Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist
and David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just
as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. Malli,
did you see the Pulitzer Prizes are out?
Speaker 2: Did I wait every year with excitement to see what
excellent journalism is out there?
Speaker 1: Well, you'll be happy to know that this year the
Pulitzer Prize in Public Service went to Pro Publica for
exposing the fatal consequences of abortion bands. I'm surprised they
didn't win another one for smearing Supreme Court justices. That
was probably within the last year.
Speaker 2: I think they did win one, but that was the
previous year. It could be wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, they've won a few. This one listen. This one
centers around a few stories that do with just complete
and utter lie about abortion bands in Georgia. Specifically, it
was the case of Amber Thurman, who was a twenty
eight year old North Carolina woman who checked herself into
a suburban Atlanta hospital and died there from infections caused
after she took abortion pills to aboard her twins. The
story is just transparently a lie, so easy to debunk
by any kind of by any intelligent person. One has
to go down to the fifty seventh paragraph of this
three thy five hundred word story to get to the
line that says, it is not clear from the records
available why doctors waited to provide, you know, the help.
So also, the reporters who worked on the story did
not quote, don't have a single source witness anyone having
anything to do with this case on the record saying
it had anything to do with his abortion law. Every
time you get to the part where a normal reporter
would say, we're going to corroborate what we've said, or
we're going to, you know, talk to someone who was there,
they talked to some unnamed uh, you know, abortion activist
or an abortion activist on the record somewhere else. So anyway,
it's the one of the most sleazy, poorly done stories.
It was clearly meant just to give oppo to politicians.
Kamala Harris mentioned that this story, as did Senate Republic
Senate Democrats. So anyway, well that's why.
Speaker 2: That's why they won They won because they did the
job that they were supposed to do, which was pushed
Democrat propaganda with a veneer of journalism around it. There
are ways that the entire quote unquote journalism industry operate
on behalf of or even you might say they direct
the Democrat Party. Pro Publica as is the investigative arm
of it, And it's fine and good to complain about it.
That you should. It's egregiously shoddy work in the service
of political aims at the expense of the truth. But
it's also interesting to just knowe what's going on there.
Major Democrat donors and Pro Publica was started by a
major Democrat donor, but also gets funding from other big
foundations and billionaires. They brought in in twenty twenty three
fifty seven million dollars I think it was, which is
a lot of money. Democrat donors gave that money because
they wanted stories like the one that they were rewarded
with a Pulitzer for if you think about what the
Democrat agenda was in twenty twenty three. In twenty twenty four,
they were upset that the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade had
finally been overturned fifty years after it never should have
even been authored and handed down. And their claim, and
Hillary Clinton said this that year, was that women would die.
Their problem was that no women died, and so they
had to invent some. And so, even though this is
a story about the dangerous abortion drug, which is very dangerous,
which the media lie to you about because they serve
Democrat talking points, followed up by incompetent medical care, they
tried to make it a story about laws protecting women
and children from abortion and it just was not accurate,
but they didn't care. They just pushed it anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, in the business, in the journalism business,
we have a sain called bearing the lead. Right, the
lead is buried in the fifty seventh paragraph of this story.
The only indisputable fact in this whole story is that
the abortion pill caused complications that ended up killing this woman.
That is, you cannot argue that fact. Everything else is shaded.
Now we should also mention how this works. I think
I'm sure people know this, but I'm going to say
it anyway. You know, pro public. So there's some activist
has this story and he starts pitching it or she
starts pitching it to media. They start with the New
York Times, and they work their way all the way
down and at the very very very bottom is Pro
public or maybe close to the bottom, because the New
York Times probably didn't want to publish something so shoddy.
But what happens is once it's published, then the New
York Times mentions it as reported. Then the columnists that
the New York Times, which I looked up, start talking
about it. Then I see Axios mentions it and starts
talking about how senators are going to have a blitz
on emergency abortion care this week after the Pro public
of reporting on the death of a Georgia woman, you know,
and stuff like that. Kamala Harris mentions it in speeches.
So that's the little game they play here. They did
this often with Brett Kavanosmears as well. Someone would report
something maybe I forget, you know, some lesser place. They're
will lesser right now to me, but and then everyone
else reports it. So and that's the little game they
play here.
Speaker 2: Well done, well done, Yeah, yes and no, yes, that
is the game that's played. But also Pro Publica brought
in fifty seven million dollars in twenty twenty three. That's
a lot of money to run your own operations. They
don't publish that many stories in their twenty twenty three
nine ninety. We don't have the one for twenty twenty
four yet. I don't think they said that they spent
their fifty seven million dollars, that thirty six million dollars
went to their attacks. They're grossly unfair attacks on Justice
Thomas and Justice Alito. By their own admission, they spent
thirty six million dollars. David, if you had thirty six
million dollars to go after two people, even two people
as sort of incorruptible and nice, not that anyone's incruptible,
but you know.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: Whistley clean as Alito and Thomas, imagine what you could
do with that amount of money. You could pay reporters
and editors an obscene amount of money, so you get
like a higher quality of propaganda. You have research teams
that can fan out all across the nation. I think
the really interesting story about this pro public award for
lying about abortion is that with the amount of money
they had and the need to come up with just
like three good stories about how Samuel Alito was killing
people by properly stating the fact that the Constitution does
not mention abortion and that therefore Roe v. Wade was
illegitimate law, and they couldn't come up with one. They
had to invent the one that they came up with.
I mean, that's pretty interesting to me. I would have
assumed they could have found something to spin better than
the Amber Thurman story.
Speaker 1: Well, it's like, if your starting point is here's you know,
let's find the here's the person or people were after,
Let's find the crime. It's a difficult you know, it's
a difficult hill to climb. But I will say this also,
just you can have an ideological point of view. I do,
and still and you do, and a lot of people
do and still be honest about your reporting. I just
want to take credit. I don't usually take credit for things,
but I did have this position. I think you had
the same position. When Dobbs happened, Virtually every political expert
told us that this abortion stuff was going to sink
the GOP for a generation. It was going to destroy them.
The presidency couldn't be one. Nothing could happen. They tried to,
you know. I mean, and he deserves credit. Donald Trump
deserves credit for putting judges in the right place and
putting good judges in the right place, and that didn't happen.
I mean, where's the Democratic Party now? Who's even talking
about abortion anymore? You know? And people were just so
mad at me for even daring to say that. I
just don't think this is like the most important issue
for people. Most people aren't one issue voters, right, And
these stories they failed. They failed not just because they
were poorly written, but because everyone knows that these laws
aren't as draconian, and everyone says the Georgia law is
a first trimester most most if you look at Poles
and ask people by trimester trimester, most of them believe
that abortion should be I believe nine hundred percent sure
on this. So I think most people want restrictions after then,
and that's what the Georgia law does. I don't know.
Speaker 2: So I think part of the problems for Democrats and
their media. I think part of the problem was that
they claimed that the Dobbs decision, rather than being just
a master and constitutional jurisprudence, they said it was going
to be an abortion nationwide. They presented that even after
it came down and it was clear that it didn't,
and so it's a classic case of crying wolf, I
think where they overstated what was done. Now having said that,
I wish people cared much more about abortion. The killing
of unborn children is bad for obviously they're them, but
also for their mothers and for family formation. And people
are just kind of happy to just have the dab's
decision and move on. But we should be working much
harder to protect women and children from the violence of
abortion and also helping create a society where that's not
even like a thinkable option because women are so cared
for by the men in their lives, and so you're
right that it hasn't had huge political effects. But on
the other hand, you know, just this week Trump, the
Trump DOJ said that they were going to stick with
the Biden DJs appro to all these challenges to related
to the abortion drug that have been filed in Northern
District of Texas and Missouri and other states. And so
the Trump White House is acting as if it's a
losing issue and not showing actually, the Trump DOJ and
they're not doing what they should be doing properly to
protect the health of women and their children visa VI
the abortion drug. So another win for Pro PUBLICA.
Speaker 1: Well, this story is a good example of the dangers
of that drug. You know, she had no not thousand
percent sure on this because it hasn't been reported, but
I don't believe. I believe she got the pills, she
had no supervision from a doctor, and this happened. And
this is this is, you know, a dangerous thing. What
is the organization called again, the e PPC.
Speaker 2: EPPC, Yeah, they did, they some public policy center.
Speaker 1: Right, they did this big, big investigation, this big study.
In two think it was insurance claims and I think
they came. I don't have it right in front of me,
but one in ten I think people took the pill
had some complication that needed a visit to an emergency
room something like that. But it was it was not
a nothing number and much.
Speaker 2: Much higher than has been previously realized.
Speaker 1: The Pro public Astore on numerous occasions stresses that there
are rarely complications. It's very rare one point, extremely rare,
but not as rare as they say, And that seems
to be a bigger topic than this lie that doctors.
By the way, here's the funny, not the funniest, the
saddest part about this piece. They claim that doctors didn't
move forward because they were confused about the ambiguity of
the abortion law, or they you know, they didn't want
to get in trouble. The babies were already dead. There
is literally no confusion they had. They could have helped
her at any point, and they don't even really mention that.
It seems like a very important part of a story
if you're actually reporting. So anyway, it was. It was
a crappy story, sleazy story, because they use this woman,
this poor woman's death to score a political point.
Speaker 2: But yeah, David, I think that there's a time in
people's lives when they think the Pulitzer is a prize
given for good journalism, and then they grow up and
they realize the Pulitzer is the prize given for propaganda. Occasionally,
some other stuff slips through there to give it a
veneer of credibility, but it's rare. And if you understand
that the entire entity is for the purpose of pushing
propaganda and doing bad journalism, you just view the recipients
of the award very differently. You know, we should remember
the people who uncritically pushed the Russia collusion hoax, while
you and I were braving everybody to fight against it.
They won Pulitzers, And even after the hoax was completely
exposed as a hoax and everyone who helped push it
was held up for ridicule, the Pulitzer board said, we
relooked at their work, and we just think there's just
nothing but good stuff there. And so if you take
the Pulitzer Prize as meaning anything other than an award
for Russia collusion hoax level propaganda, you're an idiot.
Speaker 1: I think. Well, a few years back, a reporter named
Mark Hemingway for the Federalists wrote a piece about the
Pulitzer Prize and how often it was given to people
who essentially submitted fraudulent journalism or fake news story or
things that have been debunked later. I don't think, and
I don't believe that the Pulitzer Committee has ever rescinded
any of those. The sixteen to nineteen Project one coverage
of the COVID nineteen pandemic. I'm sure it's some kind
of Russia collusion stuff also one, right, so it's obviously
not anything like when I was young. Yeah, Pulitzer sounded
really impressive, and maybe it was. I don't know, and
I'd have to go back and see you one. But
obviously it's the opposite of that. Now, even though these
you know, they love to congratulate themselves and have a
little parties, but in reality, I don't think any I
think they're just killing them their credibility, which eat with
every award program event given.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, David, you just mentioned Mark Hemingway and then
you also just said you thought maybe the Russia coclusion
hoax won a Pulitzer after I'd spent like five minutes
talking about how the Russia coclusion hoaks went after And
I just have to mention something. I love that men
do this, and I think my husband is the greatest
example of it. This week, we were going through the
calendar for the summer, and I handle logistics because I'm
a woman, and I think normally that's how it works,
but like there's so much to juggle with the kids
and their work schedules and Lutheran youth camps and you know,
there's like tons of stuff to deal with, and so
I was going through all of it and asking questions
as we went, and after every single thing I said,
Mark would be like, did you think about this? And
it would be the thing I had just said. And
it happened like twelve times in a six minute conversation,
and I wasn't even mad because it was so funny,
Like I don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: Let me explain something to you that just happened. First
of all, I do that too, one hundred percent. Sometimes
my wife is talking to me, and my mind is
I'm thinking about like a sports or music or something
that has nothing to do with what's happening, because I
have no patience. But I will, in my defense, just
say that sometimes. And you do it too. I'm sure
when the other is speaking, you try to find you
try to find something to speak about online, right, And
I must have missed when you said that serves because
I was looking for the story by Mark hemingways that
could surprise you by lift your spirits, as it were,
by mentioning your husband's name on the show. Oh, I
love it. I apologize for that. Yeah, I'm going to
leave this all in the show just because I did it.
Speaker 2: Oh, I hope.
Speaker 1: So. Yeah, I deserve. I deserve all the emails that
are coming my way.
Speaker 3: Beware of the import tax. The Watchdot on Wall Street
podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the
connection between politics and the economy and how it affects
your wallet. When you're buying stuff online and don't know
where it's coming from, you might want to check at
the end before you check out. A sixty three dollars
item on TIMU has an eighty nine dollars invore charge
by American. Whether it's happening in DC or down on
Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: So, speaking of left wing journalism and propaganda, are you
upset about Trump trying to defund PBS and NPR. They
get a little bit of their massive budgets. Some of
it is given by taxpayers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, around eight to ten percent I think goes through
some kind of taxpayer. It is called corporate Broadcasting Bill. No.
I've been arguing for this for a long time, but
I did write a piece on it, and thank you
for bringing it up. I think it's deeper than just bias.
Like I get that the Executive Order focuses on bias,
and I one hundred percent agree. Is obvious since it
was formed that Democrats built this thing, Democrats run this thing,
and it is The PBS and NPR basically been mouthpieces
for like the mainstream left wing opinion in this country
for a long time. Normalizing that kind of opinion and
pushing it. That's fine. But even besides that, obviously it's
an antiquated model. Right, we have a million choices. When
mister Rogers gave his famous testimony in nineteen sixty nine
to keep money going to PBS, you know, there were
three stations in most places, maybe five. I grew up
with five, you know when I was a kid, so
I had to watch Lutheran programs like Davy and Goliath
on Sunday morning.
Speaker 2: And stuff like that television there, Yes.
Speaker 1: It was, But Mike, by the time I had kids,
you know, there were like three four stations just for
kids that had well in this educational programming all over
the place. So it's antiquated in that sense. But even
more than that, I wrote this down somewhere. NPR right
has twenty six million listeners every I guess month, a
thousand stations. If they privatize and monetize themselves it'd be
one of the biggest radio you know, and podcasting platforms
in existence. Indeed, I think many of their podcasts are
actually quite good and well produced and interesting. So there's
no reason though that taxpayers should have to fund a
company that's bigger than one I think radio you know, franchise.
So same thing with PBS, like what And here's the
last thing I'm going to just say on this. The
NPR's viewer, MPRS listeners, and PBS's viewers are largely upper
middle class folks who have plenty of money to spend
on these things themselves. There's no reason a poorer person
or any kind of middle class version should have to
pay so that someone doesn't have to, you know, pollute
their eyeballs with a fast food commercial while they're watching
sort of crusty British you know, melodramas or whatever. There's
just no reason for it. So I think there's a
bad case to be made for it.
Speaker 2: There wouldn't be reason for it even if it provided.
I mean, you just praised their podcasts and whatnot. But well,
there has been some good radio programming or public television programming,
a lot of it. The vast, vast fast Man right
of it is pushing far left wing ideology that is
antithetical to American founding ideas. I mean, you had the
thing even where they put a trigger warning ahead of
their reading of the Declaration of Independence, so they can't
even read Founding documents without trashing them. They famously said
that they wouldn't cover the Hunter Biden laptop because they
didn't have time to waste on fake news. Of course
that was not fake news, it was one hundred percent true.
They're just Democrat propaganda. So it's bad enough. Yes, there's
no reason for any media to be funded by the
government right, particularly if it's left wing media. Though that
is fighting the country and fighting the country's ideals, allis.
Speaker 1: I mean other people might see that differently, but here's
my think.
Speaker 2: Wait do you think I'm sorry? I just give the
example of the declaration. How can you defend trash the
Declaration of Independence as a pro American thing?
Speaker 1: I don't, But I'm just saying that even if someone
disagrees with you about the specifics, and I agree with
you on this specific I think there are I think
many of their the ideas they push are not an
American and I have not that I listen all the time.
But my point is that if they said something that
Donald Trump didn't like and then Donald Trump threatened them
or any president threaten to take away their funding, and
then they acquiesced to that to modify that president, that's
bad too. I don't want media involved with government. I
don't want government being able to pressure media. I don't
want media listening to government at all, just like I
don't want censorship. And I'm just quickly back to NPR.
You remember Uri Berliner I think was his name, as.
Speaker 2: A reporter, like the editor who's like everybody else is
even further left than I am.
Speaker 1: He said there were eighty I think eighty registered Democrats
on staff of the news staff of NPR and zero Republicans. Now,
you're not going to get honest, good coverage if everyone
agrees in a newsroom on everything. But that's their business,
if their private it's not their business when we help
pay for it. And part of the problem there is
it keeps saying it's not a lot of money, but
yet also we need the money. If it's not a
lot of money, then why do we need to give
it to you? Now? I don't know if Trump can
do this through executive order. In the end, it is
a bill, and at the end, as usual, Congress needs
to do it. Who knows how we're going to do it.
Speaker 2: Competent do you have to be as a member of
Congress to not have taken care of this fifty years ago?
It's just.
Speaker 1: It's nowhere. They do nothing. There's not going to be
any cuts in this budget. It's going to continue to grow.
Speaker 2: Actually even on that. So one of the proposals in
the Trump budget is about reforming Medicaid, which is a
notoriously corrupt program that was massively bumped up under both
Obama and Biden. It's not an entitlement program, and it's
this major way that states and individuals kind of game
programs for massive transfers of wealth. We have more transfers
of wealth than like France does, you know. And we
like to think of them as socialists.
Speaker 1: And us not.
Speaker 2: But like, the Republicans can't even handle that one. And
you don't even have to do that much to save
massive amounts of money. And all these Republicans who have
claimed for so long that they are so good on
financial issues even if they can't be trusted on anything else.
That matters. They're like a wall on even just that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there are a wall on basically everything
right now. And you know, I listen. I know there's
a very slim majority in the House, right I get that,
but at least push things so we can debate them
and you know, bring it to the public's attention. Everything
is just I mean I say this every episode. I mean,
this is not how we envision governance, having the president
do everything. And again, I think it's been an accumulation
over numerous administrations, but that you know that we've gotten
to this place, but it still shouldn't be this way.
One last story on the media, or maybe we have more.
I don't even know, but did you see this New
Yorker piece on John Fetterman and how all the people
around him are very, very concerned and upset about his
mental health? Which is weird because many of those same
people in that very story had vouch for his mental
health right after he had a stroke and could barely
cobble together a sentence. What do you think that's about?
Speaker 2: Well, just as a casual observer of John Fetterman, what
I mostly remember is when he was campaigning and he
had the stroke, after he won the nomination, but before
he won the Senate seat, a reporter came out and said, like,
by the way, he can't talk, and everybody was livid
with her for just saying the fact that this was
like in the early days of the stroke, when he
had people seen what was going on there, he would
not have won the Senate seat. And they were so
livid with her. And now he actually seems to be
doing really, really well, Like when you encounter him on
the hill or you see him on his interviews, he's
he's certainly doing a much better job of communicating. And
that's that's actually the problem, because what he's communicating is
his belief that the Democrat Party is getting extreme. He
thinks their views on Israel and the Palestinian conflict are horrific,
and he even thought he might support Trump nominees in
the way that Democrats used to like twenty years ago.
And so they say that this is evidence that he's
mentally unfit, and it's, you know, it's very interesting to read.
Speaker 1: Well, he's it's weird. He's like from a faction of
old time progressive before it became all race obsessed and
stuff like that. So he's pro Israel. That seems to
be I think Israel's mentioned twelve times. But also he's
got a kind of populist sensibility from Pennsylvania where that
matches up with Trump on some stuff. I mean, so
he doesn't feel the need to constantly be anti Trump.
Speaker 2: I just want to say, you said it was New Yorker.
It's New York Magazine.
Speaker 1: New York Magazine, CIRN. Yeah, New York Magazine.
Speaker 2: So there was one more thing I wanted to say
about the Fetterman story. It begins with an anecdote from
the chief of staff, the former chief of staff. By
the way, the former chief of staff worked for Harry Reid.
He never went public with anything bad about Harry Reid,
even when Harry Reid knowingly lied and falsely claimed Mitt
Romney had not paid taxes. It was a lie. He
knew it was a lie, and later when he was
confronted on it, he said, well, it worked, didn't it.
And that chief of staff never said word one. He
goes running to New York Magazine and he doesn't just say, like,
I'm concerned about Fetterman because he's too pro Israeli. He says,
he shares an email that he wrote to Fetterman's doctor
who was treating him for his severe depression. So do
you remember when Fetterman was hospitalized at Walter Reid for
severe depression? And it just goes through all these like,
you know, kind of embarrassing details, and to me that
is unseemly. I don't care if you don't like the person,
if you disagree with him politically, if you don't want
to work for them anymore. It's still, to me is
private and I would not be able to live with myself.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I've worked with people where you do learn some things,
you know, and I just think that's that would be
so gross and low of me to go public like,
particularly without good reason.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Also the whole part with his wife, essentially it
seems to me like she was the only person who
can actually tell this story. By the way, so she
is in a story. I don't know that for sure,
but it just seems to me that she would be
able to tell the story about going behind her husband's
back to assure Aids that you know, he's essentially not
that well and that he doesn't really know what he's
talking about. When it comes to Israel. My favorite line
was that she's described by the reporter as a kind
hearted philanthropist. I would be upset, and I know it
would never happen if there was a story about me
and my wife's on there, you know, bad mouthing me
basically or undermining me.
Speaker 2: I mean that even the story itself is about how
she publicly or you know, in a non private way.
You can imagine what Mark Hemingway has to deal with
being married to me and how much he has disagreed
with me at times. And he would never say something
publicly because he values our or even like privately to
people who shouldn't know or you know whatever, like even
you know, and I've worked with him, We've been in
social settings where I know he's not, you know, loving
something I'm saying. He'll just mention later, like hey, I
think you got out over your skis a little bit
too much there or something. Because he loves me, cares
for what's good, husband, and it's horrifying to see that
she went to his office screams at him because he
says that it's propaganda that Israel Is wantonly bombing refugee camps.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is. It is. Loyalty is a huge part
of a marriage too. It's you know, like I mean,
it's the you know, I just I can't even fathom it.
That's the truth. I have something else that just popped
into my head, and maybe we discussed for a second.
Brian Stelter, or good friend at CNN, left and came back.
Did you see his post on the Constitution? Yes, so
he posts this piece and I'll just give you a
quick quote. Right now, newsrooms need to do a better
job of incorporating Constitution one and one into their news coverage.
And while we're at it, maybe school House Rocks needs
to make a comeback now for younger people's. Schoolhouse Rocks
were these I believe it was on ABC, but they
were these cartoons that taught you about the Bill of
Rights and how the government worked and all of this stuff. Now,
can you imagine the gall the gall of people who
spend years delegitimizing the Supreme Court that followed the Constitution,
sort of celebrating the executive abuses of both Obama and Biden,
just destroying the idea of separation of powers, you know,
celebrating the popular vote and majoritarianism and all these things
that are in America lecturing people at the Constitution. I
mentioned this online and people are like, oh, yeah, what
about is? What about? No, it is completely legitimate to
hold people Listen. I don't forget, as you know, I
don't forgive anyone if I think they're undermining the Constitution,
and it's completely legitimate to hold people responsible for their opinions.
You can't keep going back and forth like this. It
doesn't work. And I don't believe for a second that
this guy or any of these people believe in the Constitution.
They've abdicated their responsibility as journalists to uphold the First Amendment. Oh,
I forgot, and they are pro censorship, so please leave.
You know, I'm losing it.
Speaker 2: No, that's what I wanted to focus on was CNN
has openly, proudly embraced attacks on the First Amendment. They
are like, insanely pro censorship. Brian Stelter's newsletter is a
pro censorship newsletter. It gets angry when people have the
freedom to that newsletter that's written by him. And then
he also had Oliver Darcy working for him, and then
Oliver Darcy took it over, and he's still praises Oliver Darcy,
who is a pro censorship radical. They support the entire
disinformation game. They want to suppress news and information and
debate from people who they don't agree with. And the
gall of this person to say, we should we should
have the media start caring about the Constitution. Please please
begin with the First Amendment, or begin with understanding what
the administrative state is. Do you remember it was CNN
before I worked at Fox. I was over at CNN
and had to explain to the panel something Trump had
said about taking on the administrative state in twenty seventeen
at the SEAPAC conference, and they were like, administrative state.
They thought it meant like secretaries. They literally did not
know what the term meant. So, yes, learn about the constitution.
Learn about how the administrative state is an unconstitutional fourth
branch of government. Learn about how you enabled them through
your Russia collusion hoax and other things that you did
promoting the resistance, which is a resistance against the American
people and our constitutional order. But yeah, I would love
for the people at CNN to open up a Constitution
and try to read it.
Speaker 1: It just hit me. I remember this years ago, writing
a piece about how CNN would put the term religious
freedom in quotation marks as it talked about a poor
baker in Colorado being destroyed by the state that didn't
like because he had committed a thought crime by being
a Christian. Basically, they are one of the worst offenders
in my view over the last whatever amount of years,
maybe a decade, you know, maybe more. Maybe since Obama
became president, who was who was the real norm breaker
of the past three presidents, he was the real norm break. Yeah,
I don't know. So CNN Ryan Stelter so annoying.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: The funny thing is we get all worked up and
no one really cares about CNN anymore. I mean, how
much sway do they really have? I mean, maybe we
need to keep the pressure on them, But how much
sway did they have with voters anymore? Probably very little.
Speaker 2: I was talking to someone who was preparing to go
on one of their programs and I was like, literally,
they have like one hundred thousand people watching. You don't
need to be nervous about this at all.
Speaker 1: Do we have anything else? Molly, what'd you think of
the idea of what'd you think of the idea of
Donald Trump to give a thousand dollars for any immigrant
legal immigrant that self deports I like it.
Speaker 2: I said it on Special Report last night that Mitt
Romney did not have was not known for having many
good policy ideas, but self deportation was one of them.
And when you're dealing with tens of millions of illegal
immigrants in the country, and you think about how difficult
it is to seize an illegal immigrant and to put
them through the courts, when you've got these left wing
activist judges who were trying to do everything to thwart
the Trump agenda, or you could pay them a thousand
dollars and they leave on their own. To me, it's
just a great option. And there will be many things
that we have to do to get control of our
country and our borders. This is one of them, and
it's a good one.
Speaker 1: So I liked it. Yeah, I'm always for policy solutions
that incentivize people to do things right. For money. I mean,
I think one thousand dollars probably saves you twenty thirty
one hundred thousand dollars of finding or a million. I
don't know how much cost to find in illegal Let's
amends leus.
Speaker 2: We pay for the flights, but even so, it's still
much cheaper. And I hope it is one of the
many things that works.
Speaker 1: Hopefully people will many people will do it. It's better
for them not to be here illegally and have to
live with the fear of being deported in all these
things and just go back home. People. Yeah, people say
it's so fascistic and it's so immoral, and what would
Jesus say in this and that. I just I don't know.
I'm not a theologian, but I do know that we
have to follow the laws. If we can't just choose
which laws we follow, that's just how it is.
Speaker 2: Well, everyone, everyone should be treated well. Yeah, but that
does not mean that everyone is allowed to like rape
and pillage a country.
Speaker 1: Like even those who come here for good reasons, they
still broke the law. I mean, I want to treat
them humanly.
Speaker 2: But it's not just the breaking of the law, although
that is the massive, big thing. The violations of rule
of law through the illegal immigration complex that nearly everyone
in the elite levels of leadership have either pushed or
acquiesced to. That is massive. But it's also true that
we have communities to take care of each other. And
there is the issue of your nearest neighbor versus your
furthest neighbor. Like you have a home for you and
your wife and your kids. That does not mean that
you're rude to everyone who doesn't live with you. But
it also doesn't mean that you open up your home
to a bunch of people who don't live with you.
You know, and you want to be generous and kind,
but we also have laws for a reason of being
generous and kind to everyone. And it's not just like,
you know, it's not like everyone who's an illegal immigrant
is also a murderer, but it's still a burden on
the education system, the health system, the transportation system.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: People always like to talk about the benefits associated with
illegal immigration without at all thinking about the costs and
how they're born by local communities, and so there is
an order, and in Christianity we have an order to things,
and taking care of your closest neighbor and then moving
out from there is like the proper order that begins,
you know, from creation all the way on.
Speaker 1: And if we destroy the system that we have that
has been so generous and letting people come here legally,
they're not going to be able to come anymore. And
that's going to be worse for more people. Right, it's
the same reason I think supporting Fifth columnists who love
Hamas and hate and our bigots and hate their own
neighbors here or don't need to be here, because in
the end they're going to hurt people more than help.
So you know, it's just how we conduct and a society.
It's never been different for successful societies.
Speaker 2: All right, culture, Sure I have ohm I going first, Okay, sure, yeah, yeah,
of course I don't have much. But I did go
see Divo this weekend, oh right, Yeah, And despite being
such a big fan of Divo for such a long time,
I'd never seen them perform. It was at the Anthem
in DC, and it was a great show. They put
on a great show, and they cannot be young, like
it was the they called it the fiftieth anniversary thing,
I think, but they also kept putting like nineteen seventy
two to twenty twenty two or nineteen seventy three. I
think it was so there. It's more than fifty years,
so they've got to be in their late sixties or seventies.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, So it looks like Mark Mother's bile is
seventy four.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean they had like a lot of
energy and it was a great visual show and fun,
and I did feel there's that thing when you go
to a show when it's a band you really like
or that you identify with, and then you realize that
you're with your people, but you don't necessarily like those
people or you know, it's just like it's.
Speaker 1: All the people in the crowd, not the people you
went to the show with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there were a lot of people who had
spent sixty dollars on flower pot hats and I was like, hmmm,
like I like it, but I don't like it.
Speaker 1: I don't know. People don't think about music this much, probably,
but I don't know if they realized how weird Divo
was in probably nineteen seventy five or six when they
first started like awarding music, yeah, because yeah, when the
new wave stuff hit, they probably fit in okay, but
they were they predated that, and they were really weird.
There's some interesting stuff online if you're really into music,
where you can watch them performing in like seventy four
and five and stuff, and they're so out of step
and weird, you know what I mean. Yeah, I've always
sort of been a fan, but.
Speaker 2: Good backing band. And the other thing that Mark and
I think is interesting is that it used to be
you would go to a show, and first of all,
the shows weren't that expensive because they were really a
means by which you were drawn to music so that
you would buy the albums because that's how they made
all of their money. But now shows are super expensive,
so they're only the only people whould tender old people,
and the merchandise is so expensive, and they also start
promptly on time, and there's no opening act, which is
just so different. Like when we were kids would go
and it would be like you'd learn about the opening
act that you'd never heard heard of before, and it
would be really exciting, and there might be three opening
acts and then the band would stumble on stage, you know,
three hours after the doors opened, and you know, blow
the roof off. That is not the case. And also
because I think, like we just said, the people are
getting old. Mark mothers Bo's seventy four. He does not
want to start the show at ten. He wants to
be done by ten.
Speaker 1: So that's nice, it's exciting.
Speaker 2: Anything else, Well, let me think, but did you have
you seen anything or done?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have a double I have two shows or
one show one movie I watched. The movie I watch
is called Havoc and it stars Tom Hardy and Timothy Olephant,
and I did not enjoy it. It's kind of like,
I don't know, almost like a martial arts movie about
the drug lords and stuff. And I just I have
to say I'm a big Tom Hardy fan, but I
don't particularly love when he does accents American accents. I
think they're pretty pretty weak. Then on Paramount Plus, which
I've got for the first time and have all these
new shows, I watched mob Land with Tom Hardy, which
I thought was excellent, which I think is excellent. I mean,
it's violent and all that. If you're not into that stuff,
don't watch it. But Pierce Brasnan is in it. He's
like the patriarch of the crime family. And his wife
is Helen Mirren, who's a psychopath in it. And it's
got a bunch of actors I like who I've seen
in other British shows I think do a real good job,
and it is it's directed by the guy who did
Guy Ritchie, who's really good at doing sort of British
crime stuff, and so I enjoyed it. I recommend it. Okay,
that's it for me.
Speaker 4: Well, I remember my friend who said that listening to
us talk about culture is like being with her parents
when nobody knows the name of anything.
Speaker 2: So I saw for the two hundredth time Ten Things
I Hate About You, which I think is a wonderful
Shakespearean adaptation.
Speaker 1: A sequel to see that how, I don't.
Speaker 2: Know I'm talking about the heath Ledger Julia Stiles.
Speaker 1: I could I could swear that I just saw in
the news that they were making a sequel. I think
I read it in the New York Post.
Speaker 2: But you know, okay, Well, I think it's a great adaptation,
although it's super like inappropriate in ways if you are
thinking about watching it with kids. But Julia styles it's
a Taming of the Shrew mm hm thing, and I
love it. And I think it's funny and stupid and
very nineties or early adds. I don't know, it's the
music is very stuck in that. But I enjoyed that.
And then I can't remember if I mentioned this or
not what week this was, but Mark and I had
tried to start watching various TV shows that I kept
mixing but now I don't remember their names too so
except that one of them was your Friends and Neighbors
with John.
Speaker 1: Oh. Yeah. I started watching that myself and.
Speaker 2: It was just too like sexually explicit for me and stuff.
Speaker 1: So I just was like, I didn't think it was
very good. I didn't think it was very funny. It
was going nowhere. I quit after like an episode and
a half.
Speaker 2: Now there was one that we just started, but I
don't know the name of it at all, except that
it has Billy Bob Thornton in it.
Speaker 1: Maybe the one on Amazon where he's like a private
eye kind of thing.
Speaker 2: He's a lawyer. He's like an alcoholic lawyer in Santa Monica,
And I did kind of like it, although it has
all of the same problems Goliath.
Speaker 1: Right, I watched some of that Goliath called Goliath.
Speaker 2: I thought it was a newer show than Next that's
been around for a while.
Speaker 1: Landman or Goliath. Those are the two. Oh, maybe it
was a newer one.
Speaker 2: I don't know what is Goliath about.
Speaker 1: I think he's a lawyer in it. Maybe that's a
powerful lawyer plays one powerful.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's it, okay cool? Now I know the name
had no idea it was that.
Speaker 1: By the way, Ten Things I Hate About Dating is
in the works as a feature film. The director of
Ten Things I Hate about You, Gil Younger, says, so
I'm sure it's going to be Toto sounds terrible. Great.
We'll both try to watch something this week or maybe
go to a concert, so we'll have something to talk about.
If you'd like to email the show, please do so
at radio at the Federalist dot com until next week.
Be lovers of freedom and anxious for the Fray