12 Burst results for "Claremont review of books"

"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

06:29 min | 6 months ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"The U. S on the line. Charles Kessler. He's editor of the Claremont Review Books or Clam UP REVIEW If you will professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. I want to say in his presence Consider the Climate review one of the two finest journals written in the American Today, the other City Journal. I'm a subscriber. Paid for my subscription I might add. I'd have known, honest man I am indeed. I have not asked for a free subscription. I know I would have gotten one. But I'd much rather a little little little way support you. You know, it's a big problem. It's so good. The Claremont Review. What I do is I event except I see the hard copy, then I then Find the article on the Internet. Keep it. On You know what's called collections on being and then it kills me because, like half your articles, I end up keeping your you're stuffing my hard drive. Let me put it now. It's really It's a magnificent do it. You know, that's right. No, I salute you for that, man. I salute you for your new book. The book is crisis of the two constitutions. Now listen to the subtitle, folks. The rise, decline and recovery of American greatness. Now. In a nutshell. You'll expound, but I want for the sake of my audience because I like giving things in a nutshell. The two constitutions are the founders. And if I may use the term the progressives or the left who believe in a living constitution, which means anything they want it to mean. And that's the battle. In America today is that a fair summary Yes, that's very good. That's a that's an excellent nutshell. Good know what's important. So he explains that this this This basically what I call a civil war. So tell me, I want to go to the end as it were at the beginning. What is your prognosis for a recovery? Well, the recovery part really is about Conservatism and how conservatism has done. In dealing with this dilemma. This contradiction between the old constitution the real constitution, so to speak. On the Liberals Constitution. The living one because I think conservatism was called into being, you know, back in the middle of the 20th century. Basically to deal with this problem and to try to revive the Founders Constitution as over against the Liberals Constitution, which is designed basically to replace their supplants. The original and attract all of its legitimacy shift all of its legitimacy to itself to the modern states, too. The way we govern ourselves now. And from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. You know, conservatives in power have attempted to rehabilitate the old constitution. Onboard to discipline or or if possible, eliminates. The living constitution. Um And so I wanted to ask really? How well that attempt to revive the sources of American greatness because I think the real sources are in the principles of the Constitution that both the moral principles And the political principles. Of 17 76 and 17 87. How well have we done And, uh way. I mean, it's good that we're fighting back. It's good that we recognize we have this. You know, Civilisational problem to try to solve But I have to say that our efforts to solve it from Reagan to Trump have not been availing. We haven't Put the living constitution so to speak on the road to extinction. We have we have not revived. In full, healthy older America. That Ronald Reagan spoke of in his farewell address. That's one of his great unstudied set pieces. I think 1989 he's leaving office. He says. You know, he succeeded in reviving the American economy. He has put the Soviet Union. He didn't put it this way, of course, but one could. In retrospect, he put the Soviet Union on the verge of extinction. And he had revived American patriotism. But she said the only dark cloud in the sun otherwise sunny skies of the farewell address. The problem is he had not institutionalized that. Patriotism. Well, all right, hold it there that I did not know about this address. Book is up. But that is Charles Kessler's book is up Dennis prager dot com Crisis The two constitutions. What the battle is really about Nerva renew. Is one of the handful of products I can't remember another one, but I'm I know I've done it before, but very rarely in my career. I've asked a product to advertise on my show. Because it made such a difference in my life. I wanted you to know about it. Nerve renew after taking it for about nine months to a year. All of a sudden I realized I could throw away my inserts. I've had pins and needles in my feet and then my not in my hands, but in my feet. And it's so helpful. They have a two week free trial and a one year money back guarantee. Nerve renew dot com They broke protocol by Joel She Rosenberg available Now, wherever books and E books are sold..

Charles Kessler Ronald Reagan Donald Trump Joel She Rosenberg Trump Reagan 1989 one year two week 17 America Claremont McKenna College two constitutions Dennis prager one today both Claremont a year Liberals Constitution
"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

790 KABC

05:20 min | 6 months ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

"Filed the monuments of our founders. There were a few people Charles Kessler and others. And Chris Flannery, who pointed out that this is what happens when you tell people offensive fied story in which everybody is either a villain or a victim. Right either. You're the like great sort of devil of whiteness, or you are a depressed Signoria. That's the only story they have about America. Of course, people are taking to the streets. Of course, there's arson and violence. When you tell people that long enough through enough channels and then when this was pointed out And somebody said, You know, we should call these the 16 19 riots. Nicole Hannah Jones said It would be an honor. Thank you. Thank you Actual aim. Yeah, That's right. So cool. So I agree with all of this. I mean, I think this really gives great insight. It's a not to use a Roman expression. Actually, this is the time expression say, non event. I've been provider, you know, usually friends anything? If it's not true, you know, Hey, At least it makes a good story. It's well discovered as well. So I agree with with all of that, and they are telling his new stories, and it really interesting point you make is when we compare ourselves right now to the fall of Rome. The issue is in the fall of the Roman Empire. It's It's the fall of the Roman Republic, and actually, Rome had some pretty great years under an empire. They kind of come to their identity with the rise of the empire with the rise of Caesar Augustus. So so maybe we're we are at the beginning of something new. But what do you say to this? This leftist may be subjective ist kind of angle here that well, if it's all just stories, right, if it's all just for telling each other narratives, why is one narrative any better than any other narrative when it comes to American history? It is a great question, so the sort of left the line for a long time has bean. Yeah, it's stories all the way down. It's just you know you like there's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so that the person who can construct the most appealing narrative is an ancient viewpoint. There were there were philosophers in Greece before Socrates, who thought this essentially That My argument is not that there's no such thing as an important historical story. I think stories the way that we depict things not just the way that we tell facts, but the way that we paint paintings and the way that we sing songs all the stuff right, hugely important for forgetting the emotional power of the truth across, but the key is right. The stories exist for a purpose, just like words exist for a purpose. Words exists to communicate ideas. Stories exist to communicate emotions and to communicate the spiritually reality of what happened. So even if in a painting, you know you paint the crossing of the Delaware with this kind of glorious stream of sunlight when in fact it was It was like a miserable hardship. You're communicating something there about the emotional truth of what went on that This was a noble valiente. Brave endeavor that was God favored right? You can use words to tell the truth, and you can use words to lie. You can use stories to tell the truth, and you can use stories to lie. This is what the left fundamentally denies is that there is no such thing as a true or false story. There's just stories right. But in fact, right there is an emotional and spiritual reality of our founding. It was a God blessed the fantastic eruption of some new Western Liberty. Into a world that had yet to be discovered essentially by by Europeans. That is a miraculously event and to portray it as if it were just subterfuge on the part of, you know, evil masterminds trying to trying to subject ate the You know the downtrodden is simply to lie. It's not just to tell factory all right, because, of course, the 16 19 projects. Is factually false has its own fact checkers have said, but but beyond that, it's artistically false. It's a depiction of what this was at a spiritually emotional level. That is just not true. Wow, There is so much there, and it seems that our culture seems to get it wrong and every step of the way Yes, the 16 19 project. The central thesis is just as a historical matter. It's just wrong. And beyond that there are stories. There are frames, you know that we can have to look at our history. But it's not just all stories all the way down. It's that stories can be truer or false er than other stories and there is a A truth to the founding of our country to the heart of our country, And when we inevitably tell the stories about what that's going to be, I would like us to tell the true story. I would like us which which actually is a lot better than the trash that were being taught in schools. We have to leave it there. Mr Clay oven. We've barely skimmed the surface of your excellent essay, which I recommend people go read it. The CRB That's an ES and US by Spencer Clayton also, listen. It's my favorite podcast. Young heretics. Go listen to it. I right after you listen to mine but go, But you really should. Really. It's my fate. My favorite podcast these days Go take a listen and follow Spencer's work at The American mind and the Claremont Review Books, Mr. Clint Dr Clay even thank you for coming on and helping us clear up a little bit about our history. Michael. It's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for having all right. See you soon. We got to take a quick break. I'm Michael Knowles filling in for the Ben Shapiro show. Do not go anywhere. Do not touch.

Chris Flannery Charles Kessler Spencer Clayton Nicole Hannah Jones Michael Knowles Michael Ben Shapiro Spencer Greece Socrates 16 19 riots Delaware Roman US Caesar Augustus Roman Empire America one narrative Clay oven Rome
"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

06:38 min | 8 months ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Welcome back to the dam Prop show question we've been grappling with over the last many weeks is effectively can a free society exist with Sort of cultural no go zone, spaced on one's particular views political views. A. Perhaps even more fundamental question is can America existed in a free society if we as a nation are living Under two different constitutions or framework for what we think. Founding principles. The framework as I mentioned to different frameworks of our nation of this representative republic. This experiment in Small D democracy. Can we exist as a free society and with that sort of dynamic Help us answer that question. We're pleased to be joined by Charles Cussler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books and author of Crisis of the Two Constitutions, the Rise, Decline and Recovery of American Greatness. Charles. Thanks for joining us appreciate it. Well, it's a pleasure to be here, Dan. Thanks for the invitation. Yeah, And so the two constitutions that we're operating under described those for us. Well, it's um you know, it's a bad thing to have one country and to constitutions because you're in. You're in a kind of cold. Civil war situation, and I think that's sort of where we are right now. The two constitutions I'm talking about are the original constitution as amended the Constitution of individual rights On DCA incentive, the govern and limited government and all that we associate with that federalism and bicameral ism all these great civics ideas that go back to the original Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And that's one of America's constitutions. The other one, which is much younger, but it's now over 100 years old is really the Liberals, Constitution or the progressive. Constitution and that is what they like to call the living constitution. We hear this term whenever a Supreme Court justice is going to be confirmed yours up for confirmation. That liberal like Justice Sotomayor or whomever is very, um, skeptical in a way about the the hidebound time bound constitution of your But it is very gung ho about the Constitution of today and the day after tomorrow, and that constitution, the living Constitution is the Liberals. Vehicle, basically for transforming America and they they've been pretty successful at it, and it is the term itself. Living Constitution implies. At the old Constitution. The real one so to speak, is dead. Or at least that it's on life support. It's it's used a sort of Ah, A talisman Rhetorical talisman. I'm doing this under color of the Constitution. Give it gravitas when really the leftist forever finding and new and exciting pin numbers and emanations by which to Expand or contract with the black Letter of the Constitution says Yes, that's right. I mean, for a long time. For a couple of the first couple of generations of modern liberalism or progressivism. They did talk about the convergence. You know that the old Constitution and their new constitution would grow together. And eventually they would be indistinguishable from one another. But they gave up that slow motion argument in the 19 sixties and then again in the 19 nineties after the end of the Cold War. And they sort of pulled out all the stops. And they have a very impatient Politics Now, as you know, they can hardly wait to discover a new right. On to apply it. Aunt to limit the power of the elected parts of government. That's really the bread and butter of American progressivism now for quite a long time well, and that's where I want to go when we come back, because so the new rights they're inventing that imposed responsibilities on others the right to an education the right to housing the right to health care. And the enshrined writes the God given rights as memorialized in the bill of Rights that they're constricting like, Oh, I don't know. Freedom of speech on D, how you rediscover how we get to the Constitution as it was. Originally conceived in this environment, where many on the right don't really want to make arguments against the notion that education, health care housing Gear, a certain income level are indeed right, Moral. Charles Cussler editor. The Claremont Review Books, author of Crisis of the Two Constitutions. The Rise Decline in Recovery of American Greatness will be right back. The more you listen no more. You know, this'll just the damn profit shop. What do Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump all have in common? They all attended private schools chosen by their parents. Do you believe that all family should have school choice just like they did. On average taxpayers spent $15,424 per student on K through 12 public education. American Federation for Children believes that all families, especially lower income families, should have the right to use those tax dollars to give their child the best education environment that meets their needs. Whether that's had a district charter magnet, private home or with virtual education. During times of covert the American Federation for Children believe that parents deserve a portion of that $15,424 to use for home. Virtual or private education, especially of public schools. Do not reopen for in person classes. If you agree, and you support school choice, go to fund my child now calm and signed the petition. That's fund my child now dot com Follow along on social media at school choice. Now what.

Charles Cussler Barack Obama Joe Biden Donald Trump $15,424 Dan Crisis of the Two Constitution Crisis of the Two Constitution American Federation for Childr 19 sixties Charles 19 nineties Declaration of Independence Cold War today one country first couple The Rise Decline in Recovery o American over 100 years
"claremont review books" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

10:59 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Welcome back this is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three essay in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench perish I really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense right to the main point of the article is to say that look the embassy has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump who's an anti establishment figure who the destructor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is been obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the end I say as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of it and said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage in Washington is saying Hallelujah Hosanna absolutely true it you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute he wanted to change the stuff you can get elected you're just in that job because you're an unelected members of your Christie what do you get to decide right well the reality is giving in to see some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million given some real money say two hundred million and what the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this it's a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is well over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he once who agree with him who are going to implement his position makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing defend but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see if the problem I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves as track on the president's foreign policy in the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard to Ukraine so the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until you know earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia inadvertently he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why does every time I talk to European leader they tell me you have to do more for Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it's been about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy works through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground and that was after he explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we weren't going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell convert leave that aside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the in Peter's to establish but they can keep trying lawmakers you know the present is from inside the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning Beres mine and Joe Biden the Democrats are basically suggesting this entire in this tire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that quality transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like you sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that held a concert version Ukraine but it was not about Biden specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has well I you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and you have had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more and in three you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people but it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for to getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically corrupt I don't know I guess that's a case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey we you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we know I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor of the peace would ask is okay so if trouble so concerned about Biden hunter Biden and why not just go to William Barr many AG is already investigating the origins of trump Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election wanna go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either he wanted you pray to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he has had that conversation with the Attorney General I've been it's call telecom slash transcripts suggest that he had has had a conversation with the Attorney General or at least suggest that he intended to but the bottom line here though is there's only so much that in in the US department of justice that US investigators can find out without the cooperation of a foreign government if the specific act in question happened in that point country or in channels run by that foreign government right so if you really want to find out you can ask did you turn in general you can ask the American officials to find out as much as they can but eventually they're gonna hit roadblocks that they're not gonna be able to overcome without the cooperation of the foreign government where the activity actually took place love the taxes the president of the United States continues to be under such severe investigation despite the fact that there's a lot of angry as to as to motive in exactly what he was doing is against a monster of the gap between him and his own national security which is like the administration throughout my glance thanks much for stopping by really appreciate senior fellow claimants to go check out his latest column over daily caller Michael appreciate your time thank coming up we're gonna take some questions from the Ben Shapiro so mail that that's all that.

Ben Shapiro trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute president Michael Anton
"claremont review books" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

09:59 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Welcome back this is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problem is the president comes out of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three essay in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench Perisher really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and as C. those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest that the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense right the main point of the article is to say that the NSA has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president doesn't mean the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump anti establishment figure who the disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is but obviously anyone who's ever worked in the NSA as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of it and said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage in Washington is saying how Louis who is an absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute you know what to DO changed stuff you didn't get elected you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the driver see where do you get to decide right well the remedy is give the NSC some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million give it some real money say two hundred million and let the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this is a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget as well over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars of that the president can hire the people he once who agree with him who are going to implement his position makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president the democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to say but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see as problems I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves as check on the president's foreign policy in the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president has behavior with regard to Ukraine so the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his house in Ukraine because up until earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped to the recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia inadvertently he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why did every time I talk to European leader they tell me you have to do more for you crane but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic option in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it's been about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy works through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground and that was after he explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we were going to give me a lesson investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell conduct leave at five the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the democratic thirty and for the in Peter's to establish but they can keep trying so my guess is you know the present Yzerman said the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here but what I was mentioning Beres mine and Joe Biden the Democrats are basically suggesting this entire in this entire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that policy transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like you sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those it may have been founded on on bad ideas like the idea that held a concert version Ukraine but it was not about buying specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him that would usually only I would say he has well I you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more and in three you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people to the peach bowl I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for to getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically corrupt I don't know I guess that's a case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey when you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we now I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by a foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our systems and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happens so I guess I guess Michael the the the question and that people on the left and people who are in favor the impeachment ask is okay so if trouble so concerned about Biden hunter Biden then why not just go to William Barr many AG is already investigating the origins of trump Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election wanna go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either that he wanted to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he have had that conversation with the Attorney General I you know it's called helicon slash transcripts suggest that he had has had a.

Ben Shapiro president National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute Michael Anton
"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

10:09 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Welcome back this is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three S. saying the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench perish I really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest that the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense right to the main point of the article is to say that look the NSC has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump anti establishment figure who the disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question the lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is an obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the NSA as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of them said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage Washington is saying how Louis Hosanna absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute he wanted to change the stuff you can get acted you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the bureaucracy where do you get to decide right what the remedy is to the end of season real money its budget is very small under fifteen million give it some real money say two hundred million and let the president hire people he wants that two hundred million is not that much I hate to say this it's a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is we well over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he wants who agree with him who are going to implement his position makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to send but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see this process I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves track on the president's foreign policy and the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard to Ukraine to the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until you know earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia indeed Burton Lee he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why does every time that I talked to European leader they tell me you have to do more for Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it's been about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy works through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground that was a catchy explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we weren't going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell Condit leave that aside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the teachers to establish but they can keep trying so my guess is you know the present is from inside the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning Beres ma and Joe Biden the Democrats basically suggested this entire in this tire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that was the transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like you sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that Hillary Clinton was in Ukraine but it was not about Biden specifically was that his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has well I you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact what happened number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more in in you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people that it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for the getting paid for the access for their connections and so on is that legally technically correct I don't know I guess that's case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey we you guys doing something corrupt with the former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we know I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by a foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States you want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor the impeachment ask is okay so if trump was so concerned about Biden hunter Biden and why not just go to William Barr mean the AG is already investigating the origins of from Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election wanna go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either he wanted you pray to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he have had that conversation with the Attorney General I you know the call tell con slash transcripts suggest that he had has had a conversation with the Attorney General or at least suggest that he intended to but the bottom line here though is there's only so much that in the US department of justice that.

Ben Shapiro trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute president Michael Anton
"claremont review books" Discussed on News Radio 810 WGY

News Radio 810 WGY

10:25 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on News Radio 810 WGY

"Instructing Kelly coming up this morning stupid criminals at six fifty eight ten one two three one WG welcome back is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three S. in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench perish I really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller this week talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense right to the main point of the article is to say that look the NSC has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump anti establishment figure who the destructor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is an obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the end I say as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of them said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage Washington is saying Hallelujah is an absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute you know what to DO changed stuff you can get elected you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the bureaucracy where do you get to decide right well the remedy is giving in to see some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million give it some real money say two hundred million and what the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this is a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is well over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars that the president can hire the people he wants who agree with him who are going to implement his position makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to fan but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see it as a problem I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves check on the president's foreign policy and the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard Ukraine's of the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until your earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particular with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift at that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have a shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia in a burden Lee he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why did every time that I talked to European leader they tell me you have to do more for you crane but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more than European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say I spent about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisors of the policy work through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground at that was key explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we weren't going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell convert we've outside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the teachers to establish but they can keep trying to make this is you know the present is certain side administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning the reason I enjoy by the Democrats basically suggested this entire in this tire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that quasi transcript if you if you listen of the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as my of ideas about Ukraine it seems like these are just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that held a conserver is in Ukraine but it was not about buying specifically was that his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has you know I want to restate that he has basically three concerns and have had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more and then you're actually right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people but it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books which will be available in a week or two and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry are things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for the getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically corrupt I don't know I guess that's a case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey when you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we know I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by a foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor of the impeachment **** okay so if trouble so concerned about Biden hunter Biden and why not just go to William Barr many AG is already investigating the origins of trump Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election when I go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either he wanted you pray to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he have had that conversation with the Attorney General I you know what it's called helicon slash transcripts suggest that he had had had a conversation with the Attorney General or at least suggest that he intended to but the bottom line here though is there's only so much that in the US department of justice that US investigators can find out without the cooperation of a foreign government if the specific act in question happened in that point country or in channels run by that foreign government right so if you really want to find out you can ask to do that the Attorney General you can ask the American officials to find out as much as they can but eventually they're gonna hit roadblocks that they're not gonna be able to overcome without the cooperation of the foreign government where the activity actually took place I thank the president of the United States continues to be under such severe investigation despite the fact that there's a lot of angry as.

Kelly Ben Shapiro trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute president Michael Anton two hundred million dollars six months
"claremont review books" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

11:31 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"The whole foods market app tomorrow the gross plan show well looks like Mister right hand with a whimper and not it's not welcome back is the denture hero show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also a former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three S. saying the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench perish I really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller this week talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those who become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest that the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and as she is somehow an impeachable offense the main point of the article is to say that look the NSC has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump who's an anti establishment figure who's a disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with him and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is an obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the NSA as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of them said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage in Washington is saying Hallelujah Hosanna absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute he wanted to change the stuff you can get elected you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the bureaucracy where do you get to decide right what the remedy is giving in to see some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million given some real money say two hundred million and what the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this is a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is were all over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he wants who agree with him who are going to implement his positions makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing defend him but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see if the problem I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves track on the president's foreign policy in the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard Ukraine's of the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy any great because up until earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with the initial he didn't have it shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia inadvertently he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why did every time I talk to European leader they tell me you have to do more for Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why is it so you can American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say spent about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy work through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground that was a catchy explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we weren't going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell convert we've outside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the in Peter's to establish but they can keep trying so my guess is you know the present is certain side administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning Beres mine and Joe Biden the Democrats are basically suggesting this entire in desire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that quality transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like he sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that held a conserver is in Ukraine but it was not about my specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has you know how to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more and then you're actually right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money on wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people but it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books which will be available in a week or two and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry are things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for the getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically corrupt I don't know I guess that's case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey we you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we now I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by a foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen in the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor of the impeachment **** okay so if from was so concerned about my can hunter Biden and why not just go to William Barr many AG is already investigating the origins of trump Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election when I go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either he wanted you pray to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he has had that conversation with the Attorney General I you know the call tell con slash transcripts suggest that he had has had a conversation with the Attorney General or Lee suggested that he intended to but the bottom line here though is there's only so much that in the U. S. department of justice that US investigators can find out without the cooperation of a foreign government if the specific act in question happened in that point country or in channels run by that foreign government right so if you really want to find out you can ask to do that did you turn in general you can ask the American officials to find out as much as they can but eventually they're gonna hit roadblocks that they're not gonna be able to overcome without the cooperation of the foreign government where the activity actually took place no this is the president of the United States continues to be under such severe investigation despite the fact that there's a lot of angry as to as to motive in exactly what he was doing is against a monster of the gap between him and his own national security which is played the ministrations route Michael and thanks so much for stopping by really appreciated senior fellow cleverness to go check out his latest column over daily caller Michael appreciate your time thank coming up we will discuss again what exactly happened here we're gonna go through the latest testimony we're gonna go through everything that Taylor had to say would know through everything that Kent had to say well that's all that in just a second first we got to talk about your safety and security online let's talk about express VPN expressed begins now I used to stay secure online why should you care about encryption your data.

trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute Mister president Michael Anton two hundred million dollars six months
"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

790 KABC

09:39 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

"It right Hey yeah seven nine K. see welcome back is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three essay in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller this week talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense so the main point of the article is to say that look the NSC has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump who's an anti establishment figure who's a disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is been obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the end I say as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of them said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage Washington is saying Hallelujah Hosanna absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute he wanted to change the stuff you can get elected you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the bureaucracy where do you get to decide right what the remedy is give the NSC some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million given some real money say two hundred million and let the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this is a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is all over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he wants who agree with him who are going to implement his positions makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to fan but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see if the problem I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves as track on the president's foreign policy and the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard to Ukraine to the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia inadvertently he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why did every time that I talked to European leader they tell me you have to do more for Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it spent about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy work through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground that was a key explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we were going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell convert we've outside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the in Peter's to establish but they can keep trying Mike this is you know the present is from inside the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning the reason I enjoy by the Democrats basically suggested this entire in this entire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that quasi transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as my own ideas about Ukraine it seems like he's or just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that Hillary Clinton is in Ukraine but it was not about Biden specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more in in for you you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money on wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people that it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books which will be available in a week or two and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for the getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically correct I don't know I guess that's a case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey when you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we know I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor the.

Ben Shapiro trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute president Michael Anton two hundred million dollars seven nine K six months
"claremont review books" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

11:09 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Back is the denture hero show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems the president from terror though National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three S. in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench perish I really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller this week talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense the main point of the article is to say that look the NSC has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president doesn't mean the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump who's an anti establishment figure who's a disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is been obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the end I say as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of them said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage Washington is saying Hallelujah Hosanna absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute you know what to DO changed stuff you didn't get elected you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the bureaucracy where do you get to decide right well the remedy is giving in to see some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million give it some real money say two hundred million and let the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this is a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is all over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he wants who agree with him who are going to implement his positions makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to send but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see this process I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet were basically seeing themselves as check on the president's foreign policy in the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard to Ukraine to the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until now earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president trump to shift at that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped to the recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia indeed verdant Lee he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why did every time I talk to European leader they tell me you have to do more Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it's been about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisors of the policy works through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground that was a tricky explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we were going to give any aid unless an investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell convert leave outside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the democratic ready and for the teachers to establish that they can keep trying so my guess is you know the present is from inside the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning Beres Maya and Joe Biden the Democrats basically suggested this entire in this entire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that policy transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like you sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that Hillary Clinton is in Ukraine but it was not about buying specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has well I you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more and in three you're you're actually right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money on wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people that it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books which will be available in a week or two and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for the getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically corrupt I don't know I guess that's case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump's asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey we you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we now I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our systems and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor of the impeachment **** okay so if trouble so concerned about Biden hunter Biden and why not just go to William Barr many AG is already investigating the origins of trump Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election wanna go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either he wanted you pray to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he has had that conversation with the Attorney General I you know it's called help Khan slash transcripts suggest that he had had had a conversation with the Attorney General or at least suggest that he intended to but the bottom line here though is there's only so much that in the U. S. department of justice that US investigators can find out without the cooperation of a foreign government if the specific act in question happened in that point country or in channels run by that foreign government right so if you really want to find out you can ask the Attorney General you can ask the American officials to find out as much as they can but eventually they're gonna hit roadblocks that they're not gonna be able to overcome without the cooperation of the foreign government where the activity actually took place I thank the president of the United States continues to be under such severe investigation despite the fact that there's a lot of angry as to as to motive in exactly what he was doing is against a monster of the the gap between him and his own national security which is like the administration throughout my Clinton thanks much for stopping by really appreciated senior fellow cleverness to go check out his latest column over daily caller Michael appreciate your time thank coming up we will discuss again what exactly happened here we're gonna go through the latest testimony we're gonna go through everything that Taylor had to say would know through everything that tent had to say well that's all that in just a second first we got to.

president National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute Michael Anton two hundred million dollars six months
"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

06:00 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Back. This is the Ben Shapiro show. So Bernie Sanders an open socialist he may not actually be radical enough for the Democratic Party. This is why unfortunately, I feel like constitutional concerns have gone by the wayside, and we let off with President Trump talking about his emergency declaration. And he says, listen, I know that I may be violating the constitution here. But if you're worried that I'm setting a precedent will Democrats are going to do it. Anyway, because they have no limits when you look at the Democratic Party, it's hard not to feel the same sort of flight ninety three urgency that was expressed by Michael Anton in this famous piece for the Claremont review books back in two thousand sixteen he suggested basically the country's gonna crash anyway, you got to vote for Trump because you got to try to storm the cockpit. The metaphor didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. But if you look at the Democratic Party right now, it does feel like this is a party that is determined to drive America into the ground. And this is a party that does not care about constitutional limits or even frankly the limits of decency. Bernie Sanders is not intersectional enough for them to socialist did not intersectional enough. So for example, CNN's Bakari sellers. He came out on CNN last night. He said, listen, I know burning marched with Martin Luther King. This is one of the good part of Burmese records. But he says that's not enough burning isn't intersectional enough. He was criticized last time for not connecting effectively with the African American community is part of what he needs to do to get the nomination. I know you're not necessarily Rudy. I think that Bernie Sanders has a long way to go. And I there's a certain part of me that believe that ship is already said, I mean, it's not the fact that Bernie Sanders marched with Dr king in the sixties. I think that was one of the first things that he said the question was where have you been what have you done since then has been whereas your activism been since the sixties? Okay. Well, here's the problem for this Macari sellers, does speak the language of the basement. He is talking to the democratic base. But the democratic base is not the entire voting population of the United States, nor is it even the voting population of the Democratic Party. There's a poll out of South Carolina today. Here's what it chose chose the Joe Biden. And Bernie Sanders are the only two candidates to reach double digits in the democratic primary Biden has thirty seven percent of the vote right now in South Carolina. Followed by Bernie with twenty one percent of the vote. Kamala Harris comes in third with nine percents of the vote. Cory Booker has six percent beta Iraq, Elizabeth Warren, both received five Elizabeth Warren is toast. She has done. She's not a competitor. In this race. Kamala Harris, though is charging really low among black voters. And that's what's so fascinating about this among. African American democratic primary voters Biden has forty-three percent of the vote. Sanders has fifteen percents of the vote Harris's at nine. So for all the talk about how intersection is going to rule the future. The reality is is a minority even in the Democratic Party, probably, but it is a minority that is now running the party the folks who care so much about race and sex and the intersection thereof. Those people run the heart of the Democratic Party. But the Democratic Party is not relegated to just those people. On the issue of reparations for African Americans. Thirty one percents of respondents among Democrats agree with the policy forty six percents disagree. That issue is not helping Kamla Harris with South Carolina democratic primary voters, according to the poll seventy nine percent of them support reparations, but they are breaking for Joe Biden nearly four to one. By the way, President Trump has a positive approval rating of fifty percents in the state. So in any case, this is sort of the point as the Democratic Party moves ever further to left President Trump's chances get even better as I've said for a long time, if President Trump can just let the Democrats go crazy and continue to go crazy and not go crazy himself. He may be in good shape and good good news for him, the Democrats appear to be going fully crazy. They're now eating their own. So Ilhan Omar continues to be a fresh face of the Democratic Party incredibly fresh as well as face. I mean on the cover of Rolling Stone with Nancy Pelosi who also is a fresh face. Meaning that she's had a chemical peel in the last thirty days in any case Ilhan, Omar. Will not stop at the anti-semitism. I mean legitimately will not stop can't stop won't stop turn down for what age. She incredible she's made three openly anti semitic public statements in the last month and a half and has apologized twice. Not for this latest one, and she's being celebrated by the Democratic Party. So fearful of ticking off their intersectional base. How do you think is going to play with the broader American public? I don't think it's gonna play all that. Well, so over the weekend, Il Il, mar so Nita Lowey tweeted out Nita Lowey Democratic Congress person from New York, and here is sort of what happened. I it's a couple of things Bill Maher last week suggested once again, the Jews were Jews in America and American Israel. Supporters demonstrating tool wilty loyalty to Israel as well as loyalty to America. And then if the two came into conflict, it was really going to be loyalty to Israel that one out then in West Virginia, some idiots at West Virginia GOP wanting L Hanno Marta. Hold their beer. Apparently, they tweeted out or they put up a poster that had a picture of nine eleven and it had never forget you said, and then underneath it was a picture of Ilhan, Omar saying, you forgot is though Ilhan Omar is somehow a member of al-qaeda Ilan Amar is is is terrible in a lot of lay. She's not a member of al-qaeda. That's absurd. It's absurd. And indeed it is quote, unquote, Islam-phobic it's Islam phobic in the sense that not every Muslim is a sense is a member of al-qaeda. Doesn't mean Mars any great shakes. She's not. She's joked about all kinds of before she is she is essentially expressed sympathy for other terrorist groups like Hamas Hezbollah, but is she responsible for now? Of course, she is not, but when she has called on her own, but but the amount of inside the Democratic Party it turned into well, you know, let's do this. This is llama phobia against is truly terrible. But we're just going to ignore the whole thing, nor the fact that she's Nancy semi. I'll explain in just a second. First. Let's talk about your impending doom getting life insurer. Can feel like assembling the world's worst, jigsaw puzzle. It's confusing. It takes forever when you're finally done. It doesn't even look cool. But here is the thing if you have a mortgage or kids or anyone who depends on your income you need to solve that puzzle. You need to make sure that you are prepared in case God forbid, the worst should happen..

Democratic Party Bernie Sanders President Trump Joe Biden Kamala Harris Ilhan Omar South Carolina Martin Luther King America CNN Ben Shapiro Israel al-qaeda Elizabeth Warren Nancy Pelosi African American community Claremont review Cory Booker Nita Lowey
"claremont review books" Discussed on Talk 650 KSTE

Talk 650 KSTE

14:32 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on Talk 650 KSTE

"Four nine zero zero buck that's eight four four nine zero zero two eight two five or we've talked a lot this evening in particular an hour. One about the deficiency is on the democratic side, both ideologically and tactically. But at the same time the world is in some ways also going their way now in January Tucker Carlson said the Republican intellectual world ablaze by our ticketing in a sense. Why Trump won namely that he called out a failed into intellectual elite a failed ruling class starting with Mitt Romney. And this was in response in part to Mitt Romney is anti-trump editorial in the Washington Post, and what Tucker rays were many failings of the starting with the fact that they're not really ruling for the common. Good anymore so much as the good of third world nations or feel good. Policies that make them feel as if they're virtuous and compassionate people, regardless of the outcomes for their supposed beneficiaries while they continue to enrich themselves and accrue more power. Dr Matt Peterson has written extensively about this. He's the vice president of education at the Claremont institute and editor of the American minds. And he wrote the peace at that new website. The American mind where argues Tucker Carlson is right now for two scores are before we jump in. I'm a pavilion at the Kremlin institute. And I continue to work with them. Because I think they're a great institution that's doing God's work in trying to restore America's founding principles Dr Peterson thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much that introduction. Ben. Thanks. What's it's my pleasure. And thank you for writing. This piece wet start at the highest level, which is how in your view have our elites found us. Oh, gosh. There's so many ways I would start though with a misunderstanding of American principles and purpose. The first failing you'd have to talk about is that the education of our elites of sales to understand and distinguish what is distinctive about America. And what Merican the American principles of government aren't there for what we ought to be aiming at what's the purpose? And so what you have what you see in lead society is a willingness or an aura a culture that is very reluctant to embrace something distinctly American, and it's much more apt to say what's wrong with America. Right. And it's the suspicious of patriotism, I would start there. And then the problem is that outside of that. If you don't have a way to to to be a patriotic elite, or you're not taught what the principles and purposes of your government, are you then descend to self interest, right? The only other thing you have in the academy is self interest or some form of Ben's social Justice woke doctrine, right? So this this is an enormous problem. It's been going on for a long time. It's been building for a long time. But what you see now or people like Tucker talking about it explicitly on the right in ways that really annoying house for some time. There's a political element, of course. But if you believe that politics is downstream from the culture part of what comes out of our elites are sort of norms governing practices for how to live your life. And that comes well before we talk about policies Charles Murray, whose work I'm sure you're very well familiar with talks about in one of his books. The idea that the Elliott's don't preach what they practice. In other words, they sort of promote an anything goes progressive utopic sorta worldview where they reject the traditional values and principles on which our entire civilization is based but then in their own lives. They live. Very conventionally, and they really do a disservice when they exhibit certain behavior in their rhetoric and other behavior in their private life. Do you think that factors into the sort of Tucker and your view as well? Absolutely. I think Tucker is a hundred percent right about this. Obviously Charles Marie has spearheaded the proof of this in in very real and damning social science. So what you see is that when you are a member of the elite, you're reluctant to adopt any policy that actively promotes the health of the family at the same time that you know, because of your station, you know, that getting married is a good idea. Stay married is a good idea. Marriage is much healthier among elites than it is among the rest of society. And so this is where Tucker really made his Mark. This is why Tucker's monologue resonated throughout the country. What he said was quote, co culture economics are inseparably intertwined certain economic systems allow families to thrive and thriving families make market economies possible. That's what he said. And so what he did is is do something. Different. He said, no, no, no. You can't just treat policy is it separate from the promotion or the denigration of the family. I can is it used to be called as is used to call political economy economics is necessarily tied to to to morality and to promoting certain kinds of behavior and rewarding and punishing other kinds of behavior. Discouraging it, and I don't really should be controversial. But unfortunately, a lot of rhetoric on the right were just used to. We have adopted over the last few decades makes it controversial to say these things I think it's kind of a truism that an economy derives from a culture and embedded in that to your point is the idea that morality matters, and it clearly functions in a free market and a capitalist system doesn't just arise out of nowhere. Otherwise, the people who had claimed that China, for example, would become economic would become politically liberal and socially liberal. Because it's economically liberal. They would have been proven, right? If it was that economics decided, but actually it's the other way around and it starts with people and their own voluntary actions. Now, the criticism of Tucker's PS, and you deal with this in European as well is that if the free market, we it's to certain disasters in society, creative destruction implies both not only creation, but also destruction. And there's real societal cost to that. Then is Tucker arguing and our folks like you who support his argument than arguing that we should sort of rebel against the free market in some ways because there are societal losses in free market systems as well. I think it's a matter of priority. I think I think the best way to understand it is that. Sure does desire a free market in the sense that we we do have a drive within us right to be creative to take initiative to buy and sell things among amongst ourselves forth, and so on but in order to do that we need a governmental structure around it some way. But the stylish is kind of rules of the game and points us in certain directions as opposed others. So let me give an example because I understand absolutely why many people might be listening saying, I'm not sure what this guy's talking about. Well, I don't know if I acquired a Greeley sounds like, you know, some kind of socialism. Great society type doctor, and this is not what we're talking about. It's not what Tucker Carlson said that our leaders should speak out against the ugliest parts of our franchise system because not all commerce is good. Commerce is inside harmful. And so what are the questions? He asked was why why is it defensible alone people money for people money that they can't possibly repay so take payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods. Right. Four hundred percent annual interest at this is this is this is a practice where you might raise. The question. Mark may say why is this commerce? Good. And in fact, in American history ABRAHAM LINCOLN when he first ran for office said, you know, loaning money to poor people at exorbitant rates of interest in idea, no Webster during the ratification debates said, look, you can't separate the morals of the people from the influence of money on men sense of Justice and more obligation. The law influences are habit, and we should restrict credit to people who won't be able to pay money back in order to encourage them to to save and be responsible. Now, I think that's a matter of common sense. But, but when you when you have a kind of a brittle conservative rhetoric really is libertarian in a way, right? That says well, there's no connection. That's why people are upset with what? Tucker was saying. But I think no Webster was right, right? Lost credit for four people be helping courage. Good bad. So that leads to a fundamental question. Which is is it government's job in some way to promote virtue people instantly sort of recoil when you talk about should government be promoting certain moral values and principles and not others. Do you believe that it is the fundamental job of government to do? So. I think that the first instinctual reaction of many older conservatives would be to say, what are you talking about the Taliban had a department of virtue, and vice last thing, we do is we last thing we want is to increase the power of district stink. And there's certainly a lot of truth to that. In a way, I agree with that hundred percent the same time, we can't neglect. What law is and here the American founders can help us out because they did not promote it kind of great society where government interfered in every part of people's lives on the other hand. There's not lied to themselves and think that law and policy on matters of numbers. I dunno matters of economic policy. We're just kind of morally neutral, they knew that law either encourages or discourages certain kinds of habit and certain kinds of kinds of behavior and they didn't pretend otherwise so. So the way I put it is. Of course, government and lock can't reach inside people and make them virtuous that that certainly is not something that law can do directly. In fact, other solutions to be doing that much more directly than government. I mean. Reward certain kinds of behavior and encourage it right, certain kinds of habits and ways of life and discourage other kinds of habits and ways of life and to pretend otherwise I think is very dangerous where does Trump factor in in this thesis, I mentioned in my open that in some sense what Tucker was explaining why Trump won while the Elliott's failed. He called them out on it. What is the takeaway in terms of what the future of conservatism looks like is there something within Trump that recognizes the problem, and you can say here are the sorts of policies that we might wanna push for based upon what he saw on the electorate, so I guess one question. What does the future of conservatism, look like to whether Republican rank and file simply reject this out of hand and take the sort of you that? Well, look this was a blip in US history. This president actually rejected everything that we show it and our twenty twelve autopsy of why Mitt Romney lost and the status. Will ultimately, prevail. Again. Well, I am certainly view that even though there are many people in Washington and elsewhere in power. Who've been always President Trump. I mean, they they think that once President Trump leaves the scene, and of course, they hope to force him out off the scene force him off the stage. They hope that things will go back to the way they were. And I think this is a dangerous delusion as well. I don't think things are going to go back to the way they were. I think that what we're having is what we should be. Having is a very serious debate about what is a matter of principle. What's a matter of policy so principles should be the things that don't change. Right. That dictate what kind of policy we should propose given the circumstances but policy changes over time because we find ourselves in different circumstances. So you know, to give an example of of I think what Trump understands what Trump can actually teach us. Federal's papers. Let's go all the way back to the, you know, the ratification of the US constitution. Our founders are very clear about this Justice is the end of government and Charles kesler editor the Claremont review books warned of this twenty years ago. You said conservatives avoid arguing about questions of Justice whenever possible. And by that, I think he meant, you know, they like to argue about numbers and GDP, and and utilitarian kind of arguments efficiency, and they didn't want to argue about Justice. In the meantime, the last talked about Justice all the time, right? Social Justice is their mantra. And so we avoid arguing about questions of arguing about political questions and talking about Justice. We really are student politics Kessler said essential issue is Justice. And that's the problem. So the example, I would give as a matter of rhetoric when it comes to economic policy, whatever the policy should be. We can debate about we can debate about right with evidence. If we if we tariffs as an example will this lead to the ends that we? Think about the the the arguments that are gonna win that resonate with people. Trump's argument 'economics over and over again is I care about our people. My purpose is to make their lives better. And he's very clear about that. He's in very simple and stark language, whereas conservatives are still in a way, fighting the Cold War in their mind, the other fighting the Soviet Union, and they'll say things like, well, you know, this is good because it's it leads the freedom, and it's part of the free market. Well, freedom is good, right? But freedom needs to be justified because ultimately Justice is the end of government. The name of the piece is Tucker Carlson is right. You can find it at the American mind, and we've been speaking with its author, my friend, Dr Matt Peterson vice president of the institute and also the editor of the new website, the American mind Dr Peterson thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me, and we'll be right back. This is Ben winegarden in for Buck Sexton on the Buck Sexton show, eight four four nine zero zero buck that's eight four four nine zero.

Tucker Carlson President Trump Mitt Romney Dr Matt Peterson editor America vice president Dr Peterson US Ben winegarden Claremont institute Trump Webster Kremlin institute Washington Post Elliott Justice