powerline-logo4@2xThe whole PL gang assembled this afternoon to tape Episode 13 of the Power Line Show.
They discuss Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the controversy that followed its passage. Law Professor John Yoo of Berkeley joined us for an extensive discussion of the legal issues relating to RFRA — and, trust me, the conversation is entertaining as well as informative. The crew then goes on to discuss the insanity surrounding Memories Pizza and the apparent demise of liberalism.

We talked about the announced deal (or outline of a deal) over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and wrapped up with a little talk about the Final Four, including predictions from a couple of us, which we are posting just in time to be proved wrong.

If you haven’t been listening to the Power Line Show, this would be a great time to start. Subscribe to the Power Line show on iTunes. 

Subscribe to Power Line in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 3 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Prof. Yoo wondered who were the 3 “no” votes on the federal RFRA in the Senate.  They were Robert Byrd, Jesse Helms, and Harlan Mathews.

    Byrd and Helms, of course, are well known.

    Mathews was a Democratic “caretaker” Senator who served out the remainder of the term of Al Gore Jr., after Gore was elected VP in 1992.

    • #1
  2. user_199279 Coolidge
    user_199279
    @ChrisCampion

    Great podcast, but I really think some of the comments later on regarding the Iran deal didn’t even pass the laughable test.  The only reason Iran came to the table was because of the prospect of sanctions being reduced?  Really.  Here’s something to consider:  The only reason Iran came to the table was because they knew they had a “man” on the other side of the table who would give away the farm in order to walk away and be able to say he made a deal.

    That is it.  That is the only thing that brought them there, and since they are not idiots when it comes to negotiating, they won huge – granted, not a tough thing to accomplish with Barry on the other side, but they won big.  Barry was the same guy who’s so pro-democracy he wouldn’t, couldn’t, speak out in favor of the democratic protests that occurred in Iran in 2009; he abjectly refused to say a thing.

    Why?  To strengthen his negotiating position on a nuclear deal 6 years down the road, where a) Iran does not have to stop anything they’re doing, even if you idiotically assume they would adhere to the restrictions in any deal, and b) they get the bomb anyway, but 10 years later?

    The Iranians literally had to do nothing and they would win.  And they did.

    Secondly, regarding an act of war, in terms of potentially blockading the gulf to restrict Iranian oil shipments as a means of coercion:  Let’s go back to the multiple terrorist bombings of US military personnel ,throughout the 80’s and 90’s and 2000’s that have been tied to Iran.  Let’s count the IED’s smuggled in from Iran, and Iran militants in Iraq that killed and maimed US soldiers.

    Act of war?  In my mind, Iran’s lucky its map hasn’t been terraformed to look like Swiss cheese, providing a nice, healthy green glow for the rest of the Middle East to see and learn to respect.

    • #2
  3. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Chris Campion:Great podcast, but I really think some of the comments later on regarding the Iran deal didn’t even pass the laughable test. The only reason Iran came to the table was because of the prospect of sanctions being reduced? Really. Here’s something to consider: The only reason Iran came to the table was because they knew they had a “man” on the other side of the table who would give away the farm in order to walk away and be able to say he made a deal.

    You have a point here, but this started in 2014, no? Not 2009. Mr. Obama is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. So you need to do a bit more work for your argument. Further, I do not think this does any damage to what was said on the podcast–you are right to point out that who occupies the White House matters in such matters, it’s important to spell that out, but you’re wrong if you think they were not aware of that on the podcast…

    Act of war? In my mind, Iran’s lucky its map hasn’t been terraformed to look like Swiss cheese, providing a nice, healthy green glow for the rest of the Middle East to see and learn to respect.

    I would not go that far, but it does seem that what Mr. W. Bush started he should have finished. Getting rid of one tyrant & scaring a few more was certainly not enough… Hopefully, America will get another chance to learn that war is hell & how it should be fought, & who the enemy is. To that end, it would be good to have people who remember all the acts of war committed against your country-

    • #3