whom? VIVANCO: Well, in the case of, for instance, Mexico, weapons comes from the U.S. Sometimes even legally. You know, the Second Amendment plays a role here. It's so easy to have access to weapons, all kind of weapons, in the U.S. So that helps. And a lack of actually an effective control mechanism to stop that type of traffic. The amount of money that cartels moved in countries like Mexico, but Colombia as well, and this mafia scene in Central America is significant. So they do have capacity to corrupt local enforcement officials that belongs to the police, the army, even the judiciary. And as long as you don't address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of presence of the state—in other words, there are vast—as you know, there are regions of Colombia that are not under the control of the government, the territories in Colombia. And there are regions of Mexico that, unfortunately, are increasingly under more effective control of cartels than law enforcement and legitimate officials. So that unfortunately, is the—in my view, one of the reasons why it is relatively easy to witness this type of proliferation of illegal business. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. I think we are out of time. We have so many written questions and raised hands. Maybe I'll just try to sneak in one more from Andrea Cuervo Prados. You have your hand raised. I think you also wrote a question. So if you can be brief and tell us who you are. Q: OK. Hello. I'm adjunct faculty at Dickinson State University. And, Mr. Vivanco, I have a question related to Colombia. What do you think about the state of the human rights in Colombia under the new leftist president, Gustavo Petro, compared to the previous president, Ivan Duque? VIVANCO: Andrea, I think it's pretty much the same. When we witness actually an improvement of human rights conditions in Colombia, it was during the negotiations with the FARC. I'm referring to the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. And with the signature of the peace agreement, when they signed the peace agreement, the numbers shows a serious decline in the cases of, for instance, internally displaced people, torture cases, executions, abductions, and many other of those typical abuses that are committed in Colombia in rural areas where this organized crime and irregular armed groups are historically present. But then the policies implemented during the Duque administration were actually not very effective. There was a sort of relaxation during that period, and not effective implementation of those commitments negotiated with the FARC. That had an implication in terms of abuses. And today I don't see a major shift. My sense is that the local communities are subject of similar abuses, including human rights activists as well as social leaders, in areas where there is a very weak presence of the state. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. José Miguel Vivanco. We really appreciate your being with us today. And I apologize. Great questions. I'm sorry, we couldn't get to all of the written ones or raised hands. It's clear we will have to do this—focus in on this again and have you back. You can follow José Miguel on X at @VivancoJM. And the next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, November 29, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Shibley Telhami, who's a professor at the University of Maryland, will lead a conversation on public opinion on Israel and Palestine. And in the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_Academic. And visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, José Miguel, thank you very much for today, and to all of you for joining us. VIVANCO: Thanks a lot. FASKIANOS: Take care. (END)

Rebecca Burgess is joined by Frank Cogliano to discuss Thomas Jefferson, Monticello, and the Jeffersonian legacy.  Brian Smith: Welcome to Liberty Law Talk. This podcast is a production of the online journal, Law & Liberty, and hosted by our staff. Please visit us at lawliberty.org, and thank you for listening. Rebecca Burgess: We know this […]

Today's show refers to this writing:    Religion News Service ran a story last week on the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, and their efforts to pass laws that (they claim) are based on Christianity.   Specifically (from their website), they are about “abolishing abortion,” “restoring marriage between one man and one woman,” and (an often forgotten part of the Sermon on the Mount), “promoting universal school choice.”   The story attributes the following criticism of the NACL to Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty: that making laws “shaped by a legislator's view of Christian values can be harmful for both the government and people of faith because it erodes the separation of church and state.”   There's a lot to unpack here, with implications for everyone—Christian or not, religious or not—who cares about the future of American democracy.   The key phrase in Hollman's criticism is “the separation of church and state.” What does this phrase mean today? In what ways has it become a reflexive and feckless fallback position for well-intentioned religious people who are politically liberal? And in what circumstances is it indispensable?   So permit me, then, as a thought experiment, to defend the National Association of Christian Lawmakers—not for their specific causes, nor for their method. No. Let me defend the NACL for what they are trying to do, understood in the most generous way possible: they are trying to bring a moral vision into our shared common life, and reconnect that vision to the practice of making laws.   That's a good thing. A healthy society needs to ask questions about, and have respectful debates about, the good towards which policies and practices are aimed. And a healthy politics is connected to a vision of the common good, or else you get what you have now—a politics of getting and keeping power for personal gain, bought by powerful moneyed interests.   Here's where the imprecision of the phrase “separation of church and state” becomes problematic.    If Hollman is playing the “separation of church and state” card in order to trump any religious voice's articulation of values in public conversations, including conversations about public policy and the making of laws, then she (along with many secularists who believe religion should be just a private activity) are making 2 mistakes: the first is constitutional; the second is strategic.   Let me take the constitutional mistake first. The separation of church and state is a Jeffersonian phrase that refers to the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the  establishment of a state religion, and prohibits the government from restricting individuals' free exercise of religion.   Neither of these prohibitions can be construed to mean that religious voices are disqualified from articulating values or visions of human flourishing that rise from religious commitments, or advocating for those values as matters of policy. There's nothing about articulation or advocacy per se, that establishes a state religion or prohibits an individual's free exercise of religion. A particular bill that NACL supports that gets signed into law may violate the First Amendment, but that's a separate question.    The second, strategic mistake Hollman makes in playing the “separation of church and state” card is not unique to her. In fact, it is common to most religious people who are politically left of center. It's a failure to engage with substantive moral and theological critiques of liberal democracy, including laws that rise from liberal democracy's commitment to equality and individual rights.    Failing to engage these moral and theological critiques is a strategic mistake because it (to use the language of battle) cedes the moral field to the critics. In short, where there needs to be an articulation of moral good in the public square by religious people who are politically left of center, those people retreat behind the wall of “separation  of church and state.” The needed moral and theological articulation is never made. Silence ensues, and the loud voices win.   Let me be more concrete. NACL wants to undo Obergefell. Instead of criticizing NACL's advocacy for reversing Obergefell as violating the separation of church and state, what religious people (and non-religious people, for that matter) ought to do, is articulate the moral and theological good that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (on which Obergefell was decided) guards.   Or again, abortion. Instead of criticizing NACL as violating the separation of church and state by seeking to abolish abortion, what religious people ought to do, is articulate how “choice” is a moral and theological good in this humanly complex issue.   The “separation of church and state” was never meant to disconnect moral philosophy and moral theology from public questions.   There are reasonable people, of good will, who have substantive critiques of liberal (understood as a political philosophy, not a political party) democracy, and (some of) its laws. The National Association of Christian Lawmakers may or may not be reasonable, or of good will. Either way, to refrain from engaging the moral and humanistic theological dimensions of our shared common life, in the name of the “separation of church and state,” leaves a void that such voices then fill.    And leaves the positive goods of liberal democracy unspoken.    Chris Owen   Chris is the Founder and Co-Associate Director of the S-1 Project, dedicated to the promotion of moral and humanistic theological reflection on our shared common life 

We're joined by the one and only Chris Newman of Sylvanaqua Farms to talk about cooperative farming, figuring out who to work with, why he hates chestnuts, and what the pumpkin spice girls got right. We dive deep into conversations about scalability and what it means to be a part of the loosely affiliated eco-left, and how we figure out to build food systems while operating under capitalism.   Check out Chris's work at Sylvanaqua Farms and Skywoman on Instagram and sylvanaqua.com. From Sylvanaqua Farms' website: Good food is a human right, period't. We need to get it to everyone; not just the denizens of our wealthiest enclaves fortunate enough to "vote with their food dollars." Everyone deserves good choices, and they should be available at the corner stores, our grocery stores, our restaurants, our schools, our hospitals, our institutions, and beyond. To do this, we must deprecate the romanticized Jeffersonian yeomanry that's dominated food discourse for centuries, and create deeply collaborative, de-individualized, sophisticated, human-centered, circular food supply chains inspired by this landscape's first and best stewards. Sylvanaqua Farms is one farm among several other food businesses coordinating to make this happen in the Chesapeake Bay region."   To support this podcast, join our patreon for early episode access at https://www.patreon.com/poorprolesalmanac  For PPA Writing Content, visit: www.agroecologies.org For PPA Restoration Content, visit: www.restorationagroecology.com For PPA Merch, visit: www.poorproles.com For PPA Native Plants, visit: www.nativenurseries.org To hear Tomorrow, Today, our sister podcast, visit: www.tomorrowtodaypodcast.org/  

Max Borders is the author of the new book "Underthrow: How Jefferson's Dangerous Idea Will Spark a New Revolution." We discuss renewing the Jeffersonian principles of decentralization and limited government in America through a new model of constitutionalism.  Max is putting his money where his mouth is to the tune of $25,000 for the team that writes a new Constitution of Consent. The Constitution of Consent (Contest) $25,000 - https://underthrow.substack.com/p/the-constitution-of-consent-contest Underthrow: How Jefferson's Dangerous Idea Will Spark a New Revolution - https://amzn.to/3KsuR5e Max's Substack - https://underthrow.substack.com/ https://youtu.be/RNkpmcGPBSw Join our Patreon now for commercial-free shows, bonus content and our complete archives - https://www.patreon.com/wearelibertarians --- Q Sleep Spray assists in achieving a more restful sleep so you can wake up refreshed. Q SLEEP contains incredible ingredients, including melatonin, 5-HTP, and L-theanine, as well as a proprietary herbal extract, which synergistically promotes restful sleep and helps your mind and body rejuvenate. Buy Now - https://wearelibertarians.com/sleepspray/ --- Chris Spangle and Leaders and Legends, LLC edited and produced this podcast. If you're interested in starting a podcast or taking yours to the next level, please contact us at LeadersAndLegends.net. ---- Looking to start a podcast? Download my podcast Podcasting and Platforms now, and check out my recommendations for buying the right equipment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this day in history, July 14 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act of 1798 was a controversial law that criminalized the propagation of false or defamatory statements against the federal government. It was primarily deployed as a tool by the Adams administration to control dissenting speech, especially from the Jeffersonian press that took issue with the ideologies of the Federalist Party. Interestingly, the Act did not cover criticism aimed at the Vice President, a position held by Thomas Jefferson at the time, due to his adversarial stance against the Federalist-dominant Congress. In 1800, the Sedition Act was deliberately left to lapse, marking its end. The introduction and enforcement of this Act is believed to have played a significant role in Thomas Jefferson's victory in the presidential election the same year, as public sentiment turned against the suppression of free speech.A ruling by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres found that Ripple Labs Inc.'s token, XRP, constitutes a security when sold to institutional investors, but not when sold to the general public. Judge Torres reasoned that sophisticated investors would perceive XRP as a speculative investment with potential for returns, aligning it with the definition of an investment contract under federal securities law. This did not hold for the broader public purchasing on crypto exchanges, given the lack of evidence that such investors would fully comprehend Ripple's numerous statements about XRP. The decision, viewed as a win for the crypto industry, sent XRP's value soaring and sparked a wider debate on the classification of cryptocurrencies as securities. However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) maintains that XRP tokens were sold as investment contracts in violation of securities laws. The impact of this ruling could significantly limit the SEC's jurisdiction, particularly if adopted by other courts. Despite the mixed verdict, the SEC's case against Ripple on institutional-sales claims will continue.Ripple Tokens Sold to Public Are Not Securities, Judge Says (1)Ripple Labs notches landmark win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency | ReutersWalt Disney Co is seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District as part of its ongoing conflict with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The lawsuit aims to nullify deals the district alleges were illegally made in favor of Disney with a previous district board. Meanwhile, Disney has its own lawsuit against Governor DeSantis, accusing him of leveraging state government against the company in response to its opposition to a Florida law prohibiting classroom discussions of sexuality and gender identity with younger children. In retaliation, DeSantis influenced the passage of bills that restructured the district, transferring board control to the governor and retroactively invalidating agreements Disney had made with the previous board. Disney argues the district's lawsuit should be dismissed since the company's agreements were already nullified by the state. This would enable Disney to concentrate on its federal case, which alleges DeSantis violated the company's right to free speech. The oversight district, however, wants its case to proceed, arguing that if the Disney agreements are invalidated, Disney's federal case claims will largely be undermined.Disney seeks to toss district lawsuit in DeSantis feud | ReutersThe IRS is intensifying its enforcement efforts against wealthy tax evaders, utilizing the funding provided in the Inflation Reduction Act, also known as the tax-and-climate law, according to Commissioner Danny Werfel. Recent actions include resolving around 175 tax delinquency cases for millionaires, yielding $38 million, and initiating measures against millionaires who do not file tax returns. The agency has also identified roughly 100 high-income individuals claiming benefits in Puerto Rico without satisfying certain criteria. Werfel emphasized that the IRS plans to use the funds to pursue delinquent millionaires more vigorously and to crack down on those employing abusive tax strategies. Furthermore, he outlined the agency's efforts to improve taxpayer services, including opening new taxpayer assistance centers and expanding online capabilities. Despite receiving $80 billion from the law, these funds might be cut to $60 billion due to a debt-limit agreement. Werfel warned against any further cuts, stating that they would impact the agency's enforcement and customer service abilities.IRS Targets Rich Tax Dodgers Using New Funds, Chief Werfel SaysTwitter Inc has been accused of refusing to pay a minimum of $500 million in promised severance to thousands of employees laid off after Elon Musk acquired the company, according to a lawsuit filed by Courtney McMillian, the former head of Twitter's employee benefits programs. McMillian alleges that a severance plan created by Twitter in 2019 promised most workers two months of their base pay plus an additional week of pay for each full year of service if they were laid off. Senior employees were supposed to receive six months of base pay. However, McMillian asserts that Twitter only provided at most one month of severance pay to laid-off workers, with many not receiving anything. The lawsuit accuses Twitter and Musk of violating a federal law regulating employee benefit plans. In response to these claims, Twitter stated that it has paid ex-employees in full. The company is also facing other lawsuits relating to the layoffs, including allegations of targeting women and workers with disabilities.Twitter owes ex-employees $500 million in severance, lawsuit claims | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We feel strongly about supporting the growth of talented young guys with big dreams. Men in their early 20s today are faced with a mounting number of traps that society has set for them, and it's easy to fall into those traps without the proper friend group, motivations, and guidance. That's why we were excited to have on Matt Worthington, a 24 year old author, podcaster, super connector, and entrepreneur based here in Austin. Matt's the author of the book Ultra Productive and host of the Riser Podcast. He's been featured in New York Weekly Magazine and Business Insider. Just an all-around great dude as well! We were first introduced to Matt through a random encounter at the gym, and have since attended one of his famous Jeffersonian-style dinners he hosts in town to bring together a diverse group of change makers in the Austin area. Matt's maturity and discipline have granted him success early in his 20s, and the fun part is he's just getting started. We wanted to bring Matt on as an example of a young man carving out an unconventional path. He shared his insights into frameworks he's used and lessons he's learned to put him in a place to continue to meet great people and build community in Austin. If you're a young guy in his 20s, please give this one a listen!SPONSORS Fond Bone Broth - 15% OFF - REAL bone broth with HIGH-QUALITY ingredients! It's a daily product for us! Fold App - Earn Bitcoin on all of your purchases by using the Fold Debit Card - it's simple, easy, and a fun way to earn bitcoin as you spend money on healthy foods! Use code MEATMAFIA to earn 100,000 sats when you sign up for Fold's FREE bitcoin rewards debit card & spend $20 with the card.  NOBLE ORIGINS Complete and simple, animal-based protein powder with an organ blend for additional nutrition! AFFILIATES LMNT - Electrolyte salts to supplement minerals on low-carb diet The Carnivore Bar - CODE MAFIA for 10% OFF - Delicious & convenient Pemmican Bar Perennial Pastures - 10% OFF - Regeneratively raised, grass-fed & grass-finished beef from California & Montana Farrow Skincare - Use the CODE 'MAFIA' at checkout for 20% OFF Heart & Soil - CODE ‘MEATMAFIA10' for 10% OFF - enhanced nutrition to replace daily vitamins! Carnivore Crisps - 10% OFF - Carnivore / Animal-based snacks for eating healthy on the go! CODE: MEATMAFIA Pluck Seasoning - 10% OFF - Nutrient-dense seasoning with INSANE flavor! CODE: MAFIA We Feed Raw 25% OFF your first order - ancestrally consistent food for your dog! CODE 'MEATMAFIA25' TIME STAMP1:00- Ziki 2:00- Mental endurance7:00- Setting yearly goals11:40- Taking good advice (finding a coach)16:00- Leaving the day job23:00- Building community and fitness (hosting dinners)37:00- Disagreeing with people40:00- Relationship with Leo46:00- Riser network

Imagine a world where consent, innovation, and community drive progress, where we respect diverse beliefs and embrace self-determination. It's time for a Jeffersonian Revolution, building a future based on living, serving, and lifting one another up. #Underthrow Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com 

New from the Colson Center!  Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library! -- The year before he died, Chuck Colson delivered a Breakpoint commentary on the July Fourth holiday in which he reflected on our national identity. Specifically, he recognized that the only way to ground the ideals found in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal” and possess “certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” is if we are indeed “endowed by their Creator.”    The stunning clarity of the Declaration of Independence in stating that our rights are ultimately granted by God and not the state is something too often forgotten today, if not entirely dismissed. Here's Chuck Colson reflecting on this important truth:    The great British intellectual G.K. Chesterton wrote that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed.”   Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands—and the peasants who inhabited those lands.   But America was—and is to this day—different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or as Chesterton said, on a creed.   And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:   “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”   I'll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn't wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life, if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations.   Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking, indeed, revolutionary.   Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66% of American adults have no idea that the words, “we hold these truths,” come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45% of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration.   As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we embrace the American creed. Yes, America has always been a “melting pot.” But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot's “original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy.” A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked, “The pot must not melt.”   Abraham Lincoln understood this so well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was “the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”   So go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie.   But here's an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and neighbors.   Listen—and thrill—to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”   These are the words that Americans live for—and if necessary, die for.   Chuck Colson's words are just as true and relevant today as when he said them, and perhaps even more important for us to understand.   From all of us at the Colson Center, Happy Fourth!   For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org.  

Meet Evan, Jeff and special guest Paxon Holley at the All American Burger as they watch 1982's Fast Times at Ridgemont High, plus a discussion of Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian visions of society.  

How do we awaken and connect to the power of our authenticity to build prosperous and regenerative lives? In this episode Amisha talks with Richard Andrew Salony, an entrepreneur and philanthropist with a visionary life path. From a monastic community, where he lived as a young man for seven years before transitioning to a global tech entrepreneur; his gift is a visionary ability to not only anticipate ground shaking paradigm shifts, but also to develop tangible commercial strategies that result in mass market adoption. Today he launches, finances and advises companies, movements, products and services that replace antiquated systems and will ultimately lead us to a sustainable future. He holds events and serves as a guest speaker, participant in think tanks, conferences, gatherings and Jeffersonian dinners focused on establishing a new narrative for a sustainable future. Andrew shares his visionary journey from monk to organic food and later tech entrepreneur. He believes that three components are essential for us to cultivate a prosperous future; authenticity, empathy and a deeper connection with nature. They talk about the promise of psychedelics and AI as a way of flourishing prosperous futures and addressing our global mental health crisis resulting from disconnected mainstream cultures. Andrew believes that widespread use of plant medicines will awaken us into a society rooted in collective care and empathy rebuilding our loss of connection and authenticity. They reveal that AI has the potential to become a conscious technology that can support us on this quest by transforming our society through creative tools and businesses that are of service in ways yet unimaginable. We learn that each person has the creative ability to access all they need to flourish prosperity at any given time by cultivating their gifts of magnetism. Links from this episode and more at allthatweare.org

At its founding in 1819, Thomas Jefferson wanted UVA Law to prepare leaders and lawyers to serve the new nation, but students desired more practical legal training. Professor David Konig joins us to describe the shifting landscape of early nineteenth-century legal education.

Howdy everyone, and thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition. In today's episode, I give you this Jeffersonian's preferred methodology for navigating the modern Hamiltonian economic system. If you want me to cover a topic or elaborate further on any given episode, then reach out to me through the show's private MeWe group, or by contacting me at the show email address, which is mrjeffersonian@outlook.com. If you find value in the podcast, please consider becoming a supporting listener. One-time contributions can be sent to the show's cash app, http://cash.app/$MrJeffersonian . Recurring contributions can be made through the Anchor supporting listener link. Thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition! Sign up for MeWe today: https://mewe.com. Fuel the Jeffersonian Revolution today and buy your goldbacks here: Defy the Grid. Help us out with Little Miss Jeffersonian HERE --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mr-jeffersonian/support

Darrell Castle talks about the State of the Union Speech delivered by President Joe Biden on February 7, 2023. SOTU-2023 A LONG POINTLESS SPEECH Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 10th day of February in the year of our Lord 2023. I will be talking about the State of the Union Speech delivered Tuesday night, February 7th by President Joe Biden. I call the speech pointless because it has become just another campaign speech filled with lies and boondoggle promises of things that can't and should not be afforded. There are always a lot of promises of a glorious new future, but it is hard to see how this old politician can lead us into such a future. Yes, it was filled with lies or if you wish to be kind just a lot of political puffery. This entire Castle Report could be filled with nothing but a list of lies in the speech but what would be the point. I always dread the speech even if given by a president that I personally voted for let alone this one. This would have been a good year to return to the Jeffersonian practice of writing a letter and having it read to congress assembled by a clerk. Egos are just too strong, the allure of the TV cameras and the world press too much for today's politician to resist. The speech to a joint session is supposed to be a time for the United States to put the majesty and glory of its political system, its achievements, and its power before the world for all to see. So, the 80-year-old politician walks up to the podium and delivers a speech written by others but supposedly with his advice and approval. He brags about the economy and tells us that 12 million new jobs have been created on his watch, but he knows it is more like two million or not quite enough for each migrant he has invited. He doesn't mention that millions of families struggle every week to buy groceries which are up in price more than 20% on his watch. Those same families struggle to buy gas to get to work since it is now over $4.00 per gallon for many.  The whole world sees this octogenarian president shouting, whispering, and lying his way through the speech. I wonder if they know it is mostly lying as the Republicans in the room seem to know. The atmosphere is raucous more like a British Parliament speech and reminds me of the way they shouted at Trump. I wonder if they know as American families know that even for those with a decent salary, inflation outstrips wage growth causing them to lose ground each month. He tells us that America is a unique nation, one that always bounces back from adversity stronger than before. For evidence he cited Covid which shut down our businesses, closed our schools, and robbed us of so much today, but thanks to his efforts Covid no longer controls our lives. Well, no, Mr. President, Covid did not do all those horrible things, but the health authorities backed by government force did. I'm saying it was not Covid but your reaction to Covid that caused the problems. I point to Sweden as evidence because Sweden did not lock down and close businesses and that country suffered far less than we here in the U.S. did. I would suggest an apology to the millions of people whose lives were torn apart, their jobs taken away, their children barred from school rather than portraying yourself as some kind of conquering hero. Apology and accountability are in order, and we demand it from you and the government you lead. Perhaps the president's most cringeworthy moment was when he claimed that two years ago our democracy faced its greatest threat since the Civil War. That statement at least made me cringe and wonder how many people accept his claptrap as the truth. The truth is that two years ago we had an election in which people voted. The results of that election were contested but those who contested it didn't claim we should have no more elections. They didn't demand that we should stop being a democracy and go back to being a republic again although we should...

This week on the Thomas Jefferson Hour, Clay Jenkinson visits with Pat Brodowski, formerly the head gardener at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello. Pat explains how she found her way to Monticello, what she learned about Thomas Jefferson from working every day in his extensive garden, and how she is occupying her time now as a retiree. Plus, Pat gives tips to our listeners about how to grow something in the next year. Subscribe to the Thomas Jefferson Hour on YouTube. 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.

The negotiations between Speaker McCarthy and the 21 Reformers resulted in historic changes to the way Congress does business.  The Jeffersonian motion to vacate the chair existed for 200 years before it was removed by Nancy Pelosi.  Restoring it is real reform and with it we'll be voting on term limits, single subject bills which means Dems can't load them up with nonsense they like to add.  When Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell attack Republicans over the rules reform package, you know Republicans are on the right side of history.  Luna also wants to co-sponsor legislation to take care of veterans discharged for refusing the Covid vax, restore their careers and honorable service.   GUEST:  REP.  ANNA PAULINA LUNA, FLORIDA, ONE OF THE 21

Kevin R. C. Gutzman joins Liberty Law Talk to discuss his latest book, The Jeffersonians.

Carla is the Managing Director of THAXA, Inc. THAXA works with clients who are pursuing ambitious goals in the business and non-profit sectors achieve greater success through brutal focus. Bringing the best research from performance science to her work with clients, she helps them identify the most critical factors to reaching their goals to maximize their impact.Prior to founding THAXA, Carla attended Brown University, where she graduated magna cum laude with a BA in Human Biology. She then completed her MD PhD at the University of Washington, researching cancer immunology at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Continually passionate about high performance environments, she chose to complete her intern year in the field of general surgery at Stanford University. Following this, Carla returned to Seattle to found THAXA and apply her science background to conversations about performance to benefit clients.Outside of work, Carla enjoys running, hiking, and skiing the many trails and mountains of the Pacific Northwest. Her community involvement includes being a partner at Social Venture Partners where she has helped launch and moderate a new Jeffersonian dinner series around big ideas and challenges in philanthropyCarla is a member of the Washington Women's Foundation and Seattle Rotary and chairs the Board of Trustees for Bloodworks Northwest.

Eleven years ago today, Chuck Colson delivered a Breakpoint commentary on what would be his last July 4 holiday. In it, Chuck reflected on the basis of our national identity. Specifically, he recognized that the only true way to ground the ideals found in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal” and possess “certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” is if we are indeed “endowed by their Creator.”   The stunning clarity of the Declaration of Independence in stating that rights are granted ultimately by God, not the State, is something too often forgotten today, if not entirely dismissed. Here's Chuck Colson reflecting on this important truth:   The great British intellectual G.K. Chesterton wrote that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed.”  Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands—and the peasants who inhabited those lands.  But America was—and is to this day—different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or as Chesterton said, on a creed.  And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  I'll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn't wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations.  Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking, indeed, revolutionary.  Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66% of American adults have no idea that the words, “we hold these truths,” come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45% of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration.  As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we embrace the American creed. Yes, America has always been a “melting pot.” But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot's “original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy.” A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked, “The pot must not melt.”  Abraham Lincoln understood this so well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was “the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”  So go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie.  But here's an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and neighbors.  Listen—and thrill—to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  These are the words that Americans live for—and if necessary, die for.  Chuck Colson's words are just as relevant today, and perhaps even more important for us to understand. From all of us at the Colson Center, Happy 4th!