384 episodes

Bob talks about the issues that affect our lives on a daily basis from a purely libertarian standpoint. He believes in small government, fewer taxes, and greater personal freedom.

America has lost its way, but it cannot and does not need to be reinvented. Our founders were correct about their approach to government, as were John Locke, Adam Smith and the other great political philosophers who influenced them. The country’s first principles are economic and social freedom, republicanism, the rule of law, and liberty. Bob believes we must take the best of our founding principles and work from them because a country without principles is just a landmass.

www.bobzadek.com

The Bob Zadek Show Bob Zadek

    • News
    • 4.8 • 8 Ratings

Bob talks about the issues that affect our lives on a daily basis from a purely libertarian standpoint. He believes in small government, fewer taxes, and greater personal freedom.

America has lost its way, but it cannot and does not need to be reinvented. Our founders were correct about their approach to government, as were John Locke, Adam Smith and the other great political philosophers who influenced them. The country’s first principles are economic and social freedom, republicanism, the rule of law, and liberty. Bob believes we must take the best of our founding principles and work from them because a country without principles is just a landmass.

www.bobzadek.com

    Senator Rand Paul Exposes the Great COVID Coverup

    Senator Rand Paul Exposes the Great COVID Coverup

    Although the immediate medical crisis of COVID may be behind us, we have yet to recover from the political side effects of the pandemic. We were lied to. Senator Rand Paul has revealed the extent of the lies in his explosive new book, Deception: The Great COVID Coverup, yet few have come to terms with the brute facts regarding “Gain of Function” research and the conspiracy to keep it a secret.
    I had the privilege of interviewing Senator Paul about the extensive deception around COVID-19, and the shocking number of government agencies and private sector entities involved in the collective coverup. Rather than coming clean, Dr. Fauci and others orchestrated a massive campaign to shirk responsibility. The American people deserve to know the full truth.
    With the mainstream media still asleep at the wheel, it’s time to wake up to the egregious overreach of federal, state, and local governments that took place, and ensure that they are never again able to abuse powers in this way. Listen to Senator Paul summarize in his own words what you’ll learn from his book:
    “It was the outright lies that piqued my interest. What Fauci was actually doing was beginning a coverup. People often question, ‘How could a conspiracy involving hundreds of people possibly be true?’ As George Carlin said, ‘You don’t need a conspiracy when interests converge.’ I think over time, the idea that they could share guilt or culpability for millions of deaths [was] a big incentive for them to cover up.”
    Listen now, or read the transcript below, to learn the full story behind the lab leak hypothesis (at this point, all but confirmed), and the Senator’s ongoing efforts to get the word out to the public


    This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

    • 25 min
    Remember when kids were free to be kids?

    Remember when kids were free to be kids?

    Lenore Skenazy is author of Free Range Kids, first published in 2010 and republished a few years ago. She's a frequent public speaker and co-founder with Jonathan Haidt of Let Grow movement. She's been on The View, 20/20, The Daily Show, and The Today Show.
    We first met Lenore when she was a columnist for the New York Sun, shortly after she wrote "Why I let my nine year old ride the subway alone," which earned her the coveted award of the “world's worst mom.”
    It is my pleasure to introduce her to an entire new generation of my show's listeners, as my final show.
    Links
    * Let Grow
    * Free-Range Kids book
    * FreeRangeKids.com
    * The Fragile Generation Reason Magazine by Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt
    Transcript
    Bob Zadek: Lenore, please share the anecdote of the world's worst mom for us again?
    Lenore Skenazy (11:16): Sure. Well the headline says it all. Years ago when our younger son was nine, he started asking me and my husband (who you never hear of as the world's worst dad) if we would take him someplace he'd never been before here in New York City and let him find his own way home on the subway. Bob, did you grow up here?
    Bob Zadek (11:42): Yes, I was a subway rider as far back as I can remember. I grew up riding the buses, the Q44 A and all the buses and the A E and the F train.
    Lenore Skenazy (12:01): A Q tells us you were a Queens boy!
    So my son asked if he could take the subway alone. We said yes, so one sunny Sunday I took him to Bloomingdale's. I left him in the handbag department because that's where the subway entrance is. I took a bus home and he went down to the subway. He talked to a stranger and asked if this was the right direction. The stranger said no, he was on the wrong side. But instead of hurting him, the stranger helped him.
    So he took the subway down to 34th Street, the Miracle Street, got out, and had to take a bus across town to get home. He came into the apartment levitating with pride. He'd done something grown up, his parents had trusted him, and it had gone well.
    I didn't write about it immediately because I didn't realize my entire career depended on it at the time. I was a newspaper reporter, and about a month and a half later, when I had nothing to write about, I said, “How about I write a column about letting my son take the subway by himself?”
    My editor says, “Sure, it's a nice local story.”
    And so I wrote Why I let my nine year-old ride the subway alone.
    Two days later I was on the Today Show, MSNBC, Fox News and NPR being interviewed and often chided for doing something that could have been dangerous. It took years for me to unpack why we always ended up talking about “What would've happened if he had been murdered??”, even though he obviously hadn't been.
    So I started Free Range Kids as a blog. I should say that I love safety helmets and car seats and seat belts and mouth guards, extra layers. I just don't think kids need us with them every single second of the day. I think they can figure things out on their own. I think they can have some adventures. I think they're as smart as we were and we got to spend a lot of time on our own. So that's what I've been preaching for 15 years. Kids are smarter and safer than our culture gives them credit for.
    Bob Zadek (14:34): My parents were model parents by your standards. They would've gotten the award at your annual ceremony for the world's best parents because they took risks with my life probably every day of my upbringing. I walked to school in Queens where I grew up.
    What Drives Overparenting?
    Bob Zadek: What are the merits of this fanaticism that drives the helicopter parenting?
    Lenore Skenazy (15:41): Parenting has changed. Suddenly, instead of discussing something happy and triumphant, we were talking about a hypothetical where my son died. First of all, it's an extremely depressing and distressing thing to discuss. But then I gradually realized that to go to that dark place had become the hallmark of good parenting.
    Tha

    • 52 min
    Arnold Kling: We Just Nationalized the Banking System—Now What?

    Arnold Kling: We Just Nationalized the Banking System—Now What?

    Arnold Kling holds a PhD in economics from MIT. He has worked at the Federal Reserve and later at Freddie Mac. In 1994, he started a web-based business. He used to blog at EconLog, and now writes at ArnoldKling.substack.com.
    Links & Transcript
    * arnoldkling.substack.com
    * Reason forum hosted by Zach Weissmueller,
    * The Big Short
    * It’s a Wonderful Life - Bank run scene
    How did SVB (almost) Go Under?
    Bob Zadek: (01:49): Arnold, let's talk about Silicon Valley Bank, founded around 40-50 years ago—a new bank compared to our first bank formed by Alexander Hamilton around the country's founding.
    Silicon Valley Bank was doing fine until recently. It was the 16th largest bank, with plenty of funds and public shareholders. It specialized in startups, especially biotech and tech companies, and was a favorite of venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. Then suddenly, Silicon Valley Bank collapsed.
    So far there hasn't been a run on the bank, perhaps because the Fed intervened. But how could a successful, well-established bank fail so quickly? Arnold, tell us how a bank could go from thriving to defunct overnight.
    Arnold Kling (03:47): As Ernest Hemingway said, “Gradually, then suddenly.”
    I think that captures the story here. They gradually lost money because they held a huge portfolio of long-term mortgage-backed securities and Treasury securities on their books from a couple of years ago before interest rates went up. The value of that portfolio went down.
    Then they went bankrupt suddenly because over 95% of their deposits were not insured. The typical customer had $3 million to $4 million that they used to make payroll and other expenses. That's way above the insurance limit of $250,000. Those people saw the bank was underwater, and no one wanted to be the last one left holding the bag. They started a run on the bank.
    Bob Zadek (04:56): The public believes that when you deposit money in the bank, the bank somehow keeps it in a shoebox under the counter. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when you deposit money in the bank, you are making an unsecured loan to the bank. Unlike a bank that lends you money with the collateral of your home or car, you are just the lowest form of creditor—an unsecured creditor.
    We don't want all depositors withdrawing their funds at once. That's called a "run on the bank,” as Jimmy Stewart explains in It's a Wonderful Life. If everyone who lent you money demanded their money back at once, even if you have assets, they're not in cash. So you'd default. After the Great Depression, the government decided to avoid bank runs by guaranteeing deposits up to $250,000.
    The problem was that millions and millions of dollars were deposited in Silicon Valley Bank, but then bad things started to happen. The bank had invested much of their money in federal securities, so it didn't have enough cash on hand to give everyone their deposits back right away. The federal securities that banks invest in are usually very safe. This caused even more panic and worsened the run on the bank. In short, too much money chasing too few safe investments led to a crisis of confidence in Silicon Valley Bank.
    Arnold Kling (09:13): In a way, this is a rerun of the savings and loan crisis of the 1970s and 1980s.
    If you lent me money for a mortgage a few years ago at 3% interest, you're probably not happy collecting only 3% now that mortgage rates are closer to 6%. On the other hand, I'm delighted to pay only 3% and have no desire to sell my house and take on a new mortgage at 5%. So what's good for me is bad for you as a lender.
    Silicon Valley Bank lent heavily when interest rates were low. As a result, the mortgage securities and long-term bonds they purchased declined in value. However, there is no risk of default on my 3% mortgage, so I am happy to repay it. Similarly, there is no way the federal government will default on the 20-year bonds paying one and a half percent interest. You need not worry about de

    • 52 min
    Confronting the 'Cancelists' with Alan Dershowitz

    Confronting the 'Cancelists' with Alan Dershowitz

    Today's guest, renowned civil liberties attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, raises the bar and exceeds the highest standards. Professor Dershowitz has published over a thousand articles and 50 books, including several national bestsellers. His autobiography Taking the Stand was a New York Times bestseller. Other notable books include The Trials of Zion, Rights From Wrongs, The Case for Israel, and Chutzpah.
    His forthcoming book Dershowitz on Killing examines the complex issue of determining rules regarding life and death decisions. Following the principles that have guided his long, distinguished career, he argues these rules should reflect the irreversibility of death.
    In this episode, Dershowitz explains how he became unfairly "canceled" for adhering to his principles, and what upholding these principles has cost him.
    His most recent book, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences (July 2022), takes a broad stance against the dangerous trend of cancellations—both of specific people as well as the very idea of neutral justice. It’s not only right-wingers provocateurs being cancelled on college campuses anymore. Liberal ideas, including some of the most cherished principles of American government, are now being cast aside.
    Take the presumption of innocence. It’s the bedrock of our adversarial legal system. We all pay lip service to the idea that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense. Yet the principle seems to go out the window whenever the person being defended is unpopular, as when Dershowitz pointed out the shaky legal grounds for impeaching former President Trump.
    In recent years, Dershowitz himself has suffered the ‘price of principle’ as the latest victim of cancel culture. Former friends like Larry David refuse to talk to him; he’s been shunned from events at which he used to be top-billed speaker. And his principled defenses of unpopular figures like Trump have been used against him in the court of public opinion.
    Unlike most celebrities whom the “cancelists” go after, Alan was exonerated. Still, Dershowitz has found few defenders. He has had to defend himself.
    Furthermore, he writes that principles have taken a backseat to partisan identity politics. Partisan Democrats forget that his defense of Trump was based on the same principles he had used to defend Clinton against partisan attacks. He argues that too many people abandon their principles in favor of whatever stance benefits their political party or social group, and believes we are heading towards a "dystopia of partisanship and discrimination" if this trend continues.
    Purchase the book, and subscribe to Alan’s Substack:
    Links
    * The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences
    * Dershowitz on Killing
    * Bel and the Dragon - Wikipedia
    * In Defence of Cross-Examination - Chapter 6 - Search for Truth in Arbitration: Is Finding the Truth what Dispute Resolution is About? - ASA Special Series No. 35 | ArbitrationLaw.com
    * 12 Angry Men (1957 film) - Wikipedia
    * Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Wikipedia
    Transcript
    The Case for Neutral Principles
    Bob Zadek: Alan, your recently published book The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences differs from your 50 other methodically persuasive books on topics like censorship, equality, vaccine mandates, and law. This book is more personal. What goal did you have in writing it?
    Alan Dershowitz (02:54): I wish to criticize cancel culture. I desire to push back against those who would censor views they disagree with. I wanted to express my disapproval for free speech for me but not for thee—due process for me but not for thee. If I can be canceled because I stood up for principle, then anyone could be canceled. If I can be attacked, then any American can be attacked.
    I feel a special obligation because I do have a platform to fight back against what I regard as some of the greatest evils of today: the substitution of partisanship for

    • 52 min
    Moving California Forward with the Common Sense Party

    Moving California Forward with the Common Sense Party

    Our country has been governed since its founding by a two-party system. The Constitution did not establish political parties, which the founders feared. History proves their concerns were prescient, not paranoid. James Madison hoped opposing factions would counterbalance each other's power, through "ambition offset[ting] ambition." Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Rather, one hand simply washes the other, leaving US citizens with the resulting dirty soapy water.
    In 1776, Thomas Paine offered the colonies 47 pages of Common Sense, which became the most widely read book of the times.
    Today our guest, Tom Campbell, offers us the Common Sense political party.
    Tom served five terms in the US Congress and two years in the California State Senate. He holds a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago and a JD magna cum laude from Harvard. He was a White House Fellow and a US Supreme Court law clerk.
    I'm now registered as a Common Sense Party voter – I've given up the pleasure of primary voting, but I'll sacrifice that to support the right thing politically. Read or listen to my interview with Tom and see if you’d like to join me.
    The Bob Zadek Show is the country's longest running libertarian broadcast – nationally streamed at 8 AM PT Sundays. Subscribe for weekly transcripts, book summaries and additional resources:

    Links:
    * Learn more and update your voter registration at CACommonSense.org
    * George Washington-Baneful Effects of Political Parties - Thirty-Thousand.org
    * Common Sense Party on Twitter
    Related Shows:
    * Alex Nowrasteh: How Prop. 187 Turned California Blue
    * Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop. We know the two-party system is flawed… | by Bob Zadek | Medium
    * Restoring Common Sense to California | by Bob Zadek | Medium
    Transcript
    Why California Needs a Third Party
    Bob Zadek (01:58):Tom, welcome back to the show.
    Tom Campbell (02:58): Bob, it's a pleasure to be with you. I look forward to a fascinating hour.
    Bob Zadek (03:02): Now, Tom, you are a founder of the Common Sense Party. Now let's start with the core issue. What's the problem with a two-party system? Isn't two enough? Why do we need more?
    Tom Campbell (03:35): The system we have in California is two parties that have gone to their extremes.
    The Democrats have shifted further and further left under the influence of public employee unions and identity politics. The Republicans have shifted to the right under the support of former President Trump, almost reaching cult status.
    That leaves those of us in the middle with folks who cannot talk with each other.
    That leaves those of us in the middle without a voice in California. Since Democrats have a supermajority, they have no need to listen to anyone else. The parties retreat to their extremes, leaving the rest of us behind.
    We can illustrate this in a number of different policy issues. I'll choose one issue: education.
    We know the quality of education in public schools through high school graduation is poor. It's far below acceptable levels. And we know that to win the Democratic nomination for legislature, you need support from the California Teachers Union. They oppose charter schools and parents' ability to choose a better school than their local public school. Republicans now make up less than one-third of each legislative house, so they've become irrelevant.
    A possible compromise is to give higher pay to teachers in low-income schools—call it merit pay. The California Teachers Union won't allow Democrats to support that; they insist on strict seniority, like most unions. But that prevents good teachers who want more challenging assignments from being paid more. Instead, many skilled teachers become administrators so they can earn higher pay, leaving classrooms where their talents are most needed.
    Republicans are hesitant to increase teachers' salaries because some of that money goes to teachers' unions, which fund campaigns against Republican candidates. A compromise is to expa

    • 52 min
    Taking the Lapdog Press to Task on Foreign Policy Reporting

    Taking the Lapdog Press to Task on Foreign Policy Reporting

    Today's guest, Ted Galen Carpenter, is a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He has written 13 books and over 1,100 articles on international affairs. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Strategic Studies. His latest book, Unreliable Watchdog, examines the empty promise of press freedom embodied in the First Amendment and offers lessons on how the press should honor its duty to inform ordinary people. Our founders could not have imagined that such freedom would be squandered by much of the press, leaving it as little more than an unquestioning mouthpiece for the political establishment.
    I agree with Ted's point that the press, as a business protected by the First Amendment, has certain duties that correspond with its rights and freedoms. The press should use these privilege responsibly. Overall, Ted's book delivers a powerful message: with rights come responsibilities, and the press is no exception.
    The Bob Zadek Show is the country's longest running libertarian broadcast – nationally streamed at 8 AM PT Sundays. Subscribe for weekly transcripts, book summaries and additional resources:

    Links:
    * Cato Institute (@CatoInstitute) / Twitter
    * Unreliable Watchdog | Cato Institute
    * Volodymyr Zelensky Is Washington's New Jonas Savimbi - Antiwar.com Original
    * Washington's Convenient Relationships with Dictators - Foundation for Economic Education
    * Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer - YouTube
    * Ted Galen Carpenter discusses groupthink, foreign policy, media, and Ukraine on ABC's Between the Lines | Cato Institute
    * Why Can't America Accept an Imperfect World? | Cato Institute
    Transcript
    Bob Zadek (00:00:00): Ted, welcome to the show. Was my opening too harsh, or did it appropriately set the tone for today's discussion?
    Ted Galen Carpenter (00:01:56): The title of my book, Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and US Foreign Policy, was chosen deliberately. The press is meant to serve as a watchdog over public policy, calling attention to government misconduct and incompetence. However, the media's track record in this regard is poor and declining.
    Two major issues stand out:
    * Instead of investigating and reporting independently, journalists often act as stenographers, rephrasing and circulating government propaganda as news.
    * World events are frequently misrepresented in simplistic melodramas pitting "horrible villains" against "angelic advocates of freedom". The villains are always US opponents, the angels US allies - even if the angels are deeply flawed or corrupt.
    These twin diseases of the news media undermine its duty to inform the public.
    What Would the Founders Say?
    Bob Zadek (00:04:30): You said in your introductory comments that the press is supposed to serve as a watchdog. Where does this expectation come from? Who determined that this is the press's role? As you noted, the founding fathers' publications openly took political sides. Thomas Jefferson had his preferred newspapers, and John Adams had his. Readers expected praise for their preferred politician. The founders and the public did not expect the press to be impartial watchdogs. So, where did the idea that the press should serve as impartial watchdogs originate?
    Ted Galen Carpenter (00:06:18): The expectations for an adversarial press have not been met. While early newspapers were partisan, openly attacking opposing political parties, today's media largely supports the government. There is little opposition, especially regarding foreign policy and national security, where a bipartisan narrative dominates and is rarely challenged. Journalists who question this narrative face backlash from colleagues and government agencies. This shift to collusion, regardless of which party controls the White House, is the danger.
    Bob Zadek (00:07:38): As we discuss the state of the press today, it may be helpful to reflect on the past. Was there

    • 52 min

Customer Reviews

4.8 out of 5
8 Ratings

8 Ratings

capreble ,

Terrific host, terrific guests

Bob is such a great host. So knowledgeable about so many issues and he always has smart guests on his show. Well worth the time.

chazboxchops ,

Great guests, no fluff

Bob covers some of the least talked-about, but most important issues – mostly American politics, always from a libertarian perspective – and does so without watering down the content, or letting the conversations get too deep into the weeds. The show is especially solid when it comes to the Founding Fathers, and probing the logic of the constitution (original intent, etc.) as applied to modern issues.

Top Podcasts In News

The Daily
The New York Times
Serial
Serial Productions & The New York Times
Up First
NPR
The Ben Shapiro Show
The Daily Wire
Pod Save America
Crooked Media
The Megyn Kelly Show
SiriusXM