17 Burst results for "Clermont Institute"
"claremont institute" Discussed on The Editors
"The set the world aflame and get everybody excited an serves fine it was less. Charlie you say that Jim but Michelle Obama is a good speaker I like almost nothing but she says. She, she is a good speaker. Probably Reluctantly. So melania trump is also A reluctant speak I, doubt she wanted to do that but I thought she did. Fine. She's not supposed to be. A public speaker. She. Read her speech well, and in a second language as I say, its themes would not those that you would always associate with this president. But she's her own person. I gave it a B. The other night was from bette. Midler who said she can't speak English. She spoke with an accent learn English to say. You've never learned English Charles. Yeah. Could you speak English accent I do you know that really bothers me I have to say not not because I'm foreign I grew up speaking. But because for some reason, people like Bette, midler think that they are allowed to say things like that and that it's okay. But if a conservative actor had watched a speech by say. A first lady who had moved to the United States in Nineteen ninety-six from Guatemala and spoke English as a second language and still had a heavy accent if a conservative actor tweeted. Skull even speak English. This ridiculous Guatemalan accent I mean that person would have been canceled or at the very least would have been criticized or I don't know why it's acceptable to do this the other way around. Yes no doubt some Alania I think she has filled the role that she never. Thought. With grace I don't think the speech shoes was very good. I think was a non sequitur I give her an incomplete to move the ball in in any way and was not a good use of twenty minutes of prime time. So with that, let's pause and here from our first sponsor this week, the American story podcast America is growing increasingly divided the American story new podcast narrated by. Chris Flannery at the Claremont Institute aims to unite listeners with true stories about Americans.
"claremont institute" Discussed on KFI AM 640
"Chef Patrick o'connell author James Patterson and the Claremont institute a conservative think tank in upland not Claremont the second crash in studio city this is on the one oh one freeway it's making your way north bound coming up on coldwater canyon that's where the two right lanes have been blocked in big delays are loading up getting away from the one seventy and the drive along the one thirty four west found backing up and to to local lake from calling it to the one seventy one a one split they're also seeing some traffic served up for the sixty freeway it looks like this is a works out traveling eastbound as you approach paramount or make that Rosemead Boulevard was recently restrictions in place and that is for overnight construction they should wrap up shop at about six in the morning but until then we're still seeing quite the backup getting away from paramount Boulevard if you see any problems you can always tells about them eight eight eight five hundred five thousand three KFI in the sky helps get you there faster I mean to Martinez all right please share your personal experiences to him I'm sorry I was in yellow is not which I never read this five I will win off memory and then I went to read the commercial next on the top it's it's direction not actually I'm sorry all right anyway C. B. these are the potent compound extracted from the hemp version of cannabis and now you may associate with marijuana you wouldn't be wrong to do that but you don't get high you're just gonna get some potential relief from whatever is ailing you about CB is the talk of the town it's sort of like the wild wild west though where there are some companies that what is on the label of the bottle is not actually in the bottle but what you can do is trust my guys at C. B. distillery dot com.
"claremont institute" Discussed on 850 WFTL
"Right. Compel Saturday at the conservative Claremont institute's fortieth anniversary gala in Beverly Hills. And actress Peggy Lipton from the TV show months. Quad has died. She was seventy two this is ABC news with the stock market at all time, highs cashing your profits. Now invest in an asset that can potentially pay for up to twenty or more years. That's the sound of producing oil. Well, and the sound of a smart investment, if you're an SEC defined a credited investor you can take advantage of encore energies projects call now to learn how you can potentially Tiv twenty or more years of income and deduct one hundred percent of every dollar invested against all forms of income. Call one eight hundred eight thousand three eighty five eleven invest in your future and buy oil encore is drilling in an area. That is potentially one of the most prolific horizontal oil plays in the entire country. Oil prices are projected to rise. So you need to own a piece of an oilfield encore energy is the most active oil and gas operator in its core area of operations, call now and learn how to deduct one hundred percent of your investments and create twenty or more years of. Potential monthly income. Call one eight hundred eight zero three eight five eleven you'll be calling directly to the home office of encore energy. That's one eight hundred eight thousand three eighty five eleven oil investments involve a high degree of risk. And actual results may vary. A Harvard law professor has lost as faculty dean posed after an uproar over the Harvey Weinstein case ABC's Aaron Katersky with the latest from New York when Ron Sullivan joined Harvey Weinstein's defense team at touched off protests at Harvard where until now he was dean of an undergraduate house Harvard removed Sullivan from the post after students said defending someone accused of abusing women made Sullivan an inappropriate mentor Harvard's decision came.
"claremont institute" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"Not GIC competitor that it poses an existential threat to American dominance. Search something on China. He did it on the Mideast. You know, even some of his severest critics on things like personality and identity. I was just looking through the LA times today, and you got a far left guy saying, you know, what Trump is right about interest rates going up to fast guy. You know? The other other columnists other mainstream media folks are gone. Yeah. Well, you know, we have been in the mid east for a long time. And we don't really have anything to show for it. Maybe he got the policy, right? So again, and again, Trump is showing disability, regardless of what is approval ratings are, regardless of how much he gets dragged around on the press to change the conversation in a way that I think, you know, for a guy like Tocqueville would say Americans are always hungry for someone who can promise to punch through the muck of everyday life seems to slowest down and make it so hard to get what we see out there on the horizon. So, you know points to Trump in that respect is a guy who can. You can really cut through and get to to things that Americans have been brewing about speaking. Speaking of punching through James poll, it seems to me with this book, you punch through across time, the lessons of historical political philosophy and the powers of observation from the days of Ditto Volta the here and now and we want to thank you for your time. Again, the name of the book the art of being free how Alexis de Tocqueville can save us from ourselves written by James polos who grew up in danville. And is now editor at large the American mind that new online publication from the Claremont institute James it has been a joy and the book is quite intriguing. Thanks so much. Glad to be here. Great to have you, sir. And look for James is writing not only the book the art of being free. But also as he is editor at large at the American mind now..
"claremont institute" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM
"I am a Claremont institute Lincoln fellow. I can't speak highly enough about the Claremont institute. I'm delighted to have Ryan Williams. Joining us now, not least because Ryan was instrumental in a new article coming up on a climate institute website American mind dot org. I suggest you all take a look at this slightly spicy. I think it's called our house divided multiculturalism versus America by Thomas de clinging stain. And it's a fascinating article. Ryan, thanks for joining us to discuss this. I guess I guess there's always trepidation when when publishing something like this, especially you know, in August institution the Claremont institute. Waiting into into the debate surrounding multi-culturalism. I mean, I personally don't have an issue doing it myself. But you know, what kind of rocks get thrown by the establishment media when something like this happen? So just like, let's let's talk through this article a little bit. Let's talk about it's it's it's a prognosis over multiculturalism. And then and then perhaps you can talk us through a little bit of the thought process behind this. Sure. Yeah. Thanks for having me. Tom Clinger's seen is full disclosure clermont's board chairman, which of course, is in his byline, but he wanted to update this term multiculturalism, which a lot of us. Probably haven't heard since the nineties and tie it to identity, politics, and political correctness really to to lay the blame for for the some of our past policies, and our identity politics pathologies and our current political pass at the feet of the academy and the project that it's been been going about for the last fifty years. It's pretty it's pretty it's pretty in depth. I mean, it doesn't it doesn't pull any punches here. I mean, you know, looking at looking at both the astonishment perspective on multiculturalism is what is the rights perspective on multiculturalism? What do you think the key takeaways from from docks clinging Steinar? Well, his his one of his his lead point was really that. A lot of conservatives didn't understand what Trump was doing team draws a provocative analogy between Trump and Lincoln, and his point is that, you know, in the slavery crisis in the fifties Lincoln oriented, his whole political project around getting rid of slavery and making sure that the principle that it was right didn't spread which was the principal of the south. And that. All the means that were asked his disposal. We're interested. If that goal so Tom's analogy is to try to unite conservatives these days behind Trump because he gets one thing right, at least at the very least. And that's the insanity of political practice in its nature. So Tom Tom thinks that we have to keep that in view, and you know, that ought to orient and. Trump and context and put the larger project of what should be the larger project of conservatism these days within focus. So it might mean policy priorities that that conservative ink is not used to it might mean a lying behind a man that they're uncomfortable with. But the main goal should be kept inside. Because really if we allow multiculturalism and identity politics to become the dominant way of thinking in American national political life than the games up. Yeah. I'm just going to quote from this article a little bit. And then and then we'll come back and discuss more of it quote. Trump's entire campaign was the defense of America. The election was fought not so much over policies character how Email service no or James how. Comey as it was over the meaning of America. Trump's wall was not say Daria much about is keeping or foreigners are out as it a was keeping letter more alien a commitment presence to a distinctive who's that have been country involved with this immigration planet free for trade millennia. and foreign Is policy this rental ready about here protecting are artificial our own intelligence in these policies is. Trumpers, I think raising the question who exactly are we what as he a nation. says. He owns it I by think being it is Trump an a man existential made in America threat unmistakably, are we about an to unapologetically bring it into existence? American If we and don't like get most a of his backup fellow citizens planet one who does to not give coast. a hoot We what Europeans could or intellectuals kill ourselves on think this planet I picked that. midnight I picked the on News Radio paragraph tail above is. DJ. Because not only do I host one might argue. The I am a European Markelle intellectual. melinda. Yeah. We give you a pass game your favorite, European intellectual. That makes it pretty quick. And I suppose maybe we can reflect on on the impending midterm elections using that as well. I mean when you've looked at this and you'll typically out in in California, right? When you've looked at the last couple of months of campaigning. Whether it's been Abernathy in stormy Daniels. Whether it's been brek having all whether it's been migrant caravans, it all seems to be coming back to what Thomas things done is written in this article, right? What it means to be America? What America not just allows? But also tolerates and does it really tolerate having its commander in chief having his genitalia rose up in in news articles having blow up Dole's of him like dressed as a rat. Now, it tolerates it in the sense of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But I think to borrow the website name of yours. I think the American mind rejects that, right? I think they don't see as fair play. They don't see it as fair. Game, whereas the whereas the presidential campaign as as this article suggests. It did come down to it. I said at the beginning of this radio show today, I quoted Lincoln in indifference of this president, which is why I wanted to have you on it comes down to what you know, what this country looks like. And I think that's why of course, the migrant caravanning shoes is looming. So large as an issue. Yeah. Yeah. I think so, you know, Trump's critics see criticism of migrant caravan or criticism of foreigners who might not be suitable for Republican government is simply racist or white nationalist or other some other absurd ad hominem attack. Whereas think Tom likes went out in the article, and I think you can fight it in many of Trump's speeches as well. What we're really talking about is a common citizenry sharing with shared borders, which has every right to determine who who knew citizens ought to be the criteria for admitting people who wanna join this political community. So in that sense. It's it's thoroughly American and goes back all the way to our serious constitutionalism, the declaration and idea that we all concerned together to form a government that doesn't have anything to do with whiteness, or or the nastier strains of of modern, nationalist politics. The European ready? Now, you guys are no strangers to publishing controversial articles in September of two thousand sixteen you publish the Michael Antonia say the flight ninety three election. I just want to quote from that because it was really one of those articles that left an indelible Mark on. And I think the the American intellectual mind that was trying to analyze what was going on there. I quote from from Michael Anton who who wrote at the time under a pseudonym and went on to seven the national Security Council. He said in the opening of this article twenty sixteen is a flight ninety three election charged the cockpit or you die you may die. Anyway, you will the leader of your party may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees except one. If you don't try death is certain to compound, the metaphor, a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian roulette with a semi auto with Trump at least you can spend the cylinder and take your chances. Ryan, you guys you guys are really putting putting the cat amongst the pigeons with this sort of thing. So you say just. Talk us through. I mean is a is a fantastic institution of fantastic think tank and comes up with. I mean, I've got to tell you some of their fellows and board members and so on and so forth. I mean, one of my favorites being professor John Marini, who I believe has a book coming out shortly about the administrative state, which I'm sort of obsessed by but but, but when you do these things I mean, do you sort of bulk do you think, oh, we're going to be attacked by the weekly standard national review? He's a conservative ink is going round on us. Yeah. That's always a concern. Of course. But I think there's a lot of us have realized. You know, Trump is a a symptom not a cause of the scrambling of our modern tusk, Cold War politics. I think this was a, you know, the fusion isn't that emerged that sustained clear conservatives in through this mid century and beyond ahead kind of stopped making some in the post Cold War world. So this this this intermediation to use a fancy word that Matt on any of these before. And we're just trying to think our way through it at times. You know, the body politic needs a little bit of shocking Plymouth's rather than just another scholarly books. So when the time calls for it. We thought it was prudent to pursue a little more of a. Heartache we're all ICU called the spicy. Absolutely. I honestly Ryan I really appreciate it. And I really appreciate the American mind. All it's a relatively new publication that you guys have started out of the Claremont institute's. And it's just some fantastic articles. I just wanted to have you on plug that. And thank you for all your efforts. I appreciate it for. And I encourage everyone to check out, of course, are classic books as well. Which is absolutely a must read Ryan Williams. Thank you so much for joining us here on the Buck Sexton show, the website is American mind dot org. Make sure you check out the Claremont institute, I'm marine Qassam. We'll be right back..
"claremont institute" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot
"People Janis than professor of law Chapman, university director of the center for constitutional jurisprudence. And he he's now founding the institute for clear thinking. Is that right? John the institute for clear thinking certainly clear thinking, but at the Claremont institute identity, though, I know I mentioned mentioned that I didn't have your chat off. I couldn't hear you know, that should have been on the thing. Absolutely. Anyway, Sean along admirers, you know, and as a professor of law, and especially aware of constitutional law. So let's talk about the fourteenth amendment and the whole issue of if if you're born. To non citizens in the United States. Are you a citizen so review with us first before any analysis? What's the fourteenth amendment say? Well, the fourteenth amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. Right. So okay. So I am not a lawyer. But I am one of your students at the institute for clear thinking. It seems to be. And I may be wrong. I always tell guests if I'm wrong, just tell me, I it's it's a non-issue to be a guest by showing differ with me. But it sounds to me that it isn't all that ambiguous. It sounds to me like if you are subject to the laws, there of beaming, you're a citizen, so your or you're born to citizens, then you are subject to the laws. But if you are if your parents are not there legally, they are not subject to the laws thereof. And you're not a citizen. Well, the difficulty with that. I mean that that's what many people read that phrase subject to the jurisdiction there, meaning merely meaning subject to the laws, and the fact of the matter is even if you're here illegally. You are subject to our lives. But that's not what subject to the jurisdiction met. There were two use it at one a qualified jurisdiction what they called at the time partial territorial jurisdiction and the other a more complete jurisdiction and allegiance owing jurisdiction. And and so the real question is which of those two ideas good, they codify ended a constitution. Give you an example, kind of modern lead to help. Explain the difference. If you're a British citizen visiting here as a tourist you're subject to our laws while you're on our soil, you drive on the right side of the road rather than left or you're going to get a ticket. But but you're not subject to our allegiance. You you. Don't get drafted into our army. You don't get prosecuted for treason, if you take up arms against us because you've got by any of the legions to this country. You remain a citizen of Great Britain. That's the distinction that they codified in the in the fourteenth amendment. But. So that's how I understand it. I don't understand why there's any ambiguity the notion that you're subject to the laws is an absurdity. Of course, you are. Can't murder in the United States. If you are a foreign visitor, right? But, but but but the other side the pro birthright citizenship, and what is really an open borders crowd argument is that well if they're not subject to our jurisdiction, then we couldn't prosecute them for violating. It's stupid argument. They make but that's the essence of their claim. We don't have to speculate about this. There was we didn't have any legal immigration in eighteen sixty eight because we didn't have any restrictions on immigration, but the debate focused on another group of people who were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. And that was native American and the people that opposed the language that you're gonna make citizens of all the Indian because that was the word they used at the time and Senator Howard the guy who authored this language. So that's not true. This language requires that they be subject to the complete jurisdiction. Not only not any partial jurisdiction the. The the the principal sponsor the fourteenth amendment saying the same thing the leading treatise writer of the day said the same thing and the supreme court when it I look at this issue much closer in time than we are now eighteen seventy two and eighteen eighty four said exactly the same thing. It means complete jurisdiction not partially territorial. They're look this partial jurisdiction if I visit Ghana Ghana has partial jurisdiction over me. I can't run a red light in Ghana. Exactly. So so so what's meaningless? It's their argument is meaningless, it's not intellectually honest. That's right. And and it's one of the reasons why they immediately resort to ad hominem attacks. Oh, hold on. Hold on. Remember the ad hominem attack. Folks, if this is not clear, nothing is clear. Back with Johnny moment. Blink home security is a big deal to me why. Because I believe you should have home security. I believe you should have life insurance. I believe you should have health insurance. I believe in doing as much as possible within the bounds of reason to protect oneself and not to rely on others. Also, it's no fun to be burglarized. It's a very painful trauma. And if you could stop it, stop it. You put these cameras up they run on a couple of double A batteries. It's phenomenon. I put him up. And I it was amazing. I saw what happened in front of my home at anytime. I wanted to or if I was alerted because it alerts you it detects motion. You could be in Ghana how like that. And know what's happening on your front porch? And you got to be able to see things. That was good. Actually, it's blink home security. It's terrific. Blink protect dot com. Blinkprotect dot com. It's an Amazon company..
"claremont institute" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer
"Person that wants to do. Well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know, what we can? You know, they have a word it sort of became session. It's called a nationalist. And I say we're not supposed to use that word. I'm a nationalist. Okay. What immediately did the American left do after President Trump declared himself to be a nationalist just to follow up on your comments about being a nationalist? There is a concern that you are sending coded language or a dog whistle to some Americans out there that what you really mean is that you were white national. I've never even heard that. I cannot imagine that previous caller did a great job in identifying this. It's almost like Jim Acosta's, Google, search you type in nationalist. Did you mean white nationalist, it is absolutely shameful? Joining us now to discuss is Rahim Qassam. He was one of the very first people to start using this term of of nationalism. He is an author. He has a Claremont institute fellow and he joins us now here on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Bob, France, sitting and working. Thank you for your time. How are you? Well, thank you. To say, I wasn't one of the first edba. Given the nationalism. Hundreds of years. In modern poems. I think we we reintroduced to political lexicon. Here in the United States. I think that's that's a that's a great point a great distinction. And let's let's talk about that as the president declared correctly when he when he tried to draw the contrast between globalism thinking more about the world's needs rather than the needs of the nation that you are elected to represent the president said that very directly that he means nationalist in that I'm gonna put my people I will worry about the concerns of us to the rest of the globe. Second. He said that national Emma's nationalism has kind of become a word that you don't use anymore. And I think we should use it again. What did he mean? And why he's right, of course, because you saw the instant reaction, right? But why did a term nationalism which when compared to globalism is a pretty benign term as far as I'm concerned that says we're concerned about our people before the world's people. Well, it was actually being wrong generous about globalism. I mean, if you think about what he's done over the pulse. Fifteen twenty years actually, hasn't really concerned itself with the rest of the world is concerned itself with a political and cultural. Around the world. Whether it's in Beijing, London or New York City of Los Angeles. Really to be addressed very very very few. Not very very very few have been exploited workers in Foxconn factories, and exposing jobs from Racine. Wisconsin. Now, the reason that Trump saying. He nationalist role. People up enrolled the media, especially because we now for several years. And I think people who have studied is by the way have seen over the course of his life, especially when he talks about trade deals, and that sort of thing, they he's had these nationalistic tendencies, but he's actually come out. And he and what he's doing by Sega is is crazy gets another dividing like he's very good at doing this finding he knows that the Clinton machine the Democrats the media one of those guys that they have to attack that line. They have to attack that I like, and they're very hard. Why wouldn't you be indefatigable even at the age of seventy whatever he is. And they have been late you log. And so they fight the idea of nationalism and into the idea that the nation state shoot to be the final albeit should be sobered is almost impossible, especially amongst Americans. I mean, you'll you'll revolution was a nationalist revolution. Hamid hamilton's. The on the subject of was a nationalist document pity Roosevelt said about having one flag, one one language and saying goodbye to the immigrant who wouldn't assimilate. He's nationalism. And they don't have arguments against that. They're angry. They're upset. From them. And I think that's what we've seen play out routes. I think that's well said the only argument they do have against that is just say to scream racism, which of course, is the, you know, the easiest argument to make Rahim Qassam is our guest he is a fellow with the Middle East forum. The gates stone institute in the Lincoln fellow at the Claremont institute. You know, the president said when he pulled out of the Paris climate accord, he said, look I care more about and I was elected by the people of Pittsburg not the people of Paris at another event he said in his first year in the presidency. I was elected president of the United States, not president of the world. How can any elected official whether he'd be president or member of our congress or anywhere else suggest otherwise your job is to represent the people that shows you not to represent the interests of outside nations, especially if it comes at the expense of those who chose you to lead them. You know? That's that's a really great point. And there's actually a fantastic book is just come out on this subject. It's it's cool virtue of nationalism up professor Yoram Zony. And he he sort of explains this, and it's a little golf. Also in by awful. I mean, the rest of the world saw kingdom. I and I'm staring at mackney. An empire that we won't have right now. You know, it's sort of what we've done historically imperialistic realistically is look to one leader of England or the holy Roman. The world is used to having in deferring power upwards to one person where they already well. Several people wherever they are the will and the world is currently doing that historically lost a few decades with the president of the United States, you how he's referred to a broad whoever is in that in in that okay is referred to as the world leader, the most powerful man in the world all of that sort of thing, and it's refreshing your set. Nope. Just I think Americans who were tied of five trillion dollars being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, which should be no money for public schools in. It's right. I think it's refreshing for them. But it's also refreshing. It should be refreshing of the world where nations like Italy at nations like the United Nations like India, Australia, and three independence over nations. Actually, don't have. Actors protectorates anymore. They actually do have to act as independence over nations. And this is another thing. The President Trump stretches out NATO. He says, look, I'm not looking for protectorates looking for allies. And so this is a major reset what's going on. Now. And it pains me to say that when you talk about nationalism. Yes, there was a period of history with nationalism. Nationalism specifically, but very very quickly and spiraled out of control. But it pains me that people don't know that nationalism is she goes back hundreds and hundreds of years and still applies to many countries. Most countries I would say around the world. But for whatever reason, let's media. So we wanted to apply to the United States. Now, they don't not with the not without negative connotations. Obviously, not working you were a senior adviser to Nigel garage. Could you would you not suggest that Brexit in and of itself was an expression of nationalism? We're not going to be beholden to the whims of the EU. We are going to kind of take on our own charter on course, from this point forward is that not nationalism. Absolutely. I mean, you know, when you look at what the Brexit campaign represented in early late. Twenty fifty twenty sixty laws was saying, hey, we want to be ruled by Brussels. People know, this would be very surprised if many Americans knew this because it's it's not a big as they get paid about often even in the UK, but about eighty percent of our legislation was coming from Brussels before the Brexit, and that could be primary legislation or regulation. And.
"claremont institute" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"A person that watch the globe to do. Well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know, what we cannot? You know, they have a word it sort of became motivation. It's a nationalist. And I say we're not supposed to use that word. You know, what I am the nationalists? Okay. What immediately did the American left do after President Trump declared himself to be a nationalist just a follow up on your comments about being nationalist? There is a concern that you are sending coded language or a dog whistle to some Americans out there that what you really mean is that you were white national. I've never even heard that. I cannot imagine. Previous caller did a great job in identifying this. It's almost like Jim Acosta's, Google, search you type in nationalist. Did you mean white nationalist, it is absolutely shameful? Joining us now to discuss is Rahim Qassam. He was one of the very first people start using this term of of nationalism. He is an author. He has a Claremont institute fellow and he joins us now here on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Bob, France, sitting and reading thank you for your time. How are you? Well, thank you for having me. I have to say I wasn't one of the first ever, given given the nationalism goes back hundreds of years, certainly certainly in modern times. I think we we reintroduced political lexicon across the across the ocean. I'm here in the United States. I think that's that's a that's a great point a great distinction. And let's let's talk about that as the president declared correctly when he when he tried to draw the contrast between globalism thinking more about the world's needs rather than the needs of the nation that you are elected to represent the president said that very directly that he means nationalist in that I'm going to put my people I will worry about the concerns of the rest of the gloves. Second he said that national nationalism has kind of become a word that you don't use anymore. And I think we should use it again. What did he mean? And why he's right, of course, because you saw the instant reaction Raheem, but why did a term national? Which when compared to globalism is a pretty benign term as far as I'm concerned that says we're concerned about our people before the world's people. Well, he was actually being all the generous about globalism. I mean globalism if you think about what he's done over the pulse. Fifteen twenty years actually, how really concerned itself with the rest of the world is concerned itself with political and cultural and meteorological around the world, whether it's in Beijing, London or New York City, almost Angeles really served to be addressed the very very very very very very few have been exploiting workers in Foxconn factories, and exposing jobs from Racine. Wisconsin. Now, the reason that Trump saying. A nationalist roiled people involved the media rock, especially because we know now for several years, and I think people who have studied his life, by the way seen over the course of his life, especially when he talks about trade deals, and that sort of thing that he's had these nationalistic tendencies, but he's actually come out and it. And he and what he's doing by saying, it is crazy gives another dividing like he's very good at doing this a defining line that he knows that the sort of the Clinton machine, the Democrats the media one of those guys that they have to attack that line. They have to attack that and they're. Very very hard this manning. Why wouldn't you be indefectible even at the age of seventy whatever he is. And they don't have the intellectual arguments. So they come fight the idea of nationalism and into the idea that the nation states should be the final opposite should be sobered is almost impossible, especially amongst Americans. I mean, you lose you was in nationalist revolution. Hamid Hamilton's report on the subject of manufactures was a nationalist. Documents pity Roosevelt said about having one flag, one one language and say goodbye to the immigrant who wouldn't assimilate. He's nationalism. And they don't have arguments against that so tired, they're angry. They're upset that he's opening yet another from them. And I think that's what we've seen play out the lost hours. I think that's well said the only argument they do have against that is just say to scream racism, which of course, is the, you know, the easiest argument to make. We're here Qassam is our guest. He is fellow at the Middle East forum. The gates thrown institute in the Lincoln fellow at the Claremont institute. You know, the president said when he pulled out of the Paris climate accord, he said, look I care more about and I was elected by the people of Pittsburg not the people of Paris at another event he said in his first year in the presidency. I was elected president of the United States, not president of the world. How can any elected official whether he'd be president or a member of our congress or anywhere else suggest otherwise your job is to represent the people that chose not to represent the interests of outside nations. Especially if it comes at the expense of those who chose you to lead them. You know? That's that's a really great point. And there's actually a fantastic book is just come out on this subject. It's it's cooling virtue of nationalism. By a professor cold, you'll Ramazzotti, and and he he sort of explained this. How would and and also in by awful. I mean, the rest of the world saw Leonardo kingdom. I'm and I'm staring Maxine. An empire that we once had right now. You know, it's sort of what we've done historically imperialistic realistically is to one leader, you know, whether it's the king of England or the Holy Roman Emperor. The world is used to having in deferring power upwards to one person wherever they already well or several people where they will. And the world is currently doing that occas historically done lost. So few decades with the president of the United States. You don't have referred to deal. Whoever is in that in in that, okay is referred to as the world leader, the most powerful man in the world, you know, all of that sort of thing. And it's refreshing your set don't just think Americans were tired of flying trillion dollars being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, which to be no money for public schools in Pittsburgh. Right. I think it's refreshing for them. But it's also refreshing. It should be refreshing the rest of the world where nations like Italy and nations like the United Kingdom patients like India. Australia and free independence over nations. Actually don't have to act as protectorates anymore. They actually do have to act as independent sovereign nations. And this is another thing the President Trump stressors when he talks about NATO. He says, look, I'm not looking protectorates looking for allies. And so this is a major reset what's going on now. And it pains me. To say that when you talk about nationalism. Yes. There was a period of history with nationalism nationalism specifically, but very ugly very quickly and spiraled out of control. But it pains me the people don't know that nationalism. Actually, she goes back hundreds and hundreds of years and still applies to many countries. Most countries I would say around the world for whatever reason let's media to apply to. United states. No, they don't not with the not without negative connotations. Obviously, not working. You were a senior adviser to Nigel Farraj. Could you would you not suggest that Brexit in? And of itself was an expression of nationalism. We're not going to be beholden to the whims of the EU. We are going to you know, kind of take on our own charter on course, from this point forward is that not nationalism. Oh, absolutely. I mean, you know, when you look at the Brexit campaign represented in early well late twenty fifty and into early twenty six days, what it was was saying, hey, we want to be ruled by Brussels. You know, most people know this, and I would I would be very surprised if many Americans knew this because it's it's it gets bad about often even in the UK. But about eighty percent of our legislation was coming from Brussels before the Brexit that that could be religiously shit or regulation..
"claremont institute" Discussed on 1170 The Answer
"To serve as precedent for the next on nonsensical decision down the road and, that's what we have back in the nineteen forties congress passed the law to regulate the growing, of wheat on your own farm even if it wasn't for trade or for commerce and and and farmer Filbert up in Wisconsin. Grew more wheat on his own farm for his. Own purposes for, making bread for his own family for feeding his own cattle he grew more wheat than the. Regulators in Washington DC, has said we're allowed to him and he was prosecuted for exceeding the week quotas on his own farm even though everybody admitted none of his week was going to enter the market because it was all being used on his own farm. And and he was prosecuted and went all the way at the, supreme court and the supreme court upheld the act of congress because if, he had all sorts of farmers growing their own week then they, wouldn't need to buy weed on the Interstate market and that would have. An effect on the economy and therefore undermine congress policy of of, limiting the amount of week that could be grown So Stay upheld this. Thing you know your your audience might, make you know they. Could they could do a web search and find a a TV video clip that reason TV did some years ago called wheat weed and, ObamaCare which I interviewed and go through the whole transformation of the. Commerce power is fairly limited power to the to the. Power we now know it to be. Over the court tells us it is, today which is the power of congress and. Worse unelected bureaucrats and administrative agencies to regulate every aspect of the, economy enhance every aspect of our lives if they want. To, well you, know that's that's how I feel about it. Too I look at this and it's very discouraging to. Me I, mean one, thing one thing that has. Survived this change in the ObamaCare issue is all of the regulations that are put upon the medical. Organization so most people the spending time filling out forms as opposed to seeing patients. In that leads me to. Question I know we haven't got much Time to cover, this subject isn't, part of the problem, that law has moved off the standard, it seemed to me. When I was younger studying in school we always went back to the natural law we went back to some God given rights unalienable illegal, rights in seems now there's no reference to a standard so obviously. If there's no standard everything can run all over the. Place can you come in on that. That's right I mean and this is, this is part of the mission of the. Claremont institute having to recover the principles so the American founding and, where do we find those principles we not most in. The, constitution but, in the prior document the declaration of independence. And so there are a couple of very important principles. They're what, Thomas Jefferson, said wrote as self evident. Truth that all men all human beings are created equal and and a consequence of that self evident. Truth is that none of us have the authority to rule in other without that. Other person's consent so government. Based on consent which means election Is necessary and then the representatives are only allowed to exercise, the powers that are given to, them by the consent of the people this is the entire infrastructure of our constitutional system of government and then the second piece of that is. The reason we have those, governments by consent Not to do whatever they. Want but to secure the unalienable rights that every citizen has. Directly from their creator those rights we have come prior to government from. A higher power they're not, gifts to up? To us from government and folk securing those individual rights puts natural constraints on the. Exercise of governmental power we no longer as a society except those two basic propositions it's now become the majority view that. Government can do whatever it wants if it further some agenda. What have you and that's not what the foundation cornerstones of our system of government are Failed to look at the very word that you use consent. You know it, means an election yes but it means an election that agrees with what it is they're doing you can't just get consent because you voted. For me now I, can do anything I wanna to do I find this so so troubling and I really don't know where we're going to go with this except that, we have to do something so again we're coming up to a break and, I'd like, to we only got a few minutes left in the. Last segment of the show but it'd like you to tell us what we can do how do you what do you suggest that. We do to help or two more informed or somehow get. Us back to both the constitution in its predecessor so thanks for listening. Everybody in stick with us, because I think? We're going to hear.
"claremont institute" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"Own purposes for, making bread for his own family for feeding his own cattle he grew more wheat than the. Regulators in Washington DC, has said we're allowed to him and he was prosecuted for exceeding the wheat quotas on his own farm even though everybody admitted none of, his week was going to enter the market because, it was all being used on his own farm. And and he was prosecuted it went all the way at the, supreme court and the supreme court upheld the act of congress because, if he had all sorts of farmers growing their own week then they, wouldn't need to buy wheat on the Interstate market and that would have. An effect on the economy and therefore undermine Congress's policy of of, limiting the amount of week could be grown so Stay upheld this. Thing you know your your audience may. Make you know, they could they could do a web search and find a a TV. Video clip that reason TV did some years ago called week. We'd and ObamaCare which I'm an interview. And go through the whole transformation of, the commerce power is a fairly limited power to go to the power we now know it to be over, the court tells us it is today which is the power. Of, congress and, worse unelected bureaucrats and administrative agencies to regulate. Every aspect of the economy and hence every aspect of our. Lives that, they want, to well you know that's. That's how I feel about it too I look at it this and it's very discouraging to me. I mean one thing one thing that has survived this change in the ObamaCare issue is all of the regulations that, are put upon the medical organization so most people the spending time filling out forms as opposed to seeing patients in that leads me. To Question I know I haven't got much time to cover this. Vast subject but isn't part of the problem. That law has moved off the standard, it seemed to me. When I was younger studying in school we always went back to the natural law. We went back to some God given. Rights unalienable inalienable, rights and it seems now there's no reference to a standard so obviously. If there's no standard everything can run all over the place. Can you come on that that's right. I mean and this is this is, part of the mission of the Claremont institute having to recover the principles of the American founding and and where, do we find those principles we've not most in the constitution. But, in the, prior document the declaration of independence and so. There are a couple of very important principles they're what Thomas. Jefferson said, wrote as, self evident truth that all. Men all human beings are created equal and and a consequence of that self evident truth is that. None of us have the authority to rule in other without that other person's consent so government based on Inset which means elections is necessary. And then the representatives are only allowed to exercise the powers that are, given to them by the consent, of the people this is the entire infrastructure of our constitutional system of government and then the second piece of that is the reason we have. Those governments by consent Not to do whatever they want but to secure the. Unalienable rights that every citizen has directly from their creator those rights we. Have come prior to government, from a higher? Power they're not gifts to to us from government felt securing those individual rights, puts natural constraints on the. Exercise of governmental power we no longer as a society except those two basic propositions it's now become the majority view that. Government can do whatever it wants if it further some agenda. What have you and that's not what the foundation cornerstones of our system of government are Yeah the failed to look at the very word that you use consent You know it means an election yes. But it means an election that agrees with what it. Is they're doing you can't just get consent because. You voted for me now I can do anything I wanna to do I find this so so troubling and I really don't know where. We're going to, go with this except that we have to do something and so again we're coming up to a break and we, only got a few minutes left in the last segment of. The show but, I'd like you to tell us what we can do how do you what do you suggest that we do to help or two more. Informed or somehow get, us back to both the constitution in its predecessor so thanks for listening everybody in stick with us because I think. We're, going to hear.
"claremont institute" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show
"Claremont institute one of my favorite thing tanks their review is one of my favorite magazines thank you for coming on i hope you come back and talk again thank you look forward to coming back all right before we go to sexual follies i just have to say that this tire rescue they pulled those thirteen twelve kids in their coach out of the out of the caves just an amazing act of heroism one of the thai navy seal some gounon died in the effort i have been spunky mostly against my will because it is the most terrifying and uncomfortable experience belongings cave exploring and be trapped underground and a cave truly a nightmare i mean i've never experienced darkness until you've been underground cave and turned off your headlamp when they talk about you can't see your hand in front of your face you cannot see your hand in front of your face that's how dark it is and you're underground scary incredible heroism incredibly good news that they got him up sexual follies so i don't sometimes the world is so corrupted it just becomes hilarious it's probably this is probably not one of my best personality traits that i find the other corruption of the human race kind of a hilarious sometimes here's pedophile cz are moving to be included in the lgbt community which i think is great they can call it the lgbt m community will be lesbian gay bi trans and monsters destroyed the lives of children for their own sexual gratification that's going to really increase the love that people feel for lgbt p l l g bt people this is this new thing that re pedophile rebranding themselves as maps or minor attracted persons in an effort to gain acceptance and be included in the community this is what they call in philosophy a category error and i think it is part of the category era of declaring that gay or lesbian or by identity it is not your identity is something that you desire something you do and it is open to being judged by other people just like all the things that you desire to open to being judged by other people if i desire to steal something out of your store and i still something out of your store you are allowed to say oh that was wrong you shouldn't do that you shouldn't desire i can't you can't may not be able to help design it but you shouldn't do it you or allowed to judge what people do and that includes being gay we have discussions on the show arguments on the show about the morality of being gay all the time that is an open discussion because people are doing things and when you do things you can be judged i have i do not i'm not without sympathy for people who are attracted to things that they cannot or should not have i think that must be a terrible terrible experience we know how powerful the sexual urges if you were tracked to children that is just i mean the the self hatred and and compulsion must be terrible to deal with too bad too bad you gotta deal with it got to do the right thing you have to and if you don't you you are you or a monster it is not your identity it is something you wanted as a a stitch a glitch in your system and something you want that you should not want and should not have any should not be identify yourself with that that's what i have to say about all right we'll be back tomorrow with the mauban get your questions in we can answer them and solve all your problems what do you need your problems for send them in we'll get rid of them i'm andrew claybin this is the andrew claybin show the andrew klavan show is produced by robert stirling executive producer jeremy boring senior producer jonathan hey our supervising producer is mathis glover and our technical producer is austin stevens edited by emily gye audio is mixed by mike corinna hair and makeup is by jessica olvera the andrew klavan show is a daily wire forward publishing production copyright forward publishing twenty eighteen
"claremont institute" Discussed on The Daily Zeitgeist
"No you know they never say shaky descriptions university yeah yeah the phrase age gap allot because that's the only way you can say it without it sounding really bad chicken hawk yeah finally what is a myth what's something people think is true you know to be false something people think is true is that my podcast left coast is hosted by two people and when in fact it is now hosted by me still emission baby left list is is i'm flying solo okay we have a first solo it out today with the jeff weiss former writer for the weekly onto tell you what happened to the la weekly who all a lot of weeklies yeah so the la weekly got bought out in november by these like secret neocon like intermediate yes in clear media at claremont institute people and they're still running it but it says on paper because they fired all the writers and then they were like does anyone have any writers and everyone was like no you yes it's an it's a really incredible story and it's also part of like you know this movement that we've seen across the country of like your local weekly getting fucking bought out or bankrupted or whatever and it real independent journalists and what's crazy is like you know we keep hearing about the death of print journalism you know and i just keep thinking oh that means paper shutting down but what it means instead it turns out is huge national media groups like saint clair buying out like ten papers running superconservative of articles in the oped section and then just using the former prestige of the paper to bleed advertisers as subscription numbers of drop.
"claremont institute" Discussed on KVNT Valley News Talk
"Hello good evening welcome to the jim bohannon show from westwood one radio we're at one eight six six five zero jimbo one eight six six five zero five four six two six online find is the jim bohannon show dot com you can follow me on twitter at jimbotalks and joseph tartokowski has been speaking with us tonight he is with the claremont institute and the author of the lives of the constitution we have steve in lebanon pennsylvania good evening steve good evening keyboard i took an oath to defend the constitution and the bill of rights and when it comes to the second amendment the second amendment is the teeth the rights basically protects over the other amendments because if you start taking a second amendment out you're gonna leave the whole thing there's a second amendment rally going on at every state capital this weekend the fourteenth on saturday from on the east coast from one to four obviously every other time zone is going to show up your show same pie but it's going to be in their talk it's like an hour early like so is there a website where people can get all the details facebook i'll give you the group name watch putting it on its national constitutional coalition of patriotic americans and spec p a okay now the second amendment was written so we the people enjoyed says the right of the people and keeping bear arms or not being friends and the second part of the second amendment why i mentioned that it's all defense against leaders and tyrannical oppressive government that's the reason why we have the second amendment it's now for duck hunting deer hunting it's all defense against ironically government and foreign invaders that's that's that's retry second was written all right let's let our guest combat about that mr traffic asking well that's that's that's a view that has supported in history my comment is steve in really steve's call exemplified and all of your callers i mean a theme in the book is that it's just an extraordinary thing to me that you have the americans individual americans are so willing to think hard about the meaning of the constitution and we don't just say the judges tell us what the.
"claremont institute" Discussed on WCHS
"You the boys of charleston is ninety six point five and five eighty wchs welcome back to the jim bohannon show we're talking with joseph kofsky he is with the claremont institute and has written the lives of the constitution from encounter books mary in wilmington delaware called in about some thoughts regarding the first two amendments in noted someone calling her an nasty name you know you can use certain language on this radio station that we're currently heard on several hundred dollars across the country and if you use the wrong language you can get that station find a considerable amount of money of course we've got a delay and all kinds of mechanisms to keep that from happening but the fact is that not uttering every single thing you feel like saying the old fire in a crowded theatre line the notion if i spray paint graffiti on the base of the washington monument is that free speech so if you could explain for mary and for me and a lot of others joseph your thoughts about just how far this this freedom of speech thing goes well it's a very it's a very good sought from mary and i think it illustrates how we've changed for she referenced the founders i think the founders would have agreed with that they do they drew a distinction between liberty and license and they most of them would not have thought that insulin talk is part of the concept of freedom of speech for them it really protected only the most important things like opposition political speech today we've got to reverse the first amendment now protects virtually all speech unless you can fit it into some narrow category outside of protection so mir rudeness would not be actionable under civil law or prosecutable under criminal law you need something more you mentioned jim inciting a breach of peace if it was fighting words which means provoking a fight if mary could show that it was defamation say someone called his name in front of other people if it was harassment you know this person said it repeatedly if you could show say that it was a threat then it would be actionable that it would be outside the protection of the law but these days rudeness is quite constitutional better or worse he's stolen she's gone.
"claremont institute" Discussed on WLOB
"Portland's new fm welcome back to the jim bohannon show we're talking with joseph to kofsky he is with the claremont institute and has written the lives of the constitution from encounter books mary in wilmington delaware called in about some thoughts regarding the first two amendments and noted that someone calling her a nasty name will you know you can use certain language are this radio station that we're currently heard on several hundred dollars across the country and if you use the wrong language you can get that station find a considerable amount of money of course we've got a delay and all kinds of mechanisms to keep that from happening but the fact is that not uttering every single thing you feel like saying the old fire in a crowded theatre line the notion if i spray paint graffiti on the base of the washington monument is that free speech so if you could explain for mary and for me and a lot of others joseph your thoughts about just how far this this freedom of speech thing goes well it's a very it's a very good soft from mary and it i think it illustrates how we've changed for she referenced the founders i think the founders would have agreed with it they do they drew a distinction between liberty and license and they most of them would not have thought that insulin talk as part of the concept of freedom of speech for them it really protected only the most important things like opposition political speech today we've got to reverse the first amendment now protects virtually all speech unless you can fit it into some narrow category outside of protection so mir rudeness would not be actionable under civil law or prosecutable under criminal law you need something more you mentioned jim inciting a breach of.
"claremont institute" Discussed on WCHS
"Nine six nine welcome back to the jim bohannon show at one eight six six five o jimbo one eight six six five zero five four six two six as we talk with joseph trotsky guineas the wilson fellow in constitutional law at the claremont institute for the study of statesmanship and political philosophy now then the lives of the constitution these ten exceptional minds my guess is you could have started with a list of fifty how did you win down to ten yeah well it that i wanted to write this book within my lifetime so i said i'm just going to go with ten i picked people that i thought either were unknown and deserved attention or were known but ought to be seen in a in a new different light so i have this sort of mix of famous and unfairness people i cover the whole history of the country from before the founding to the present they all they all did or said extraordinary things very different ways i have a bunch of justices journalists to foreigners president and they all illustrate how we have how we interpreted reinterpreted amended challenged our constitution over these last two hundred and thirty years let's take a call from julie in grapevine texas on the jim bohannon show with joseph trying to kofsky hi julie all right thanks for taking my call sure i'll be quick how would you your job talk a little bit about three and four of the tenth amendment whether he believes it we're had was when it was offended and i'll take the call here all right now for those who have not read the tenth amendment on this read it it's very brief the power is not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or do the people well this was this was a sort of principle of statutory interpretation applied to the constitution just to create an inference that if the constitution doesn't speak of it the assumption is that the people have not yielded it up to the government the federal government so it was it was to prevent any inference that the.
"claremont institute" Discussed on WLOB
"The the biggest constitutional controversy of the i forty years was whether the constitution allowed a bank and we know that some of the people at the constitution had a plan to propose it but they were worried that they wouldn't have the votes and so they were worried that if they lost that vote they would there'd be inference against a bank and they said let's just fight it out once the constitution is ratified that is that is characteristic of much of the constitution then there's the notion of judicial review who decides finally what is or is not constitutional and wasn't that the direct result really of of just one supreme court chief justice just stepping up i i'd say i'd say not quite jim for this reason i think that the founders split over that they thought well why should a judge has the final say over what the constitution means but that was a a very serious question for the second generation of americans after the founders this is the eighteen twenties eighteen thirties and forties and one of the people in my book daniel webster was the chief protagonist over that particular fight who finally has the power to decide and he he was of the argued and i think correctly that has you have to have someplace that authoritatively and conclusively can tell us what the constitution means and that it has to be the supreme court otherwise every state could decide for itself what the constitution means and that's a recipe for chaos the the lives of the constitution ten exceptional minds that shaped america's supreme law we'll take a look at the ten some you have heard of such as as the aforementioned daniel webster others less so and still others you may hear in a new context it's an interesting look at just how we got where we are joseph kaczynski is our guest the wilson fellow in constitutional law at the claremont institute their website claremont dot org c l a r e m o n t dot org and this is published by counter books one eight six six five zero jimbo does the bunch of old dead slave owning white guys or a whole lot more back in a moment diabetes high blood pressure hang zaidi meds everyone's on them if you're a fifty year old male maybe a bit beefy and you may even have type two diabetes a million dollars of.