Pledge of Allegiance, Fiat Currency, the Clintons, and More!
Main Discussion Topics
Iran Protests and Execution Crisis
Mass executions occurring in Iran with estimates between 12,000-20,000 casualties
Efran Soltani scheduled for execution, with calls for public support on social media
Iranian regime conducting summary trials and public executions by crane
Shah in exile has expressed support for protesters
Trump stated "help is on the way" regarding Iranian protesters
Debate over whether US should provide material support beyond moral backing
Mark emphasized the urgency: "Let us get behind our Persian brothers and sisters, they are fighting for their lives right now. Their literal, their literal metaphysical existence. This is something that I think every capitalist, every liberal, every libertarian should be behind."
Michael expressed support with reservations: "I support, uh, the Iranian's right to overthrow their government, um, if they don't want it any longer. I do not think that the United States military should be, uh, getting involved there."
Constitutional Authority and Foreign Intervention
Extended debate between Mark and Michael on constitutional limits of presidential power
Discussion of whether emergency situations justify bypassing constitutional process
Historical comparison to America's own revolutionary period with French assistance
Analysis of unpredictability in revolutionary outcomes
Mark argued for intervention: "We became independent with the help of foreign powers as well, seeking their own interests. They wanted to hobble England, but they helped us, thank you, France, for helping us, uh, helping us defeat the English and become a, uh, representative republic."
Michael countered with historical precedent: "Just read the debates between Edmund Burke and Thomas Payne regarding the French Revolution, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams regarding the French Revolution. Thomas Jefferson's subsequent apology years later to John Adams. Because when you overthrow a government like that, you don't know what's going to follow."
Iranian Leadership and Ideological Considerations
Discussion of Shah's son educated in America in political economy and political science
Comparison between current religious regime and potential monarchical alternative
Analysis of whether new leadership would bring classical liberalism to Iran
Debate about comparing Revolutionary America's ideological foundation to current Iranian situation
Mark defended the Shah's son: "The Monarch himself has been one educated in America, in political economy and political science two, and has promised to bring classical li liberalism and open markets and free markets back to Iran. So he is going to liberalize Iran according to him."
Michael emphasized ideological differences: "What they also had was an enlightenment philosophy rooted in Locke and liberalism. Which makes, yes, I realize that vastly different."
The 12-Day War and Constitutional Violations
Trump's 12-day military action against Iran without congressional approval
Destruction of Iranian nuclear capacity
Debate over whether achieving desired outcome justifies violating Constitution
Discussion of setting dangerous precedents for future administrations
Mark acknowledged the complexity: "I agree with you. Um, I mean, it's possible sometimes to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. It's possible to sometimes evade process and, and, and unfortunately that can set a precedent in a bad way while achieving something good."
Michael challenged the contradiction: "You cannot achieve value by violating your principles. No. The violation of the Constitution is the principle. The constitution is the principle. You're violating it in saying, but I like the result. No, that's not a moral act to violate your principles, to achieve something you like. Then why not lie to get something you want? Why not steal to get something you want?"
Presidential Authority and Declaration of War
Debate about proper constitutional process for military action
Discussion of Congress's role in declaring war
Analysis of what happens when Congress refuses to act against perceived threats
Comparison to historical examples including Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
Michael stated his position: "What you should do then is make the case to the United States Congress and have them declare war. That's what you should do."
Mark raised emergency exceptions: "My standard is to stop aggression. Okay. My standard is to stop the initiation of force against the United States of America."
Michael clarified his stance: "My position is if you're going to go to war, you need a declaration. If you don't get a declaration, it's not a good thing."
Iran's Historical Aggression
Discussion of oil nationalization in the 1950s as initial aggression
Hostage crisis in 1979
Iran's ongoing activities abroad including kidnapping and murder of Americans
Analysis of whether past aggression justifies current military action
Debate about whether US military should protect business interests abroad
Mark argued Iran's pattern: "Iran has been at war with the United States since 1970... They've murdered Americans abroad. They've kidnapped Americans abroad."
Michael questioned the justification: "So then, then your position then is that the United States military should be at the disposal of companies doing business in foreign countries?"
Practical Limitations and Context
Trump's existing military commitments in Venezuela
Threats regarding Greenland
National debt of $37 trillion
Analysis of whether US has capacity for multiple military engagements
Concerns about Trump's character and constitutional disregard
Michael outlined the reality: "You have a context right now, mark, that's not the context that you would prefer to have in your skull. What is actually occurring is occurring. You have a military that's being used to bomb drug boats. Yes. A military that is now involved in Venezuela. Yes. You have Trump threatening military action in Greenland."
Mark acknowledged concerns about Trump: "I don't believe that the, the, that the Trump's use of the military, uh, bears any resemblance to a rational use of the military, nor do I think he should be threatening allies in Greenland. All that stuff is absolutely insane."
Russia and Ukraine
Discussion of supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression
Debate about providing weapons versus military personnel
Analysis of Russia as "paper tiger" similar to Iran
Concerns about escalation with nuclear power
Mark advocated support: "We should support the Ukrainian people in their drive with weapons... I think the weapons would be enough to, to take Russia out."
Principles versus Consequences
Extended philosophical debate about whether ends justify means
Discussion of value achievement requiring adherence to principles
Analysis of how violating Constitution for desired outcomes undermines future arguments
Concerns about precedents set for future administrations including potential President AOC
Michael emphasized principle: "If we are out here saying that it's okay to violate the constitution because we think it's a good idea to get rid of Iran, then when David Harriman says it's okay to employ ice on the streets to screw with American citizens, uh, you know, because they have to get rid of the criminal illegals. How do we combat that?"
Mark acknowledged the paradox: "Do I understand that there are some paradoxes in the, in, in my position here? Yes. But I also under, but I also believe that we must deal with this type of aggression, which has been raging in the world for 60 years."
The Parable of the Fox and Fish
Michael shared Talmudic parable about safety and principles
Story used to illustrate that abandoning principles doesn't provide safety
Application to constitutional adherence during emergencies
Michael explained: "If we are not safe living in our natural habitat, living in the water, how will we be safe anywhere else? And what I will say is, if we are not safe abiding by our principles, then how are we gonna be safe without them?"
Domestic Priorities versus Foreign Intervention
Michael's list of more pressing concerns than Iran
National debt, minimum wage laws, entitlements
Trump's domestic policy threats including interest rate caps
Free speech threats and ICE activities
Emphasis on reclaiming liberty at home first
Michael outlined priorities: "$37 trillion in debt is more pressing, right? Absolutely. Uh, the excessive minimum wages across this country are more pressing... a president who wants to cap interest rates on credit cards. Who wants to fund the housing market? Ban corporations from buying homes, keeps using tariffs, wants to go with, and it basically, I guess, invade Greenland, our ally, uh, the, the, uh, what's the word? The entitlement superstructure that we have here in the country. Uh, the threats against the media, uh, ice agents in the streets, in masks. All of these, to me, are more pressing than Iran."
Online Discourse and Intellectual Honesty
Discussion of people misrepresenting arguments
Reference to Master and Margarita story about misquoting
Emphasis on friendship despite disagreements
Value of questioning premises and maintaining intellectual rigor
Mark reflected on discourse: "Half the time, Michael, I feel like when I post on X, you post on X or we talk. We have our discussions like this. People reflect back to us something we aren't even saying half the time, and it drives me out of my mind."
Michael affirmed: "I love Jim Valiant. I love Mark Pellegrino, and I love the audience even when you get on my nerves."
Referenced Media/Historical Examples
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams debates on French Revolution
Edmund Burke and Thomas Payne on French Revolution
Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
Roosevelt's use of FCC
Louisiana Purchase constitutional violation
Parable of the Fox and Fish from the Talmud
Master and Margarita by Bulgakov
Notable Quotes
Michael on Interventionism: "If we are not safe abiding by our principles, then how are we gonna be safe without them?"
Mark on Iranian Threat: "The Mullah do have to go... Iran has been the most aggressive regime in the last 60 years. Not just in that region, but in the world."
Michael on Constitutional Principle: "The constitution is the principle. You're violating it in saying, but I like the result. No, that's not a moral act to violate your principles, to achieve something you like."
Mark on Revolutionary Support: "Moral support for them will not win the revolution for them... Something has to be figured out because the mark, I'm sorry, mark, do have to go, my friend. The Mullah do have to go."
Michael on Practical Limitations: "If you could make the case to Congress, I would support it declaring a war on, as this guy says Islamism, but designating specifically what that means, not an amorphous, uh, ambiguous war on terror."
Mark on Friendship and Debate: "I love fights... I learn stuff from Michael. I hope he learns stuff from me. I don't know if he does, but it helps me question my premises. It helps keep me pure and thinking and active and alive."
Key Themes
Constitutional limits on executive military power
Revolutionary outcomes and unpredictability
Principles versus consequences in foreign policy
Setting precedents for future administrations
Practical limitations of military intervention
Domestic priorities versus foreign entanglements
Islamism as existential threat
Value of intellectual debate and questioning premises
Capitalist Thought of the Day
There are many pressing threats to liberty in America today that demand our immediate attention. Our national debt has reached $37 trillion. Excessive minimum wages are strangling businesses across the country. We have a president who wants to cap interest rates on credit cards, fund the housing market, and ban corporations from buying homes while continuing to use destructive tariffs. This same president threatens military action against Greenland, our ally, while the entitlement superstructure continues to grow unchecked. We face threats against the media and ICE agents operating in masks in our streets. All of these issues are more pressing than foreign interventions.
I hope the Iranian protesters, especially those who truly want liberty, succeed in their revolution. But I hope even more that we can reclaim liberty here at home. That is where our focus must be. We cannot save the world when we are losing freedom in our own country. The battles for constitutional principles, economic freedom, and individual rights must be won at home before we can claim to export them abroad.