Good morning to everybody it is time for the Monday lot walk and we got Tommy again. What's up Tommy? Good morning Q2. How are you guys doing today? It's a little chilly out. We got the vests again in the sweatshirts. It is October 16th 2023 and we got a slew of vehicles in and Tommy. What's the theme for today trucks trucks and trucks? We got trucks. We got a lot of trucks, especially heavy-duty trucks. We got a lot of those Little upset one of my guys took one of the cool halftones that we just got in. Tommy Did you see that ram Laramie 1500 with the blue with the blue wheels and everything? I think it was gorgeous. Oh, things crazy. So we got like a 2019 Laramie level 1 and Blue streak metallic. It's got some really cool wheels on it. My cleanup guy took it already. So we're not gonna see that anyways As always all these vehicles are linked in the description below With full descriptions and they'll get be getting pictures later today down a couple guys in detail. So It's not today tomorrow for sure and we're gonna go over everything that we didn't get to last week in the Well lot walk because they came in after a lot walk. So let's get right to it and If you want to know anything about these vehicles call Tommy. He's the guy right there So if we reach out Tommy at summit auto comms his email. So check that out All right, Tommy this just came in they didn't even have a packet made for this one yet. This is a 2007 no, 2000. Yeah 2017 Chevy 2500 It's a double cab work truck But what I like about GM and what they've done to these work trucks is they put 20 inch polished aluminum wheels on them So they look, you know, they've got a little bit of Flare to them even though they're just a work truck. Look how look how clean this truck came in This one's got 57,000 mile or 51,000 miles. This is exactly how it came in. We didn't touch this one yet. Isn't that crazy? I mean the way it is It's clean you'd be ready to go you'd be ready to put this one in somebody's driveway today So we do really in this crazy really nice truck red hot is the color on that one And like I said 51,000 miles 2017. It's got the six liter gas engine in it Platinum 250 this is also a 2017 and Tommy what's the color on this one? This one is referred to the white gold white gold You don't see this one often. That's a very yeah, I think they only had this color one or two years Usually you see it in a two-tone with the brown on the bottom But this one is full white gold and it's a platinum and this thing's all loaded up Of course got the power step bars the two-tone seats Has the panel roof the navigation system and just really really a nice truck And it's the 6.2 liter gas. So if you don't need the diesel power, you know This is a nice truck FX4 all loaded up really clean So we're gonna be getting that rolling today Hopefully pictures by the end of the day. This one's nice, too. Yeah, this is a this one come in This is a 2018 Chevy 2,500 high country Really nice condition. It has 46,000 miles. Oh, this platinum has 22,000 miles extra little miles This one's got a lift on it. We're probably gonna be doing tires to it. That one's locked up because I already got this one booked in Really clean on the inside really clean on the outside Tommy, what are you? What do you think we sell the most of here? Trucks trucks four Rams, Chevy's, Dodge, GMC's I mean, we have all of them anything you can think about a lot of 2,500s I've noticed we kind of specialize in the heavy-duty trucks This is another 2019 F250 XLT. It's got the 6.2 liter gas. It's kind of more of a work truck You see it's got a really nice ladder rack on it And that'd be for like a rougher or something You know, you can always take those off if you don't need them. Absolutely underneath that It's a really nice truck probably going to be doing tires on that one. This is one of our loan SUVs. We got today This is a 2018 expedition max Limited this one also has the max tow package. So this one can tow up to like 9,000 pounds. So Don't quote me exactly on that number because It might be a little bit less But I know I was looking at one of these last year to pull my camper and my camper is 82 100 pounds and one of these would tow it. So Really nice condition magnetic grays the color We're going to be getting that rolling today as well over here. We've got a lariat tremor This is a power stroke diesel and I swear all the tremors always have some sort of problems So this one's got a little dent in the front. We're probably going to have to be doing a bumper on that one but Other than that, it's white platinum tri coat and this one has 25,000 miles on it Really nice condition other than that bumper. Oh, yeah, this expedition max has 74,000 miles You're probably going to get some leads on this one. Tommy. I can imagine This is our trade-in of the weekend right here. This is a 2017 Jeep Cherokee latitude plus It's a four by four and it's got 83,000 miles on it really nice condition I believe it was purchased here new. Yep, and traded in. Did you take this one in? Jesse took it in on traded. Jesse did for 23 grand Cherokee. Really? They upgraded to a whole size bigger So they moved up to the full size. Absolutely. Yeah, a really nice vehicle All it's going to need is tires. I think other than that. It's pretty much meant to go. Yeah, they kept really Really, really good record and kept it up pretty well This is a 2021 Ram 2500 bighorn level 1 night edition. This truck has 46,000 miles on it Now is this one a diesel? Yeah, this one's a diesel Look at it. Look at some of the silly stuff that people do I'm like, why would you do that? I get it Look neat. Look at those tires, BFGs Brand new tread Yeah, looks really good So Tommy, how long have you been selling cars? I've been selling cars for five years. I've been here for two years Where'd you just for a while now? Where were you selling before? Berkshroom automotive and uh, yeah, okay Then uh, yeah, kind of a big conglomeration there, huh? Yeah I mean that since I made the transition the inventory here has been wonderful Uh, consistent consistent. Yeah, that was one thing that was tough back then is during covid you couldn't get that so Uh, yeah came here ever since and it's been wonderful here Awesome. Well, we're glad to have you on board. This is a 2022 GMC 3500 84 single rear wheel. This is a diesel. This is the Duramax And this is a really nice truck 23,000 miles. Oh my goodness 184s are pretty sought out man. The aggressive look on the beautiful front end. Yeah, the red toe hooks a complement of vehicle It's a nice sporty vehicle I think every time we get one of these in that sold pretty much instantly pretty much as soon as we get a price on it It's gone But really nice truck really nice condition We're gonna have to detail it a little bit, but uh, really nice condition otherwise and this is a Ram 2500 big horn night edition This is a gasser 2022 and this one has 19,000 miles on it I haven't even looked at this one yet. This one's pretty nice shape has the cargo cam the led Tail lamps just a really nice ride. Yeah 19,000 miles on that one. This one. We just got through the shop How's it look? I think it's gorgeous. We just got it through our detail process I'll be getting a video of this one later today other than this video Really nice condition. I think we did tires on this one. It took a little bit to get it ready, but she's really nice What year is this one? This is a 2020 I want to say And they got it all locked up I don't know off hand. It's not on my list It's a nice one though. Uh, here's another GMC 3500 This is a little bit different than the other one. This one here Is a 2018 so you can see the difference in the body style from 2022 to 2018 I think they switched body styles in 2020. So that's the new body style. That's the old body style This is an slt and it's got 57,000 miles on it Pretty nice truck and we'll get that one rolling too And I also wanted to go over all the stuff that we didn't get to last week Which we're going to start off right here with this king ranch. This thing's hot. We already had a price request on this This is a king ranch Power stroke. It's a king ranch ultimate So you get the nav the pano and it's also a tremor addition So you get the two inch lift from the factory those rims though. Yeah Doesn't that look good the gold wheels on there just accents the lower paint there Really hot truck. This is a 2021 and it's got 39,000 miles on it just about to go into service right now Uh, and then we got this one right here. This is a 2022 excel This is a really nice work truck for somebody oxford white It's got 42,000 miles on it. We're probably going to do tires on it other than that It's really clean all the way around really a nice truck I mean, it's just a work truck. So not too much to talk about on there. There are definitely in high demand Let's see what we get. We had a pacifica here. That one's already Austin already took that one. So that'll be sold That was a like a 21 pacifica with 33,000 miles on it luxury white pearl coat You never see that color too bad. They took it already. We got a couple others. That's one. I just did a video on Jose buff that one Look at how nice that one looks Man, Jose does do an awesome job with everything we get just like a brand new truck here Uh, so let's see what else we got He's our main guy. Look at this. This is a 2018 tommy This one came in last week This is a Cummins diesel big horn four by four off-road. This one's from california. Oh, wow It's got 33,000 miles on it That's just a nice thing is we get vehicles from all over the country everywhere. It's crazy You got them. I started putting where they're from in the titles of my descriptions on the videos Just see if that helps people relate. I do like it. So these are all ones we've already covered This is a 2017 XLT Crew cab it's got the 6.2 liter We're probably going to be taking that cap off. It's not the right color. I see that and it's not the right size If you look at it, it must be Must be for an f-150 or something because it's about Two inches They like cut it there So Anyway, other than that though, this truck's hot It's got some really nice wheels and tires on it and you know being a gasser that'll be a nice price point For somebody that needs a heavy-duty truck This one right here is a 2021 Lariat with 32 000 miles on it iconic silver is the color iconic silver. They changed it from ingot silver To iconic silver in 2021. So this is the first year of this color Lariat really like those on there Michelin tires Really nice truck Well dressed. I'm gonna have to do some editing on this video. Tommy. It's too long My phone just told me the video is too long. Uh, what else we got? The Honda over there that's everybody's been Hot on this escape And then this Toyota sienna came in last week. That's going to be a hot vehicle. Absolutely. Finally, we got this Honda Ridgeline sport 30 000 miles on it. That's going to be a really nice vehicle too 21 or 22. I think it was uh, this is a 2021 21 Pretty much mint. There's one little ding on the door that we got to fix But other than that this thing came in really clean one owner clean title history Two sets of keys all good. Jesse took that one in on trade And we'll probably be doing uh, Jesse next week or one of the other guys for the lot walk. That's pretty much it and once again Tommy, what's the theme here trucks trucks and trucks. We got trucks got a lot of trucks Just wanted to thank tommy for helping with the lot walk today Summit auto.com all of our inventory is there all the vehicles in the video are in the description below Like I said, give tommy a call. Thank you for having me. He's your guy We'll get them rolling. Thanks. Tommy. Have a great day everybody. Let's keep it rolling in october


Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States, accompanied by Mrs. James T. Boyhill.  Hopefully he regrets that the demanding business on the floor of the Senate prevents his being with us. Mr. President, you're a visit privilege to introduce to you a man of stature, a giant in North Carolina leadership. Asking the people of this state to give me strength. Ladies and gentlemen, give me strength.  And that's why it is so important that we build who has throughout his career had such a close association with the state of North Carolina. And as your governor and for you, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to Raleigh and to all of North Carolina the president of the United States of America, Ronald Reagan. Thank you all very much. I really feel a warm welcome all the way. And I look up at that banner there and find I've got some fraternity brothers in the crowd. All right. Well, it's wonderful to see you again.  Some of you may have heard that I'm leaving on a journey tomorrow that'll take me to Iceland to meet General Secretary Gorbachev. It's a challenge anytime two leaders from major powers get together. In this case, we'll be laying the foundation for a full-fledged summit, which if things go right in these preparatory sessions will be held here in the United States. It's time like these when diplomacy is being conducted at the highest level. And I'm particularly grateful for the way that we as a free people pull together. I think the best policy is America's time-tested tradition of leaving politics at the water's edge. It's great to know when I look over my shoulder that the folks back home are with me. I won't be seeing Republicans or Democrats. I'll be seeing Americans. So I'm just going to count on your support and prayers in the days ahead. That's a source of strength, which makes all the difference for free countries like ours. And again, it's good to be with you. As the governor hinted, I have a soft spot in my heart for the people of North Carolina. Over my political career, I have come here on so many occasions to ask for your support. And whether I was running for the presidency or trying to rally the public behind our economic recovery program or trying to keep tax reform alive, you've never let me down.  And if we stick together, nobody, but nobody, is going to turn us back. It's fitting that I come to you now in this last election in which I will have a personal stake to ask for your help. It's a break or break election. And we've got a standard bearer here in North Carolina to be proud of. I'm asking you a personal favor. For North Carolina, for your country, please cast your ballot for Jim Broighill for the United States Senate. Jim Broighill has been a stalwart of our cause his entire adult life.  They were going to look for jobs in the city. And they came to a place that was a restaurant and a sign in the window, ham and eggs, a dollar and a half.  And the pig says, well, that's all right for you. For you, it only requires a contribution. For me, for me, it's a total commitment. Well, Jim Broighill has been in Congress since 1963. And it would be difficult to find an elected official who has been more totally committed to the interest of his constituents and the interest of his country. In those dark days before the 1980 election, when our government was dominated by liberal politicians, Jim fought courageously for sane and responsible policies. But the liberals were in the driver's seat. And they drove America right to the edge of an economic disaster. They gave us unbearable inflation, 21% interest rates, business decline, swelling unemployment, and a lot of talk about how we the American people were to blame. Do you remember those words out of Washington that we had to lower our expectations, that we suffered from a malaise? Well, the American people knew who was to blame. And this November, the tax, tax, spend, spend crowd is going to find out that lighter than air liberalism is no longer fashionable. It took an enormous effort. Jim was a star player in the team. But together, we turned America away from decline and uncertainty and put it back on the road to more jobs and opportunity. America has now had 46 months of economic growth. And this year, more people have been working. And a higher percentage of our population has been employed than ever before in our history. If you have some of the young people that are here, I think they ought to know, when they start talking about employment figures, how it's based, it is believed that the unemployment potential pool in our country consists of everybody, male and female, 16 years, and up all the way. And today, 61.3% of that potential pool is employed. And that is the highest percentage we've ever met. And you're doing better than a lot of the rest of the country because here in North Carolina, unemployment is down to 5.4%. And just one thought, we accomplished this. And at the same time, kept inflation lower than it's been for over 20 years. America owes you thanks for the progress we've made. This because you sent to Washington individuals who turned out to be real heroes in some of the most crucial economic battles of our time. Congressman Howard Kobel, Bill Hendon, and Alec McMillan have been terrific. Representative Bill Kobie is a real champion in that. You can be proud of the respect and influence he's developed in such a short time. And of course, there's an individual whose very name causes liberals to break out in a nervous rash. A friend of mine and a champion of our cause, Senator Jesse Helms. And one who is not with us today perhaps deserves the highest accolades of all. He was a gentleman, a scholar, a man of deep conviction and high principle. When the battle was hot and the outcome of the vote was uncertain, he could not stand. Yet we all looked up to him. He will be missed. And today, let us pledge, we will carry on the work of Senator John East. John, when he was with us and these others, reflect a noble tradition here in North Carolina. And no one personifies that better than the man who we're here to support, Jim Broil. Jim's legislative know-how and insight into the way things get done makes him one of the most effective legislators I know. And on top of that, he works hard. And the evidence of that, as you've already been told, is here is all of this. And all of you gathered here to support him. And he knew his duty. And these closing days of the Congress was to be there on the floor if a vote was needed. And so he's there. Yet just as important as skill and diligence, Jim Broil shares with all of us a vision of a strong opportunity filled America. He's a man of high character who will nurture those family and religious values at the heart of our society. A man who has his priorities straight. Instead of seeking more government and controls, Jim has been one of the most dedicated warriors in our battle to invigorate America's economy and to unleash the enterprise and creativity of the market. As the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he was on the front line of putting our economy back on track. He stood firm. And since the recovery began, over 11 and a half million new jobs have been created in America. Now that's what I call a Republican jobs program. When Jim is in Washington, you're never far from his mind. For example, he's impressed on our administration the importance of tough enactment of our international trade agreements. Let me assure you that Jim's message is loud and clear. American industry deserves open markets and a level playing field. And that's why we've turned up the heat on our trading partners. Just within the last week, we took two major actions against Japan. First, we informed them that in response to illegal trade practices, we will cut back Japanese imports of lightweight polyester fabrics by almost 50%. On Monday, our unprecedented fair trade action against Japan's tobacco monopoly ended in a great success. Japan announced that it is dropping its tariff on American tobacco products. And that's the way it's going to be. Free trade means fair trade, or it's no deal. James T. Boyhill, the T must stand for textiles or tobacco. I don't know which one, but for one thing sure, if you're not doing right by America, it means trouble. Jim also firmly believes, as I do, that it's better for working people to keep more of what they earn than to have government tax it away and channel it into the bureaucracy. In 1981, our across-the-board tax cut reduction or tax rate reduction and indexing brought to a screeching halt the automatic tax hikes that had been pushing working people into higher and higher brackets. And in that battle, Jim fought tooth and nail against fierce liberal opposition in the House. As a member of the Senate, he fought just as hard and helped win the day for tax reform. The pundits said it couldn't be done. Jim Boyhill said it had to be done. Together with the support of you, the people we brought down the tax rates overhauled the system and made the tax code more fair for every American. The big spenders in Congress, however, have already announced plans to raise taxes the first chance they get. Jim's opponent, if he gets the chance, will be their willing accomplice. Because when it comes to raising taxes, he's a pro. He was raising taxes back when I was still making movies. Believe me, when it comes to reruns, bedtime for Bonzo is better than tax time with Terry. Jim knows that it's more important to protect the family budget than to fill the federal budget. Jim wants to keep our taxes low and fair. He has pledged to stand with me in opposition to any attempt to raise your tax rates and undermine the progress we've made. If for no other reason than that, I think you should stand by him. I can count on you, can't I? But what America needs is the kind of solid conservative leadership that Jim offers. And on the drug issue, Jim is working to mobilize our people against this evil. And again, he's not offering easy answers but real solutions. My wife, Nancy, is the best one I've heard yet when it comes to drugs. It requires a commitment from all of us to help our friends, our neighbors, our classmates, and colleagues to just say no. You know, she gave that as an answer to a question from a student in a school out in Oakland, California. She was speaking to them on this subject. And one student asked, well, what can we do when we're offered drugs? And she said, just say no. Today, there are more than 10,000 to just say no clubs in schools across the United States. The proliferation of drugs has been part of a crime epidemic that can be traced to, among other things, liberal judges who are unwilling to get tough with the criminal element in this society. We don't need a bunch of sociology majors on the bench. What we need are strong judges who will aggressively use their authority to protect our families, communities, and our way of life. Judges who understand that punishing wrongdoers is our way of protecting the innocent. And judges who do not hesitate to put criminals where they belong, behind bars. And since coming to Washington, we've been appointing just such people to the bench. And I'm delighted to find out with a concrete example right here today that your good governor, Jim Martin, has been doing the same thing. It's already beginning to have an effect. Average sentences for drug-related and other crimes are up, significantly up. Today, Senator Strom Thurmond and Jim Boyhill are in the majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee overseeing judicial appointments. Without Jim Boyhill and a Republican Senate majority, that job will be turned over to Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden. You can strike a blow against the drugs, thugs, and hoodlums by casting your vote for Jim and keeping him as a force for law and order in the United States Senate. The future of our country, its safety and security, is in our hands. And about the future, one thing is certain. The people of this state can be proud of the part that North Carolina has played and continues to play in the preservation of our freedom. You're the home of Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. It's consistent, then, that just like North Carolina, Jim has been second to none in his support for a strong national defense. He's currently on the Senate Armed Forces Committee and is a powerful force for strength and security. We've made great progress with liberals kicking and screaming and fighting us all the way in rebuilding our military strength. Yet what makes me especially happy is that in these last five and a half years, we've made certain that every individual who serves this country knows how much we appreciate the job he or she is doing. We've restored pride in those who wear the military uniform that the United States missed me. But I don't know of anything I'm prouder of than those young people of ours that are in uniform today. God love them. They deserve our pride. We've done our best to see that those defending our country have the weapons and the equipment they need. We've revitalized the Western Alliance. And I'm happy to report that after five and a half years, not one square inch of territory has been lost to communism. In fact, one small country, Grenada, has been brought back into the family of free nations. This coming election means so much to our country. By helping determine which party controls the United States Senate, you'll determine to a large degree what direction our country goes. The big spenders and taxors will weaken our defense, raise taxes on our working people, send our economy back into a tailspin, and open the cage, turning the inflation monster loose on America again. But with your help and with Jim Roy Hill in the Senate, we're not going to let that happen. Now is the time to reach out to the many members of the other party who share our values and enlist them in our cause. I was a member of the other party myself, so I know it takes a little coaxing. What we're doing is too important, not to make certain that everyone who sympathizes with our cause joins and gets out the vote. Our ranks are being bolstered by those changing registration and also a flood of young first-time voters. One thing I always enjoy is meeting America's young people. I'm so pleased that so many of them are here today. I've seen them in rallies like this across the country in schools, in workplaces, and on our military bases. And you know something? General George Marshall once described our secret weapon in World War II as, when he was asked what it was, he said, just the best blankety-blank kids in the world. And do you know something?  I know we must have a few from Enlo and Sanderson High Schools and Meredith College. Well, you know, they're what this election is all about, the kind of America that we will leave to them. And I promise all of you, those of my generation pledge to you, you're going to take over in a country that's just as free and full of opportunity as it was when we took over those many years ago. You've got a great governor. You've got a great two senators right now. Keep it that way and send back all that other A team that I just mentioned a little while ago to the Congress. Yep. Yes, sir, Mr. Kobe, he's a mug him. And just make sure that we don't let them down. Make sure that they stay right where they are. And all I can say to all of you is, and I know there must be some Democrats in a crowd of this kind, and there must be some who once were Democrats as I was. But that's because, and why I still urge this change, is because all across this country are millions of patriotic Democrats who are not content to follow the liberal leadership of their party and who find themselves more in tune with our principles today than they do with that leadership. And I just want you to know if you're here, you sure are welcome. We're pleased to have you. Get out and vote, and make sure your neighbors do the same thing, and thank you, and God bless you.


For months now, I have been bringing progressive after progressive after progressive on this program in an effort to Expand the squad and get them elected every single Saturday I usually have a brand new congressional candidate to introduce you to and quite a bit of them saw success They won their Democratic Party primaries and on Tuesday night. We had more than 30 progressives up for election now I'm not including the progressives who are already in cumbits Pramila Jayapal, Katie Porter, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhana Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Presley. We're not including them So when I say there were 30 progressives up for election I'm referring to new progressives who if elected would be adding to our numbers in Congress Expanding the block of left-wing people in Congress So the question is how many of them actually were successful? How many of the progressives who won their Democratic Party primaries were successful? Well, I'll be honest with you. I was disappointed with the results, but it's not it's not all bad There were some really important key victories, but we lost a lot of big names And that's disappointing to me and there were a lot of key races that didn't go as We suspected So there's a lot there's some puzzling congressional victories in here that we're gonna talk about but first of all We're gonna get to all of the progressive congressional candidates that lost and since there were so many I can't go through and give you the breakdowns as to you know the margin and how big the loss was I'm just going to name all of the progressives that lost and that list unfortunately is huge So that includes Nate McMurray running in New York's 27th congressional district Adam Christensen running in Florida's third congressional district Adrienne Bell running in the 14th congressional district of Texas Antonia Eliasson running in Mississippi's first congressional district Audrey Denny running in California's first congressional district Beth Doglio running in Washington's 10th congressional district Kathy Kunkel running in West Virginia's second congressional district Christine Olivo running in Florida's 24th congressional district Cindy Bandjai running in Florida's 19th congressional district Dana Allen Ferguson running in Michigan's first congressional district Donna Iman running in Texas's 31st congressional district Giorgette Gomez running in California's 53rd congressional district Hilary Turner running in West Virginia's third congressional district John Headley running in Michigan's sixth congressional district Julie Oliver running in the 25th congressional district of Texas Kara Eastman running in Nebraska's second congressional district Kathy Ellis running in the eighth congressional district of Missouri Kim Nelson running in South Carolina's fourth congressional district Liam O'Mara running in California's 42nd congressional district Mia Mason running in Maryland's first congressional district Mike Siegel running in Texas's 10th congressional district Nick Robondo running in Ohio's 5th congressional district Kossum Rashid running in Virginia's first congressional district Ray Lensie running in Illinois 12th congressional district and last but certainly not least Shea Hedbatar running in California's 12th congressional district against Nancy Pelosi all of these progressives lost and Some of these hurt Really bad to where when I saw the results it was like a gut punch and when I say that these are progressives these are progressives I saw a lot of graphics being spread online about all of these progressive races to look out for and When I say that these are progressives I am telling you I spent Countless hours vetting each and every single one of these individuals to ensure that these are actually Progressive people they were either endorsed by justice Democrats or a brand-new Congress or endorsed by someone like Bernie Sanders And more importantly the policies on their page were displayed clearly and explicitly I saw you know Confirmation that they support either Medicare for all or singer single-payer if I see any rhetoric relating to Expanding access to healthcare. I don't count them as a progressive. So these individuals are just the ones that are progressive and These ones lost and that's really disappointing now having said that It wasn't all bad. There were some victories. First of all 85% of DSA endorsed candidates running at the local level in states across the country Won their races. This is according to the Gravel Institute. This is excellent news Now in terms of who won, of course, all of the incumbent progressives they won easily We're talking about the entire squad Katie Porter, Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal. They all won Now who are the new progressives that will be going to Congress? How many new members of the squad will there be? Well It's not a lot, but it's still it's still important. We're looking at potentially Five new members of the squad four confirmed one hanging in the balance in a race that has not been called So who is hanging in the balance currently? Well in the 34th congressional district of California David Kim is currently facing off against Democratic incumbent Jimmy Gomez David Kim is a progressive and currently with 77% of precincts reporting Jimmy Gomez is leading 52.6 to 47.4 So it is not over yet. There are still more votes to be counted We could have a progressive oust an incumbent corporate Democrat if David Kim pulls this off He will unquestionably be a very progressive member of the squad. I had him on the program I was thoroughly impressed basically if you take Marianne Williamson Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders and you squash them all together into one candidate You get David Kim if he wins this if he pulls this out. This is Huge news now. We did get four confirmed victories The first one is Cory Bush. Now, this was expected But nonetheless, it still is really important in the first congressional district of Missouri Cory Bush defeated her Republican opponent Anthony Rogers by a land slide We're talking almost 50 points. This is huge in New York's 16th congressional district Jamal Bowman defeated his Republican opponent Patrick McNamuss also in a landslide 83 to 17% Phenomenal win when it comes to the third congressional district of Illinois Marie Newman who ousted conservative Democrat Dan Lipinski She defeated her Republican opponent 53.2 to 46.8 when it comes to the 17th congressional district of New York Mondaire Jones defeated his Republican opponent 47.5 to 44.1 with 35 percent of precincts reporting although this race has been called for Mondaire Jones So it was close But it seems as if there is enough confidence to assert that there is going to be a Mondaire Jones victory I'm not sure the criteria But it's been called and he won. So that is four possibly five new progressives that will be going to Congress and When they do go to Congress, they will be just as loud and unapologetically progressive as AOC as Ilhan Omar Will they be perfect? No, will we disagree with them and be disappointed in their votes from time to time? Yes, but this is a victory for us. This is a huge victory and my favorite of all of these It's gonna be a tie between David Kim and Cory Bush. Cory Bush really is Just she's a phenomenal candidate. I think one of the best congressional candidates running in the country So the fact that she made it and she will be a member of Congress. This is honestly This is huge for the movement. Now having said that there's more than just the house races There were some really important races for the US Senate in terms of progressives We had two that I was watching very closely Polygene Swarajan in West Virginia going up against the Republican incumbent Shelley Moore capitol Unfortunately, Polygene Swarajan lost. There was a hard pill to swallow. That was That was tough Now another one is Marquita Bradshaw in Tennessee. Unfortunately, she did not win Another one is Lisa Savage a green party candidate running in Maine who had a shot because of Maine's ranked choice voting system Unfortunately, Lisa Savage did not win and also Susan Collins was re-elected So the Democrat didn't win there either but other key races not necessarily progressive people but individuals who were running against high-profile Republicans Amy McGrath to no one surprise. She lost to Mitch McConnell. What is it more than a hundred million dollars? wasted went up in flames and She ran a terrible campaign Amy McGrath lost to Mitch McConnell. He won in a landslide So the most destructive member of the Senate will likely remain in control of the Senate assuming Republicans retain control of the Senate. So That's awful Additionally, Jamie Harrison not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination But I was hoping he would pull out a victory against Lindsey Graham Lindsey Graham clung to power now John Ossoff is Someone who I think ran a good campaign against David Perdue. I was dunking on him back in Back in Georgia before when he ran in I think 2017 on the special election But he stepped up. He's better still not a progressive. I mean, we're still waiting on results in Georgia So we can't say anything about this race yet. John Hickenlooper though He did defeat Cory Gardner and this is the guy who ran for president who watched porn with his mom So he's going to Congress for whatever reason. I mean, I'm glad that John Hickenlooper defeated Cory Gardner, but it's like was there not anyone else in the entire state of Colorado that could have run in place of John Hickenlooper really John Hickenlooper We've got to do better Democrats, what are we doing? Why are we running people like this who have zero charisma zero policy ideas? Like what's what's the end goal here? Just to hang on to power forever and make sure that the left and progressives are like perpetually dissatisfied like what are We doing?  I'm talking about some right-wingers who won Now first of all the good news Laura Loomer. She lost Wasn't expected to win because this was a district that leaned heavily in favor of Democrats, but The Republican Party has some new individuals who I am assuming they will trot out as rising stars in the Republican Party I'm referring to two Q and honors and one Nazi who got elected to Congress Madison Cawthorne he was elected and the first thing that he said was cry more libs or something to that effect I mean, this is a member of Congress now talking about owning the libs Brilliant Now I've talked about him before The dude is a dunce. He has zero policy ideas. Doesn't know what he's talking about Somehow won against a Trump backed candidate.  Good job Republicans. You elected a Nazi Okay, now QAnon has got two members of Congress now Laura Boebert got elected to Congress in Colorado's third congressional district and perhaps the craziest of all Republican candidates running in this cycle Which is a really high bar to pass Marjorie Taylor Greene in Georgia's 14th congressional district defeated the Democrat By almost 50 points. It was not even close. It was the landslide. So on one hand We did elect some more progressives not nearly as much as I wanted but on another hand a Nazi and Two QAnoners will be going to Congress. I mean the Republican Party is So irredeemable so beyond the pale that they are now literally electing members of a conspiracy cult and people who have an affinity for Adolf Hitler If that doesn't tell you How far gone they are nothing will so we need to stop talking about the radical left and Start actually talking about how the radical right truly is off the spectrum The Republican Party is now the Donald Trump Party even if Donald Trump loses. I mean this party is now openly embracing Fascism and conspiracy theories and it's just it's not shocking. I was gonna say shocking, but it's not really shocking It's just disappointing. So overall, you know, Democrats did not take back the Senate The House Democrats lost a little bit of ground so far based on what we know with preliminary results So they're actually discussing possibly a leadership change Will that happen? Will Nancy Pelosi actually relinquish power or will she try to back everyone into a corner and Try to force her way back into a leadership role again after she has been approved in failure We'll wait and see but at least we can look forward to Cory Bush, Jamal Bowman, Mondare Jones Possibly David Kim and Marie Newman in Congress serving alongside members of the squad So that's something that's genuinely exciting to look forward to but overall for congressional candidates Not the best results and I think that once we really see all of the votes counted We need to talk about whether or not the lack of enthusiasm for Joe Biden hurt down ballot Democrats And we're not just talking about progressives. We're talking about corporate Democrats everywhere. I mean Jamie Harrison lost in the McGrath lost Democrats centrist and progressive lost is Joe Biden not being you know, um a good enough candidate part to do with this I mean, I don't know. We'll have to wait and see but for now I'm a little bit disappointed to say the least but you know, it's It's okay, you know, I was hoping for some surprise victories here But maybe next time maybe next time we're doing better each election cycle. I just hope that you know By 2022 we'll have even more victories


On both sides of the political aisles today, people like to view the media as being essentially another branch of the government, though the personal biases of Republicans and Democrats compel them to point their respective fingers at the political biases of the media helping whichever party they don't like. So Republicans like to point to CNN, MSNBC, and most newspapers as being extensions of the Democratic Party, while the Democrats like to point at Fox News and talk radio as being extensions of the Republican Party. None of this is likely to be news to anybody, but such media biases are not new in American history, even with the freedom of the press, that is, at least in theory, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Obviously, if the press is free, then it's free to take political sides, and this has been happening since the early days of the Republic. But the example of this that pertains to today's episode is the political side taken by the editor of the Washington Globe in the 1830s. The editor is a name few people have likely heard today, Francis Preston Blair. Blair was effectively, though unofficially, an advisor to President Andrew Jackson. It was Jackson, in fact, who had encouraged Blair to move to Washington from Kentucky in 1830. The two had a very friendly relationship, and Blair essentially used the Washington Globe as the trumpet for the Jackson administration. Blair actually sat in on council meetings where national policy decisions were made, and then he went back to the Globe's office to assign reporters to write articles about this information. Jackson's political opponents referred to Blair and others like him as Jackson's Kitchen Cabinet. But unlike other members of the so-called Kitchen Cabinet, Blair was almost family to the Jackson's. He and his own family lived in mansions known as the Blair House right across from the White House, where his wife Eliza would knit socks for the president, and his daughter actually lived in the White House for a time working as a secretary. Elizabeth Blair was actually given the wedding dress of Jackson's wife when Andrew Jackson, who had no children himself, was dying in 1845. So Jackson and Blair were close, and as long as Jackson or his allies were in power, Blair would enjoy a comfortable position in the country's capital. When Martin Van Buren took office, Blair retained his cozy position, and when the Whigs reclaimed the presidency, Blair and his paper became the voice of the opposition. But the Democrats started a rupture in the early 1840s. Blair remained editor of the Globe until 1849, but when Democrat James K. Polk, Van Buren's political rival, took office in 1844, Blair was excluded from policy meetings, and his printing contract was not renewed. Blair wanted to win back his favored position. But over the next few years, the more vociferously pro-slavery Democrats continued to dominate the party, and the Northern Democrats, who were usually moderates on slavery like David Wilmot, gradually left the party. In the most significant wave of defection, which came as a result of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, Blair joined the Democrat defectors and finally left the party of Andrew Jackson, encouraging Northern Democrats to join him where he hoped he could form a separate Northern Democrat party, much like what ultimately occurred in 1860, though Blair would not be at the forefront of that decision. In 1855, Blair joined the New Republican Party and published a letter that now urged Northern Democrats to join him there. He used the repeal of the Missouri Compromise as the basis for his call to action. Blair was already thinking about the presidential election of 1856. The New Republican Associations were clamoring to recruit Northern Democrats, and the Washington Association was after Blair, who would serve as a great example of a prominent Jacksonian who was fed up with the current Democratic Party. But Blair did not join this Republican Association because too many of its members were actual abolitionists, which is not a movement Blair had any desire to be a part of. Instead, he formed a coalition with five other men who met inside Blair's home to discuss their plans for the new party. The five men who met with Blair made significant decisions for the new party. They decided to hold a national organizing convention in Pittsburgh, though the convention would end up being held in Philadelphia. They also agreed that they would push to see Nathaniel Banks become Speaker of the House. Importantly, they debated whether to include members of the American Party, which was formed in opposition to foreign immigration, and some, like Samuel Chase, wanted to join forces to be more competitive, but others were opposed. But most important was the discussion of potential presidential tickets for the 1856 election. Nathaniel Banks and Sam and P. Chase were among the six men in the room, and they were popular contenders. Supreme Court Justice John McClane was another name mentioned, but Francis Blair had somebody else in mind. Blair had a long-standing friendship with Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton. If Benton could become president, Blair would likely regain his lost stature in Washington, D.C., but Benton was quickly dismissed by the others in the group and with good reason. Although he was one of only two Southern Democrats who opposed the Kansas Nebraska Act, this actually cost him some support in his own state of Missouri, and he had actually already been removed from the Senate after his stance against the extension of slavery during the compromise of 1850, forcing him to settle for the lesser office in the House of Representatives. So he was old, and his career was clearly declining, making him an undesirable choice. Besides, he was still a member of the Democratic Party, so he would have to be enticed into leaving the party he had been a part of during his long political career. So while Benton's exclusion from the nomination was probably a disappointment to Francis Blair, he had a backup option. Blair's son, Montgomery, had worked as a lawyer for Thomas Hart Benton, and from this connection, Montgomery Blair found his way to working on the legal battle Benton's son-in-law, John C. Vermont, was facing in California. Furthermore, Francis Blair's daughter, Elizabeth, was very close friends with Benton's daughter, Vermont's wife, Jesse Benton, Vermont. In the second episode of the season, the episode on the California Gold Rush, I talked quite a bit about John C. Vermont. Now I know a lot of what I discussed in that episode probably seemed like anecdotal filler, but in this episode we are going to be able to tie in some interesting details that connect to the election of 1856. Vermont was elected as one of California's first senators, and he was considered a hero to many people in the state. He was wealthy, he was young, he was handsome, and due in large part to the help of his wife in writing his memoirs, he was famous throughout the country as many people were familiar with his exploits in the west. Vermont was also, like many Californians, a nativist. He had vocally expressed opposition to immigration, which would be tactically useful in attracting supporters from the nativist know-nothings that were faced with taking sides between the Republican Party and the American Party. Vermont was an anti-slavery Democrat, just like his father-in-law, but his anti-slavery beliefs were largely due to the influence of his wife and he was effectively a moderate on the slavery issue. He had, for example, voted against outlawing slavery in Washington, D.C., but he voted to abolish the slave trade there. Vermont was attractive enough as a candidate and middle-of-the-road enough on slavery that Southern Democrats wanted to recruit him for the presidential ticket as well, but they demanded that he wholeheartedly support the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. After discussing the possibility with his wife, Vermont decided instead to defect to the Republicans. With Francis Blair supporting him from behind the scenes, Vermont would become the first presidential candidate of the Republican Party. I'm Chris Calton and this is the Mises Institute podcast, Historical Controversies. In the past few episodes, we talked about the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the tensions that peaked in 1856. Kansas would remain a contested territory for the next few years, but probably the most important outcome of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of the country was the anti-Nebraska meetings, as they were called, that ultimately led to the emergence of the Republican Party as the replacement for the Whigs. This will be the topic of today's episode. I said in an earlier episode that the abolitionist movement, which started to grow in the 1830s, had a significant role in the emergence of the Republican Party, and this is true, but it's worth some qualification so my statements are not misconstrued. The abolitionists are important in understanding the transition into the new party system in the United States due to the parties formed in the 1840s. However, out of the three anti-slavery parties that formed, being the Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party, and finally the Republican Party, the Republican Party was by far the most moderate on slavery, and it also embraced a number of other platform positions that had nothing to do with slavery. All of this was necessary politically for the Republican Party to become a major political power, but it also illustrates the important fact that the Republican Party was not any kind of abolitionist party, which is what I've seen some people refer to it as, though historians, as generous as they are to Lincoln, tend to acknowledge that the Republican Party was moderate on the slavery question. It was the southern opponents to the Republicans who actually presented the image of the Republicans as abolitionists, and it's somewhat ironic that Republicans who like to exaggerate the Republican opposition to slavery as being more than it was originated from this false southern Democrat narrative. In 1833, the American Anti-Slavery Society was founded by the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison and Arthur Tappin. At the time, it contained abolitionists who opposed voting on moral grounds, basically the same logic that some modern libertarians used to oppose voting in principle. But it also contained abolitionists who believed in voting, and believed that voting could be used to affect political change. So for libertarians who argue about whether or not voting is morally legitimate or even politically useful, this debate is virtually identical to the old abolitionist debates of the 19th century. But the American Anti-Slavery Society wasn't a political organization. Its constitution pledged that its members would work to encourage Congress to end the slave trade and to end slavery in Washington D.C. in the territories, so it wasn't entirely apolitical, but it did not prescribe the method by which members would pursue this goal. So tactical debates raged through the 1830s, eventually leading to a split near the end of the decade between voting and non-voting members. Aileen Cradditer, who wrote an important book on the abolitionist movement called Ends and Means in American Abolitionists, makes a distinction between two types of abolitionists, radicals and reformers. Radicals were those like Garrison, who opposed the political process and agitated for the immediate abolition of slavery and full rights to blacks. Reformers were abolitionists who believed in pursuing these goals through the political process. So as the society grew, there seemed to be agreement that politics was dirty and immoral, but an increasing number of members believed that the corruption in politics was the product of good people not taking part, and they advocated political organization. This ultimately yielded the Splinter Group called the New England Anti-Slavery Society. In 1838, the New England Anti-Slavery Society held a convention where it resolved first that it was the duty of every abolitionist in the country to vote to elect anti-slavery men to Congress. This was in contrast to the American Anti-Slavery Society, but not because they opposed voting, but rather because they believed it was the choice of the individual. At one point Garrison was asked by Henry Stanton if it was a sin to vote, and Garrison answered, quote, sin for me, basically avoiding any policy prescription for other people on the matter, but affirming his moral opposition to the political process. The second resolution adopted at the 1838 New England Anti-Slavery Society convention resolved to resist the formation of any political party. Instead, the abolitionists should just vote for whichever candidate of any party would best support abolitionist views. So this new society was basically resolving that it was the moral obligation and that distinction is important, that it was a duty, not a choice, to work within the political system to further the goals of abolitionism. One of the chief agitators within the American Anti-Slavery Society on the question of political action was James G. Burney, and at least a good part of his motivation for tackling this question was to go at the so-called non-resistant wing of the abolitionists. In one address, Burney said, quote, In short, the no-government doctrines they are believed now to be embraced seem to strike at the root of the social structure and tend to throw society into entire confusion and to renew under the sanction of religion scenes of anarchy and license that have generally here to fore been the offspring of the rankest infidelity and irreligion. It is but justice to say, judging from the more deportment and the adherence of the no-government scheme that so far from admitting what I have supposed to be its legitimate consequences, they will wholly deny and repudiate them. End quote. Now, Burney in this speech is trying to make abolitionists look more respectable. He is denouncing the anarchistic tendencies among abolitionists and I believe I briefly mentioned in an earlier episode that I don't really consider most of the non-resisters to have been anarchists. They typically critiques governments along anarchistic lines but advocated instead the institution of the government of God so their place in anarchist intellectual history is batable. Only a few abolitionists like Lysander Spooner and Ezra Haywood can meaningfully be considered anarchists, though Haywood was more of the socialist stripe than Spooner. But Burney wasn't wrong to paint these abolitionists as quote, unquote, no-government types either. They opposed as non-resisters any man-made government on the grounds that coercion was immoral. So my reasoning behind questioning them as anarchists is that their replacement government based on their religious beliefs is not well fleshed out. It essentially assumed mankind was perfectible or should at least pursue perfection and once this took place the government wouldn't require coercion. So it's a murky question honestly over how anarchistic these types of abolitionists were. So take my analysis with a grain of salt. I just like throwing it out there because the history of early anarchist thought is a research interest of mine so I'm allowing myself to get a bit sidetracked here. But when debating Garrison, Burney did not speak out against the formation of a third party the way the New England Anti-Slavery Society did in its resolutions. At the end of 1839 that third party formed as the Liberty Party and in its April convention the next year the convention attendees in Albany, New York named James Burney their presidential candidate. The Liberty Party was very much an abolitionist party. Its organization rested on three assumptions according to historian, alien creditor which were variously held by different Liberty Party members. First, there was the belief that an abolitionist should never vote for any candidate who was unwilling to use his full political power to seek the abolition of slavery. The second assumption which was more politically moderate held that the two major parties must never be dominated by the slave power so people adhering to this assumption were obviously those most likely to support the free soil and republican parties that would come later. The third assumption was that any abolitionist party was temporary and would end when slavery was ended so these people supported the Liberty Party with no interest in making it a permanent national party which was probably naive political thinking. Creditor also suggests the fourth possible Liberty Party assumption which is that the Constitution made it legal for Congress to abolish slavery in the states which was a radical constitutional interpretation. Like Sanders Spooner in 1845 would publish the Unconstitutionality of Slavery which would be an even more radical interpretation of this idea except that Spooner would argue that not only did Congress have the power to abolish slavery but he said that the institution of slavery did not even constitutionally exist in the first place either nationally or in a given state so upholding slavery at any political level was already unconstitutional. To put this interpretation of the Constitution into perspective Charles Sumner who was categorized by historians as a radical republican believed that slavery could only constitutionally be ended by the ratification of a constitutional amendment so most people in the country even many anti-slavery people did maintain that the Constitution required a legal recognition of slavery in slave states and the prevalence of this notion is actually one of the reasons that like Sanders Spooner decided to abandon his support of the Constitution entirely as his later note trees and pamphlets demonstrate I'm going to talk a little bit more about that in the next episode When the Liberty Party was founded supporters obviously now accepted that the abolitionist should vote but now the debate raged over how an abolitionist should vote I like talking about this because these debates are so remarkably parallel to the modern debates between libertarians on voting so many people who supported the Liberty Party believed that voting was valid but only if you were voting for abolitionist candidates other people argued what is essentially the overseer goody versus overseer baddie argument or the idea that people should vote for the lesser of two evils in the absence of a truly good candidate George Bradburn for instance published such an argument in The Liberator he gave the example of two candidates in New York who were each indifferent on the slavery question but one candidate favored the rights of free blacks to vote while the other opposed the legal right of free blacks voting in this instance Bradburn said he would obviously support the former candidate even though he was not an abolitionist most importantly though in understanding the Republican Party is that the Liberty Party leaders resolved not to take any stand on any issue except slavery the goal was primarily to convince northerners to become abolitionists this was easier said than done though as there were plenty of other issues that people in the north cared about such as the post office monopoly the price of public lands and their sell to settlers as homesteads, internal improvements, alcohol prohibition protective tariffs, female suffrage, universal male suffrage which mean opposition to requirements of land ownership to be able to vote the direct election of senators, abolition of the army and the navy financial liability of corporations, judicial reform, government monopolies and on and on and I mentioned these as issues that Liberty Party members like the rest of the northern population did not agree on so it was impossible to unite around any of these other issues so officially the Liberty Party was a single issue party but unofficially the positions held by candidates like Bernie who simply couldn't keep his mouth shut about his other political positions turned people away from the Liberty Party candidates who they disagree with on issues that did not involve slavery so the Liberty Party put up a presidential candidate in the elections of 1840, 44 and 48 but these problems predictably prevented them from gaining any real political ground especially in the years prior to the compromise of 1850 that would make the slavery question more significant for many northerners the Liberty Party as I said did run a candidate, Garrett Smith in 1848 but similar to the split at the end of the 1830s in the American Anti-Slavery Society the Liberty Party saw a split at the end of the 1840s this time the split was between the single issue voters who believed that agitation of the slavery question was the only thing that mattered at least officially speaking while the new free soil party was willing to embrace more political issues this party was able to emerge out of the debate over the Wilmot Proviso which if you remember from earlier episodes was a proposal by a northern Democrat to prevent the extension of slavery into any new territories that the US might acquire during the Mexican War which is a popular position among people who were interested in protecting white labor from both slave labor and competition from free blacks so as we're tracing the political history what we're observing is the increasing shift toward the political center which is a common theory regarding the inevitable trend of political parties in theory for a political party to gain enough support to be a major contender it will seek new voters by moving away from whatever radical poll it starts with and move toward the center to attract a larger population of voters in doing this the most extreme radicals will end up leaving the party and they will be replaced by more moderate members and this will continue if you subscribe to this theory until the party is effectively just another centrist party so this would suggest that the Republican and Democrat parties today have become nearly identical because of this political tendency and it would also suggest things about third parties like the Libertarian and Green parties assuming that they ever gain more popular success of course but I'm not throwing this idea out here to advocate it but I do think that the realignment of political power in the 1840s and 50s does appear to conform to this theory in 1848 even the Liberty Party itself shifted more toward the center the first nomination for president on the Liberty Party ticket was former Whig John P. Hale Hale was not an abolitionist he was merely opposed to the extension of slavery in new territories for many Liberty Party members this was enough to compel them to leave Hale actually withdrew from the party some of the Liberty Party defectors rejoined to support Garrett Smith but while the party debated over the nomination the former president Martin Van Buren was also suggested as a possible candidate instead Martin Van Buren would run for president under the new Free Soil Party and the 1852 Free Soil presidential candidate would be John P. Hale but by the 1852 election the Liberty Party was effectively down a way with as many of its members defected to the new Free Soil Party the Free Soil Party first and foremost was softer on slavery than the Liberty Party it opposed to the extension of slavery but not its immediate abolition where it already existed regarding the rights of blacks which many abolitionists tend to support most abolitionists were racist in that they believed blacks to be intellectually inferior to whites but they still believed that blacks should have equal political rights but the new Free Soil Party compromised on the political rights of blacks as well this is largely due to the population of so-called barn burners being the defectors from the Democrat Party like Martin Van Buren who were politically anti-slavery in a very moderate sense Van Buren for example promised to veto any bill that proposed the abolition of slavery in Washington DC which appalled many Liberty Party members so the Free Soil Party avoided any platform position on the rights of free blacks since I mentioned the transition toward political moderation a minute ago that was a good example of it the Liberty Party favored equal rights for blacks as well as abolitionism the Free Soil Party opposed to the extension of slavery and explicitly resolved not to interfere with slavery where it already existed but it took no official position on the rights of free blacks the Republican Party would explicitly reject the rights of free blacks while adopting the Free Soil position on slavery so each new party shifted more toward the middle on the issue of slavery and free blacks so the Free Soil Party was not an abolitionist party it was an anti-slavery party according to the doctrines of the time in that it opposed to the extension of slavery only so when I refer to anybody in this history as anti-slavery it should be clear that I'm using the term in the context of the political environment of the time which means that a person need not favor the abolition of slavery to be anti-slavery in the 19th century political sense but some abolitionists did celebrate the Free Soil Party not because it was in line with their principles but rather because it demonstrated that the sentiments in the north were shifting toward great opposition to slavery in general how true this was is debatable but this is important in understanding why the southern political elites were so concerned with the Free Soil and Republican parties despite their explicit endorsement of slavery where it already existed many southerners viewed the growth of these parties as evidence that the north was essentially becoming abolitionist and it was only a matter of time before they turned to those beliefs against the peculiar institution of the south I keep stressing because it's important that the southern perception of the north on the slavery question is more important in understanding southern behavior than the actual reality of northern views about slavery many abolitionists compromised politically because they believed that a coalition under the Free Soil Party with non-abolitionists would be politically useful they wanted to prevent the introduction of any new slave states under the constitution other abolitionists maintained their radical views and the Free Soil Party only reaffirmed their beliefs that politics was inherently evil Laysander Spooner has a great comment regarding this issue he said quote if abolitionists think that the constitution supports slavery they ought not to ask for power under it nor to vote for anyone who will support it revolution should be their principle Spooner of course would be one of the few abolitionists who would continue to maintain this view after the Civil War which he saw as a damnable hypocrisy on the part of supposedly anti-slavery men like Charles Sumner the Free Soil Party platform contended that the legality of slavery depended on state law, not federal law they also invoked the Fifth Amendment to assert the right of slave owners to protection of their slaves from interference by the federal government but by this time Laysander Spooner's great work The Unconstitutionality of Slavery had been published and relatively widely read and an increasing number of people such as James Burnie were seriously considering Spooner's arguments which rested on natural rights theory during the 1840s William Lloyd Garrison was actually becoming more radical himself in 1842 he started vocally supporting disunion with a rallying cry no union with slave holders he actually ended his review of Spooner's work with this slogan so the most radical abolitionists wanted the North to secede and in fact one of the men in the country who advocated disunion was William J, grandson of John J who wrote some of the Federalist papers the secession was the doctrine of both the radical Southerners and the radical abolitionists but many people like to gloss over the abolitionist support of secession in the 1840s and 50s the Republican Party would ultimately emerge out of the anti-Nebraska meetings that followed the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act but it was by no means certain that it would become the dominant political party the Kansas-Nebraska Act essentially killed off the Whig party leaving a void for a new party to emerge but the Free Soil Party was not the only contender vying for the new position the potato famine in Ireland in 1848 led to a massive wave of immigration into the country of Irish settlers immigration then and now was seen by many people as a way of lowering the price of labor and taking jobs from American citizens in California anti-Chinese sentiment was especially high but in the east the ire was targeted predominantly at the Irish not just because there were so many of them but also because they were Catholic so 1849 saw the emergence of a semi-secret group called the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner who began meeting to oppose immigrants and Catholics I say semi-secret because when people asked about them members of the organization were expected to reply I know nothing leading them to be referred to as know-nothings so the know-nothings in the 1850s were a respectably large interest group that represented nativism and anti-Catholicism in 1854 know-nothings won several congressional seats so after the demise of the Whig party they were a serious contender as the new major party now that the second party system in the US had ended for background by the way the first party system in the US was the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans who were called Republicans at the time but are referred to as Democratic Republicans to distinguish them from the Republican Party that we are discussing in this episode the second party system came about when the Whigs led by Henry Clay, emerged as the major contender to Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party so with the demise of the Whigs a new party would mean the establishment of the third party system after the Kansas-Nebraska Act meetings were held all over the north as anti-Nebraska meetings but they varied regarding their political allegiances the Congress that was elected in 1854 was essentially an anti-Nebraska Congress the House of Representatives had 79 Democrats against 118 anti-Nebraska men but the opposition to the Democrats was not in any way unified the anti-Nebraska people were a mix between conscience Whigs people who remained in the dying Whig party but who opposed slavery free soiled Democrats, the new Republicans and the free soilers who ran under the anti-Nebraska label in 1854 and 37 pro-slavery Whigs the Senate of course was controlled by the Democrats with 15 Republicans and 5 no-nothings opposing them so 1854 saw the creation of the Republican Party which was the evolution of the free soil party but with the increasing moderation on the slavery and race issues as I mentioned earlier but with the growing presence of the no-nothings debate ensued over whether a coalition should be formed to unite with the nativists and anti-Catholics this debate would lead into the election of 1856 one of the anti-Nebraska candidates was Nathaniel Banks who was elected to the House in 1852 but was only barely re-elected in 1854 after the free soil candidate withdrew Banks enjoyed some support from no-nothing voters as well so he was a prime example of coalition and compromise that the new party would need to emerge as the dominant replacement for the Whigs with support from various groups Nathaniel Banks was able to secure the position as Speaker of the House and as a no-nothing man he advocated a fusion between the free soilers and the nativists in 1855 he served as chair to a Republican Party convention Banks was formally a no-nothing at least when he was elected in 1854 but when he started advocating the coalition of the two groups many no-nothings opposed him in 1855 the no-nothings officially named their party the American Party and they supported Henry Fuller as Speaker and probably what most cost them the dominant position is the new political party there were some Republicans who did not want to form a coalition with the no-nothings but more Republicans were willing to compromise the no-nothings so the new Republican Party attracted a good chunk of the no-nothing base and the rest of the no-nothings remained in the American Party which would run their own candidate in 1856 so this brings us finally back around to the election of 1856 which needs little detail that hasn't already been given the Democrats nominated James Buchanan who was willing to support the Kansas-Nebraska Act which was necessary for anybody to gain the support of the Southern Democrats he was however a practical candidate because he was out of the country serving as ambassador to Britain when the bill passed so he was able to avoid the controversy of the bill by recusing himself of any responsibility for it the Republicans of course did ultimately nominate John C. Vermont who was more of a moderate on slavery than some of the other potential nominees and the American Party nominated former President Millard Fillmore which was probably an unwise move on their part because of Fillmore's role in the Fugitive Slave Act which he signed into law as President in 1850 so he was obviously likely to alienate Northerners who were concerned about certain provisions in the law that I discussed a few episodes ago when the Republican Party established its new platform there were three broad issues it took a stand on the party would repeal the Kansas-Nebraska Act and any other law that would allow for the extension of slavery into new territories second, it would admit Kansas as a free state and finally the platform resolved to defeat President Pierce and the Democrats though of course Pierce would not actually end up being the Democratic nominee with the election of 1856 on the horizon the platform expanded the convention in Philadelphia that I mentioned in the opening anecdote took place in June and the platform committee was headed by former Democrat David Willmont the expanded platform addressed more than just slavery finally establishing a party that could appeal to more voters than just those of the previous Liberty and Free Soil parties the new platform of course did affirm the Free Soil position though as I said earlier it did explicitly support slavery where it existed and denied political rights to free blacks it retained its position on admitting Kansas as a free state but the platform now added a condemnation of the Austin Manifesto which called for the purchase of Cuba from Spain this was another popular position among pro-slavery Southerners who wanted to add Cuba as another slave state and I wasn't originally going to talk much about the Cuba question in this series but I think based on some comments I've seen online asking related questions in the episode after next I'm going to talk about Cuba a little bit more so I'm going to add that in here to give some background the Republican Party platform now also took stances on things that were not related to slavery it endorsed the Pacific Railroad and it also endorsed a ban on polygamy in the territories the position on polygamy was largely tactical the delegates were of course referring to the Mormons who had been settling the territory of Utah and agitating for their own recognition as a state they wanted statehood because it was a road to self-governance by the way since Congress has power over the territorial governments there was more popular opposition to polygamy throughout the country north and south than there was to slavery but the Republicans strategically associated polygamy in the territories with slavery in the territories the platform said that it was quote the right and imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism polygamy and slavery end quote the idea was to try to get voters to relate polygamy and slavery as the same issue the issue of popular sovereignty by catering to the more popular opposition to polygamy so if you supported popular sovereignty as many Democrats did you effectively must be endorsing polygamy at least that was the implication in the end of course the Democrats won the election they took the south entirely as well as a few northern states part of their strategy was to threaten secession if Vermont was elected and they also painted Vermont as a Catholic to try to alienate no nothings but this was a complete lie Vermont was a Protestant the American party won a single state, Maryland and the Republicans won 11 states all in the north but for a brand new party this was pretty amazing and the success of the new Republican party was enough for them to label the presidential race of Vermont as a victorious defeat when Buchanan gave his inaugural address he promised the people that the issue of slavery in the territories was quote a judicial question which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States before human is now pending and will it is understood be speedily and finally settled to their decision in common with all good citizens I shall cheerfully submit end quote Buchanan of course was referring to the pending Supreme Court ruling regarding the status of a slave named Dred Scott before he gave his address Buchanan stopped and exchanged brief words with Chief Justice of the court Roger B. Taney nobody knows what Taney and Buchanan discussed but when the Supreme Court ruling was made public shortly after Buchanan's speech many Northerners were convinced that Taney shared with the president the ruling on the case the slave power many Northern voters concluded was now legislating from the bench of the highest court in the land and the ramifications of this ruling would be enormous the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford will be the subject of the next episode


Listen I think that that stop at the end the game was indicative of who we were all night We fought we clawed and the basketball gods Shined on a on a you know a guys that have been playing good basketball and and guys of high character and guys that have That are together and spirited. So it's just nice You know to see those guys in that locker room rewarded for their for their efforts And Angelo talked on the court about the guys staying connected throughout this whole thing You talked before the game about the film session the players only film session What role did that play in those guys again sticking together and then coming through in the end tonight?  So And then the film session listen, you know, maybe we'll have them do the film session the rest of you That would make my life easier But listen, I think sometimes you as a coach you try to feed them everything You try to you to coach every little thing and the fact that they they could coach themselves and communicate amongst themselves It was I can't take credit for the idea It was it was it was our staff that they came up with it. So and that's why you have a great staff. So Coach Spencer had another big game off the bench. What does he sort of meant to you guys in terms of like, you know What you're trying to show in terms of player development and things of that nature And the guy, you know, he's grown so much, you know, since since we first got him and you know First of all a great job by Sean and his group identifying him in the energy league That's that's the hardest part finding the guy and then he's just been a dedicated Dedicated to our performance program. That's he's probably number one on the list in terms of his diligence with his body And then what he's supplying for us now is downhill speed like we you know, they switched everything, you know They teams are going to that now and if if you don't have a guy that can get down hell It makes it really difficult so he can get to switch. He could drive it. I wish he'd move it a little more sometimes But you need that guy that can get down hell Coach Ronde down the stretch amazing defense on Kawhi and regulation then over time talk about how he just changes the game for you on defense Yeah, as well as D'Angelo played. I think if I did game ball, I'd give it to him I thought, you know, I just think he he embraced his role You know, that was the Ronde that we've we've seen We saw last year and and I think listen, I still don't think he's in peak form, you know I think he's still coming back from from his injury in the summer. He was at a long time and But he was he was fantastic 103 102, there's a loose ball and he jumps on and we get to jump ball and then we win the jump ball and Those are the plays, you know, and I think they the players talked about that in their film session You know quote-unquote winning plays that we weren't making whether it was a box out whether it was a 50-50 ball So, you know, he led it. He was great tonight Coach, how about D'Angelo in the third quarter and then kind of stepping up in the overtime with the first couple baskets for you there? huge, what can I say we needed his offense and You know, he he kind of carried us without him I'm not sure how you score against that team tonight Like they're they're so they're so athletic and they're every shot is contested They're a heck of a defensive team. So we just you know, we needed that's one of D'Angelo's talent He's a high-level scorer and and We needed it tonight Did you see Jarrett kind of slam the ball down after that last rebound as the buzzer went out just kind of yeah I think there's a good here and you guys talk about the fourth quarter and blowing leads and But you know, they don't understand you guys have a job to do and you have to you have to you have to tell Like it is but yeah, I think that was part of the frustration and and the joy At the same time frustration of of our you know close losses and the joy of closing that went out sorry if you've been asked this but They were really contesting Shots at the three-point line in the fourth period and on What do you think you did offensively to withstand that this time? Yeah, I think you know Excuse me. I think D'Angelo, you know his mid-range kind of opened it up a little bit You know him hitting mid-range and then I saw it Spencer got downhill Okay, got downhill and and gotten to the teeth of the defense They are a great you make a great point. They are elite in contesting three-point shots You don't think they're there and then all of a sudden I don't know where they got a hand in your face So I thought we did a good yet. Demari had one where shot faking got in the lane I thought we just our drive mentality was was was was excellent Thanks everybody


The Global Cyber Threat Environment, Module 12, Iranian Cyber Intelligence. Objectives, once you have completed the readings, lecture, activity, and assessment, you will be able to describe how the IRGC uses cyber capabilities to ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic. Articulate the connection between the IRGC and the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Welcome to the Global Cyber Threat Environment, Module 12. As you have discovered from previous lectures, the Iranian cyber capability lags far behind Russia's and China's, however, it is advancing rapidly due to robust research and development on behalf of the Iranian government. Stringent economic sanctions had previously hindered Iran's ability to import sophisticated information technology, but the majority of those sanctions ended in January 2016, allowing Iran to more easily research and develop sophisticated cyber weaponry. Iran's cyber strategy involves two pillars. One pillar includes ensuring regime survival through surveillance and blocking public access to what the government deems as subversive information. The other pillar relies on training a cyber workforce specialized in developing both offensive and defensive capabilities to ensure the domestic and national security of the Iranian Islamic Republic. The Iranian government includes a number of organizations with significant cyber missions, but this lecture will focus primarily on the cyber capabilities and organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. The IRGC is an organization of elite military personnel with the capability to conduct various types of special warfare tactics on ground and in cyberspace. Although initial training in computer science and malware takes place within Iran's universities, the IRGC cultivates select individuals into highly skilled offensive and defensive cyber warriors, conducting such operations as the intrusion into a flood control dam in New York, noted in the last lecture. Media reports have speculated that the IRGC cyber warfare program employs nearly 2,400 people. These personnel are believed to be involved with creating specialized forms of malicious code for computer surveillance, developing electronic warfare systems capable of disrupting radar and space communications, and spoofing GPS systems. During the 2009 popular uprising in Iran to protest fraudulent election results, the Iranian government mobilized the IRGC to increase digital surveillance of Iranian citizens and compose digital dossiers of protesters. These dossiers were later used to support interrogations. IRGC interrogators sifted through private messages from social media sites to embarrass and blackmail arrested protesters into silence. The IRGC would also use arrested protesters' social media credentials to target suspected protest organizers with spearfishing attacks aimed at allowing Iranian officials to access their smartphones and computers. One IRGC chief charged with putting down the 2009 protests later wrote about the need to impede protesters' use of the internet or cell phones, as they had become so critical in mobilizing protestor activities. Although normally tight-lipped about its cyber capabilities, the Iranian government has admitted to conducting cyber operations to disrupt internal opposition forces in two instances. The first instance was in March 2010, when the Iranian government announced that a branch of the IRGC had successfully disrupted websites connected to the organization Human Rights Activists in Iran. The second instance occurred in 2013 and involved the IRGC's disruption of several websites of organizations tied to independent media and human rights groups. The IRGC has also been known to co-opt Iranian citizens with hacking skills into an entity called the Iranian Cyber Army. The IRGC organizes and funds the Iranian Cyber Army, and many of the Army's hacker members previously belonged to Iranian nationalist hacking collectives who disrupted pro-Western websites or websites thought to be opposed to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Additionally, the Basij, a subordinate force to the IRGC, has been known to engage in cyber operations against opponents of the Iranian regime. The Basij might be considered an all-volunteer paramilitary force with branches in nearly every Iranian city. It is known to create pro-regime propaganda for dissemination on social media and develop sophisticated hacking tools for subsequent use by IRGC forces. Finally, Iran supports Hezbollah, an organization comprising more than 50,000 fighters. Hezbollah, which the U.S. State Department has identified as a terrorist group, was founded in 1980 with support from Iran and a mission to resist the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. The group has since expanded its charge to promote Iranian interests throughout the Middle East, including Syria and Yemen. The organization has a well-developed psychological operations unit that specializes in producing sophisticated anti-Israel and anti-U.S. propaganda. It has also attained sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities that were quite successful in jamming Israeli communications during the 2006 Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon. Like Iran, Hezbollah relies on patriotic civilian hackers to conduct cyber attacks while maintaining plausible deniability. For instance, hackers called Islamic cyber resistance targeted Israeli critical infrastructure in 2013 and were thought to be civilian hackers funded by Hezbollah militants. One of the most concerning aspects of Iranian cyber capability is the country's apparent ability to research and develop sophisticated tools indigenously. Iran has masterfully used a robust system of well-funded universities to cultivate students with a propensity for computer technology. Many experts expect Iran to quickly become a true cyber rival of the United States in the coming years. Quiz question one, true or false? During the post 2009 presidential election turmoil, the IRGC was mobilized to help conduct digital surveillance of Iranian citizens suspected of supporting anti-government protests. A, true, B, false? The answer is A, true. Quiz question two, which of the following is not a reason that Iran is known to support Hezbollah? A, Iran assesses Hezbollah to be an organization that can bring democracy to the Middle East. B, Hezbollah is an organization that provides charitable services to Shia populations in Lebanon. C, Iran sees Hezbollah as a proxy military organization helpful in confronting the Israeli military. D, Hezbollah provides Iran with a formidable paramilitary capability throughout the Middle East. The answer is A, Iran assesses Hezbollah to be an organization that can bring democracy to the Middle East. Activity, visit the United States Department of Justice homepage and search for the terms Iran and Bowman Dam. You should find a federal indictment against seven Iranians working on behalf of the IRGC who were convicted of illegally assessing the controls of a dam in upstate New York. Right, a one-page reflection on how the attackers were able to access the dam controls and what the government believed they were ultimately trying to do.


One of the things that I really enjoy is you're highlighting the degree to which, you know, a lot of the arguments for pumping money into these internal improvements was on the importance of building up the perception that state investment, that private investment in roads, canals and all the things needed for internal trade would not be up to what was necessary to kind of get the economy going. But as you point out, you know, the economy of America was greatly influenced by what was going on in Europe and the degree to which that attracted capital to the shipping industry and New England interests, I think, in particular, taking advantage of the trade embargoes going on with Europe. There was marketplaces for these goods paying very, very good money because of the disruptions in, you know, Atlantic trade, European trade, that some of the arguments being made in favor of the spending aspect that came after the purchase itself, you know, the economic analysis is not as complete as if we look at a much broader scale at what's going on globally. Yeah, so this is a great point, and this is especially an issue in traditional American history because they say, well, you have to have the government build roads. You have to have the government build infrastructure. So, well, even if you had potential problems, well, this is just the only way it could be. We even see this today, you know, with infrastructure bill, whatever, just assume that, well, the government has to be in charge of infrastructure. And that's just simply not true. One, there was private roads and, you know, with some government assistance on the state and local level, but it was generally minor. Roads were built to connect towns. Merchants would pay for the construction of the roads, even though they might not get a direct return on the road, but they would get the indirect return through more commerce coming into the town, boosting their sales and so on. So you did have private enterprise produce what are traditionally thought of as public goods, and that these privatized roads, canals, railroads later on, etc. Interrexibly, were much more efficient than the government enterprises. Okay. And I did love, I loved it when I found that explanation. I think it was by this engineer Benjamin Latrobe, and he brings this up and I said, oh, this is such a genius explanation that, well, one of the reasons why there was a relative lack of funds for private infrastructure during this time period was not due to the fault of the free market. It's just that so much private investment was going into the shipping industry because it was very profitable for Americans to kind of play both sides and to engage in spuggling and to ship goods to nations at war with each other, and that this was a diversion. This is a government diversion of funds. This wasn't, you know, entirely done by the private sector. So in the absence of the Napoleonic Wars, if we just pretended for some reason that they never happened, you would have seen much more private investment in infrastructure even more than what already occurred. So it's important to note this and just to see because it's such a fascinating explanation, but it also shows that, yeah, the free market can do things. You don't need the government to funnel money into various taxpayer boondoggles, etc.