Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Arsani, 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. Hi, Molly,
how are you doing. I'm doing well. Let's start today
by remembering David Horowitz, who passed away a couple of
days ago, I believe, maybe yesterday. I don't know if
many younger listeners maybe know who he was, but in
the nineties and the two thousands, I mean he was
one of the I would say, leaders of the conservative movement,
intellectually for sure, and a real fighter. And I was
sad to hear that he passed a way he was
eighty six. I'm sure you know his story, but listeners
might not all know it. He began on the as
a man of the left. He was a born into
a communist family in Forest Hills, Queens, New York, where
I was born, and was a radical I would say
in the sixties as well. He was an editor at
ramp Arts magazine I think it was called, which was
a big leftist magazine at the time, moved to Berkeley
and all of that and was a big part of that,
but slow and wrote some actually I think best sellers
about the Kennedys and Rockefellers. Maybe I forget all his books.
He wrote them with a man named Peter Collier I
think his name was, but slowly moved to the right
and became a staunch conservative. The book if I were
to recommend a book for anyone to read that David
Horrowitz wrote, and I believe he wrote like Dozens, it
would be radical son. It's a memoir of his life
but also sort of a I would say, an ideological
case for conservatism. It reminds me. I would say, it's
like a modern version of the book Witness. You know.
It is just really beautifully written and very passionate. I
knew David. He actually gave me my start in political writing.
I can't say I was great friends with him, but
I spoke to him numerous times, and he was you know,
he played a part in me turning from what a
you know, regular non political journalism towards political journalism in
the in the early two thousands. So anyway, I just
wanted to mention.
Speaker 2: How did how did you? Where did you write? For him?
Speaker 1: So when I was after nine to eleven, I felt
like this need to write about politics, and I didn't
know where to start. So I approached Front Page Magazine
I think it was called that he used to edit,
and uh, I start, you know, and I kind of like,
I forget what I did. I'd written for the Associated Press,
where I worked, I think at the time where I
met him, I'd written some book reviews, you know, and
things like that, and I sent it to him and
he was like, yeah, write for us, right for us.
I forget the exact conversations, but he's definitely pushing me
towards that, and I did. There were probably terrible pieces,
but he gave me a chance, you know, to start.
And don't blame him if you're if you're not a
fan of David Harsani, But so you know, later on,
I kind of lost touch with him. So I haven't
really spoken to him, I don't believe in years. But
I thought he was a nice man and a real passionate.
You can go online on like YouTube and watch videos
of him. He was the kind of guy that would
show up at a Berkeley campus and debate all comers.
You know, he would he would never back down. He
was a real fighter and in an intellectual and philosophical sense.
And I really respected that about him, even when I
I think we began to disagree later on a bit.
Did you know him or.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I first off just very much respected him.
I don't love you know, how many people on the
right came from the left, But his story, for some
reason didn't annoy me. Like sometimes when I read people's
conversion stories, I'm like, that was stupid that wherever on
the left. So I am having trouble trusting you. In
his case, as you kind of laid out, it makes
more sense. And his conversion was, you know, complicated and
somewhat slow and interesting. And when I was in college
is when he started doing I think that's when he
started maybe it had been going on for a long
time by that point, really fighting college radicalism. And it
frustrates me if people had paid attention to him then
when he was talking about all of the problems with
political correctness and how it was perverting education and how
it was poisoning minds, you know, he should have been
treated much more seriously by powerful people on the right,
because he was so right about all of it and
it could have helped us avoid a lot of pain
in our country. But he also was you know, kind
of how you said, he when you wanted to, and
he was generous with that. I met him in part,
or get to know him a little bit better when
I was on book tour for both books, and he
was just great about hosting things and inviting people to
come and speak and gathering really interesting groups of people
both you know, during COVID, I did one and it
was in Florida, but usually it was in California. Although
did you know he moved to Colorado late.
Speaker 1: Oh, I did not know that.
Speaker 2: No, I don't remember exactly where he lived. I almost
think it was like near Castle Rock, which is where
I'm from.
Speaker 1: The in the two thousands, he had these Second Thoughts
festivals where actually assembled people who had come from the
left to the right and other interesting people to debate,
like I was. I forget exactly, but I think Christopher
Hitchins was at a conference of people like that, and
he would, you know, he would debate them in a
really intellectual way, but very accessibly, you know, and passionately.
And that's what I really respected about him. I think
the last time I did something for them, I did
some conference for David Horwitz in Dallas, like in twenty ten.
I'm not sure I've spoken to him since, so, which
now makes me sad and maybe is a lesson that
I should reach out to people I respect, even when
we began to disagree on things. Anyway, Rest in peace, David.
Why don't we talk about the first hundred days? Since
everyone else is doing that? I think the first Yeah,
I think the first hundred days is typically not very important, actually,
but in this case is because it seems to me
that Donald Trump is trying to get a lot done quickly,
and actually I don't think that. I think people in
the administration have said that. So I don't want to
I don't know. Do you want to do? You want to?
Speaker 3: Do?
Speaker 1: You want to start?
Speaker 2: Can we talk about how we think it's gone? I
was just thinking about how I think the first hundred days.
That's a relic from the FDR era, right, but we
have come to sort of appreciate, Okay, what's the first
hundred days really set the tone for what's going to
be done during an administration? And I do think these
first hundred days have been absolutely fascinating and interesting, and
I want to talk about it. But the first hundred
days of the first administration were also really interesting and
to me relevant to what's happened thus far this time.
Like usually, the first hundred days is this period where
we let presidents put together their cabinet and get their
agenda going, and then after one hundred days, the opposing
party comes in and starts whacking them after they help
approve all of their people for cabinet positions and stuff,
and you increasingly in recent years hear people say on
day one, I'm going to launch a rocket to Mars.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: They come up with all these things they are going
to do on day one, and so it's a way
to kind of test whether they've followed through with any
of that. But when Donald Trump won in twenty sixteen,
I think he thought it would be even you know,
even as weird as he is and everything, I think
he thought it would be a normal presidency where the
Republican Party kind of comes together and the Democrats let
him put together a cabinet, and so he picks like
a nice, very establishment friendly cabinet, you know, Mitch McConnell's
wife is in there, you know that kind of thing.
Ryan's previous is his chief of staff, and unbeknownst to him,
the coup has already begun, like before he's even set
foot in office, where Democrats, the bureaucracy, and even a
lot of Republicans join together in claiming that he's a
Russian asset, and it just undermines everything. You know, before
he's even inaugurated, people say he might not make it
to inauguration, and the Washington Post waits like ten minutes
after he's inaugurated to call for his impeachment. It's just crazy.
And if you look at the first hundred days of
this term, he immediately understands the bureaucracy is the threat
that they showed and proved themselves to be during the
first administration, and he just starts going against them right away.
And I think that was one of the more interesting things,
like that he actually learned his lesson from the evil
that they committed during the first term.
Speaker 1: Okay, do you want to talk about this term? Start,
you know, telling us what you what you think of it,
What were the highlights, what were the low lights? Or
you know, if I don't know how we want to
do it or great. I mean I can start if
you want, but yeah, why don't you all right? You know,
for me, it's been an incredibly mixed bag. Like usually
Obama will come in and I'll be like, oh, he
did this one little thing I like, but generally I
don't like him. But Donald Trump has done things that
I love and things that I hate. I'll start with
things that I like a lot, and that's that he
shut down the border. I mean, he didn't just prove
that the entire Biden and you know argument that we
needed more laws and more funding and more this and
more that to do it was a lie. He he
secured secured the border within I don't know what it was.
I think within two months it crossings to drop like
ninety five percent. So that isn't a great achievement. I
think it also shows that the Biden administration was was
allowing people to overrun the system on purpose. I don't
think that's a conspiracy theory anymore. I think that that's proven.
So I was big on that. I like Doge a lot.
I think people over at will vastly overestimate how much
money is going to be saved there, including I think
Elon Musk I just, I just there's not gonna be
a trillion dollars in cuts. But for me, it was
also very successful because it dismantled, you know, or weakend
a lot of these agencies that were extra constitutional. They
should not exist, and they definitely should not exist in
the manner they did, where they function without any real
oversight from the government or the people or the constitution.
Those are the two things that I thought of that
I really liked. I mean, I also like the deportation
of some of these people who are foreigners who are
causing riots and insurrections here. I also liked that stands
with Israel. I like that he went after Harvard and others,
though I don't I think it should be all the schools,
you know, I don't think that we should you know,
that the administration should be picking on one school. I
don't understand why any of these schools are with huge
endowments get this kind of money. I don't know. So
those were the things that at the top of my
head I really liked that he did. Do you want
to start with what you liked or do you want
me to go on of the things I didn't like.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and keep going with what you.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: Obviously I don't like any of his economic policies. I
think that the whole protectionist Liberation Day thing was rolled
out terribly. Even if you're for that, there's mixed messages,
there's conflicting messages. We just saw today that there was
a contraction in the GDP, which is not good. All
the underlying numbers are not very good. Obviously I don't
like the policy as a matter economic policy in itself,
but I also think that it's not handled well, and
I think that's the most dangerous thing going on for him. Well,
could undermine his entire term and is bad for the
American people. So that to me is an incredibly negative
thing that he's done, which you know, almost outweighs all
the good I think, and not really, but you know,
I guess I could keep them in separate patches, but
it is it is something I think is as serious.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, I don't know. I really loved the first
hundred days, and at one point, like really early on,
I was like, I think I'm getting tired of so
much winning. Do you remember that when he was running
for office in twenty sixteen, He's like, there's gonna be
so much winning, You're going to be tired of all
the winning. And I almost felt that way, Like early
on it was just every day was another beautiful thing.
Firing of federal employees. I've covered the federal government workforce
for decades, and you cannot fire them. Nobody ever does it.
And you get all these Republicans coming in and they
say they're going to do it, and then they never
do it. You know, moving to close the Department of Education,
something Reagan said he would do, and you know, you
see actual movement after forty plus years of people promising
that they would do something and not doing it. And
it was just really fun and good. And it also showed,
you know, I think there's this thing Michael Malice always
refers to conservatives as progressives with a speed limit, and
that is that is very much what it has felt like.
You know, Democrats do these dramatic things like open up
the Department of Education, and we say we're not going
to expand it. Well, what if you had a really
different approach to how you would govern? And also when
you're just democrat light, it doesn't seem to work or
excite people in terms of party coalition building. So I
liked that stuff. I like Doge in general, the understanding
that you would take really bright people, have them look
at what we're doing and offer meaningful ideas for how
to limit the size and scope of government, something I
was long told that libertarians and conservatives cared about. And
I like it. I wish it were I wish it
be unleashed a little bit more like I hate that
Elon Musk has to leave in a few days. Not
that it's him doing it alone, but we have all
sorts of rules that enable the evil forces to dominate
and make it really hard for Americans to fight back
against an unelected, permanent bureaucracy that controls our entire country.
I loved finding out how USAID and other federal agencies
finance the Democrat Party and its supporters through jobs programs
and other things that Republicans don't benefit from. It's weird
because I should have known all of that, Like I
always understood that the federal workforce and the contractor workforce
are little hubs of the Democrat Party as anyone, as
like any right of center person working in those spaces
will tell you they're overwhelmed by the number of Democrat
activists who work in those fields, and it's taxpayer funded,
and they are just this reliable voting block. They've kind
of destroyed Virginia because of how many of them live
here and vote for Democrat policies. But it didn't really
occur to me how much of the other parts of
the economy are also financed by Democrat patronage. And it
opened It just made everything make so much more sense
when I realized, oh, yeah, Democrats come into power, they
fund their own voters through NGO programs that also exist
to push the Democrat agenda, not just nationally but internationally.
And it answered a lot of questions about why if
everyone I kind of know, not everyone, why have so
many of the people I know don't support, for instance,
trans radicalism, How is trans radicalism able to make any ground. Well,
when you control the media, and you control the federal government,
and you control the contractors, you control the NGOs, and
you control all the things that drive the issue, it's
easier to move things in your direction even when you
don't have the people behind you. And so I just
not think the Trump people enough for that. I do
love the deportations, but they're nowhere near where they need
to be. I mean, Biden, as you noted, and as
I long said, he was willfully tearing down our border.
It wasn't like the invasion just happened. He went out
of his way to remove every single thing that the
Trump administration, the first Trump administration, had done to erect
any kind of border security. And it was so wilful.
He chose to have our country overrun by without any
due process, without any rule of law, to have our
country overrun by people who broke the law to come
into the country. And I'm glad that they're deporting. I'm
glad also that the change of posture means that fewer
people are even trying to break and enter into the country.
But it's not where it needs to be. I mean,
it should be four times as many people being removed
if you want to make up for what Biden did.
So I like the deportations, but there need to be far,
far more of them. You said you were opposed to
Trump's economic policies, and I cannot say I agree with that.
I think one of the most important things of the
first Trump administration was how he approached regulatory policy and
understood how regulation harms harms the GDP, harms economic growth.
And he again first Republican president to do this, after
they all claimed they opposed a regulatory regime. He said
you couldn't. In the first administration, he said you couldn't
pass a new regulation unless you had gotten rid of
to others of the same size, and that did a
lot to help, and also just speeding up the regulatory
process by which decisions were made, and he actually ramped
it up in he is so far ramped it up
in this administration where you have to get rid of
even more regulations before you pass the new regulation, and
is working on speeding up regulatory review at all the
regulatory agencies. And I love that because I love innovation
and I hate over regulation, and we really have an
economy shackled by overregulation. And then as it relates to tariff,
she pointed out that the GDP actually went negative this
quarter and a large part of that. Part of that
is actually some of the reigning end of the government,
but a large part of that is because of the
tariffs that were front loaded and some of the effects
of that. And I remain open minded, you know, I
generally don't love tariffs, but unlike you, I hate them
in other countries as well as our country, and so
I love that we're taking a tariff forward to people
to get them to lower their obscene and ridiculous and
damaging tariffs against our countries producers and manufacturers. I am
appalled that all these people who claim so much to
care about tariffs, like never said anything about what Germany
was doing to our manufacturers or what all these other
European countries were doing. Where our manufacturers have their intellectual
property stolen by China, and we're told this is the
free market to steal intellectual property and to use slave
labor to pay for the manufacturing of the property of
the intellectual property that is stolen from our people. So
they're undercut domestically by cheap Chinese goods and products and
software and all that stuff. And then you also can't
sell it abroad because of the horrific tariffs on countries
that we, by the way, finance their defense and we
enable them to have these gross welfare states. They put
high tariffs and other trade barriers on our products. We
do nothing about it, and we get undercut by China
stealing everything. So I understand that it might take some
time for this all to work out, and to get
other countries to back off on some of their tariffs
so we can lower our tariffs, and that we can
build up our manufacturing base for national security reasons like
that all might take time. It also might not work,
as you point out, But I'm very happy that someone's
trying to do something, and I'm getting increasingly angry at
all the people who never cared about these horrific trade
barriers and tariffs that other countries were putting against our people.
And in fact they say it was good for us.
We had this great economy, everything's great, so you shouldn't
care about it. Well, tell that to the guy in
New Jersey who can't sell in Europe because of all
the trade barriers and is getting undercut by China stealing
his designs.
Speaker 3: The people out there that follow their politicians off a
cliff are a bit of a problem.
Speaker 4: The Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps some packed the connection between politics
and the economy and how.
Speaker 1: It affects your wallet.
Speaker 3: Many pensions are down billions after the market sell off
from the tariffs. Could this mean pension cuts down the road.
Some people out there fail to see the force for
the trees.
Speaker 4: Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I've never that's a lot. I've never heard a single
person whose pro free trade say, oh, it's good the
China steals our intellectual property. I see this online all
the time, Yet I'd love for someone to produce this
person for me, because it does not exist.
Speaker 2: They say things like talking about trade deficits is stupid
because it means that you because it means that you
just make a lot of money.
Speaker 1: I don't understand what that means. Trade deficits are good.
Having them is good. They should be called rich, the
American wealth factor or something. I can't think I do.
Speaker 2: So take this guy in New Jersey, right, he can
buy cheap everyone can buy cheap products from China because
they stole his intellectual property. And yeah, his business doesn't
work out and he can't like provide for a family.
But the trade deficit is actually pretty good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, trade deficit. It's not pretty good, it's excellent. But
I want to say this, you're pointing them one person
and not the many, many other people who succeed because
of the environment we have. But let me just say this,
I don't want to argue about those specifics. I want
to overall say that you make a very passionate case
for this, but that's not the case that Donald Trump made.
It's not the case that the people that Peter Navarro makes.
They're saying that protectionism is good for America self sufficiency,
not trading with anyone like you're saying, oh, with these
horrific tariffs, give me a break. There were basically no
tariffs on most goods going to Mexico and Canada, and
then he started a trade war with them, the idiot
David No, no, no no. And Europe does not have
high tariffs on us in general, yet we I think
it was over one hundred countries we slapped with higher
tariffs than they had on us. So I'm not you know,
you were making a faith that does not exist.
Speaker 2: What changed between the first Trump administration when they worked
out a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada and when
Trump instituted tariffs on them.
Speaker 1: No, what changed he made those deals by the way
that he did is breaking.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and what did China do instead of you know
what Mexico and Canada did is they welcomed China in
as a pass through to get around the tariffs that
had been put on China. So do you think that
the response to Mexico and Canada welcoming China into all
of their processes should be nothing.
Speaker 1: As the economy craters. We've now changed this, We've now
the whole tariff argument has now shifted to this idea
that there's all kinds of pass throughs. There are some
pass throughs, there's not a ton of pass throughs. So
you can make a deal with Canada about pass throughs.
But that's not what he did. He slept a thirty
five percent tarif for whatever it was.
Speaker 2: How do you make a deal. Do you say, I'd
like to make a deal, but there's going to be
no pressure, or do you say, how about eighty percent
tariffs and then we'll talk about a deal.
Speaker 1: How about this? Explain to me why the entire so
you're saying that Donald Trump lied when he said we
want to come to a mckinlearra again, or Peter Navarro lied,
or even best Net lied, because they're still conflicting. So
do we want more globalization because the people that you
know and I know make arguments that we need to
change we need social engineering to let factories bloom.
Speaker 2: In the US always had social engineering. This is another
thing that annoys me to no end.
Speaker 1: People say, are you against social engineering?
Speaker 2: Or outsource everything and incentivize the outsourcing of everything that's
not free trade? Everything was done because of government action,
subsidizing this domestic thing, outsourcing this other thing. Internationally, there
is there has never been.
Speaker 1: A government policy outsourced a job that we no longer
can do at the prices that we did. So what
give me the industry where the government outsourced the jobs
by allowing free trade.
Speaker 2: To happen, showing beneficial trade arrangements for other countries to happen,
and penalizing our own. So take take for example. Actually,
I just want to I want to say this because
you were you were saying, like Trump is saying that
it's like for all these other reasons that he wants
to do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I didn't say it in that voice, but that's
definitely what he said, I show it to you.
Speaker 2: So did you see the story about the doctor who
was hospitalized for something minor and then almost died because
and then it turned out all these other people in
the hospital were dying or almost died, and it was
like a medical mystery. And then it turned out that
there was a drug for anesthesia related reasons that was
being administered to all these people and causing their death
or near death. And you know, you go down the
road a little bit more and it turns out that
this drug was imported from China because we no longer
make the drug in the United States, and they ran
out of a certain component for the drug and they
replaced it with something that they you know, that was
able to be masked as having the same component. But
didn't you remember back when I were we talking about
this where it was like Clinton or Bush was trying
to import drugs from Canada because we would enable other
countries to make drugs generic that we had to pay
like brand name prices for and it would have been
cheaper to just buy it off the market in Canada
generic and reimport it back to the US. But they
said that that would be a security risk to have
our drugs coming from other countries, so we couldn't do it.
And now we have every drug made in China and
nobody really cares, even when it's like killing swaths of
people because of poor quality and stuff like that. So, yes,
the economy is complicated. Yes, there are different reasons why
you might be interested in tariffs. One of them might
be to get other countries to stop their obscene and
horrific tariffs that hurt our businesses. You cannot defend David
Germany saying that like you can't sell that an American
can't sell his products there and doing nothing about it.
Speaker 1: It's not true that Americans can sell their products there.
But I will say, of course I don't like a
lot of the tariffs that are elsewhere in the world.
Speaker 2: What am I supposed to do do anything about it?
Speaker 1: What am I supposed to do fly to China and
say you terroriffist.
Speaker 2: It's very emotional about tariffs in our country, which is fine,
But why did you not get emotional when they were
placed against American manufacturers?
Speaker 1: What do you mean? How am I supposed to get
passionate about what they do in Denmark, which has very
low tariffs against us by the way, but I will.
I don't know.
Speaker 2: Why don't you can write and condemn what they're doing.
Speaker 1: I will now condemn all countries and all tariffs. They
should all be gone. So I just want you to
answer now. So you're saying you want more globalization, you
want trade barriers gone. So people who write that that's
bad for us, like for a JD. Vance type or whatever.
Who wants to reinvigorate factories where people can put together
trinkets in the Midwest making very low salaries, that's a
good thing. We're a bad thing. I mean, you have
to you.
Speaker 2: Have You're wrong, You're wrong. First off, I just want
to point out so manufacturing jobs are not bad jobs.
Speaker 1: And I didn't say they were. I'm saying certain manufacturers
so they were low paying. Yes, some jobs are low paying.
In fact, they will be automated. Many manufacturing jobs, the
kind we have here are excellent jobs. We shouldn't want
to bring back the bad jobs. We should want the
good jobs here. That's what I'm saying. Manufacturing is much
more uh sophisticated, and and and and more, you know
than putting together a sneaker in America. That we have
good jobs there for sure, and fewer and fewer people
work them because they're more efficient, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Well, not necessarily. Sometimes people have manufacturing companies, like a
member of my husband's family who had a manufacturing company
that employed quite a few people in good jobs, by
the way, and they got undercut by China, and so
all those jobs were lost to those people. And I
don't know what they're all doing, but we know enough
from national data to know that a lot of people
are subsidized by you and me on welfare and disability
payments rather than working, which then hurts their ability to
form families. And I do think that it's important that
people be able to work and form families across a
wide variety of economic like the whole economic landscape. And
because some of this was enabled by just turning a
blind eye, like when China started stealing all of our
intellectual property and we responded by doing nothing, that's not
the free market. And you can't say that's the free market.
And when China uses slave labor to keep labor costs
extremely low, you can't say that's the free market. You
can't include slave labor in free in the market because
it's not in the free market, because it's just not true.
Speaker 1: There will never be a free market then, and this
is of course with the populist right always kind of
puts free market in the little quotation market.
Speaker 2: You can move toward a free market.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to just say something, there will never
be one because they will labor. There will never be
perfection in the world. There's less slave labor because of
capitalism than ever before because of this. And listen, yes
China does bad things. You know, my feeling's on China.
But you know, so now we have to put tariffs
on everyone because there's pass throughs. Well that's very convenient.
So now, well that's free market.
Speaker 2: Dig with the free market thing, David. Like China does
not let its people and companies steal the intellectual property
of other Chinese companies, but they encourage the theft of
American intellectual property. What should be done about that?
Speaker 1: Not putting a thirty percent tariff on Switzerland. Deal with China.
Just tell me what I know, as you do what
you can. If you want to put high tariffs on China,
I think it's a bad idea, but you can do
it and make a good case for why you're trying
to do that. When you put tariffs one hundred and
sixty two countries or whatever, it was higher than they.
Israel had zero tariffs on our goods. We still slapped
them with a twenty percent tariff.
Speaker 2: That's true. That's not true, it is that's true. I
talked with the big guy himself on that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, because he's rolling back all the dum tariffs
in fact, on auto parts for instance, I saw the
other day because he knew it backfired. The markets crashed.
All the underlying economic data is bad. I hope that
he makes deals with everyone. I'm for free trade. I
wish that these countries had no tariffs. I agree with you.
Speaker 2: You just said Israel had true trade barriers with the US,
and that's just not true. That's not something Israel claims.
Speaker 1: What they after he did this. They were right before
he did this. They did that. Yeah, they had tariffs. Listen,
we shouldn't be following the bad policies of Israel. Israel
is not. Israel for many years was a socialistic country
and has terrible policy still embedded in their economy. I
don't want to be like them. I want to be
like us. Now, let me ask you this. If all
these things happen and it's all terrible, then why do
we have the strongest, biggest, best per capita GDP of
any real country in the world because we're following what
China does or because we have a free market.
Speaker 2: Honestly, how do you know what it would be if
we weren't subjected to all of these trade better?
Speaker 1: What? That doesn't mean I should follow them to be worse.
That doesn't make any sense, do you know what I'm saying? Anyway,
we have this argument all the time. It's a very
complicated one. We can I want to get back.
Speaker 2: So you said, if China is stealing our intellectual property,
that you shouldn't put a tariff on Switzerland.
Speaker 1: Any Canada, I mean he.
Speaker 2: Was, and you said what they should do? You said
that they would be allowed to put a tariff on China.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that you have a better case to make
if you are targeting China, not the world.
Speaker 2: And do you think that in a global economy where
China works through all these different countries, it makes like
a conceivable sense that you might get other countries involved,
and you might even say you're getting a tariff so
that when they renegotiate. You can make sure that China
is not part of that.
Speaker 1: That's a good theoretical. I don't know, but that's not
what happened. But more than that, I agree, even with
pass throughs, China would suffer greatly. We are going to
destroy their economy, by the way. That's for sure that
everyone thinks that, oh, we destroy China's economy, They're going
to be what what's going to happen? You think they're
going to be friendlier to us? You think that they're
going to be less warlike? Do you think they're going
to be less inclined to undermine us? No, they're not.
I don't know how to deal with China exactly. I
don't have some big idea on that, but the idea
that making our economy sinc Did.
Speaker 2: You oppose all of the trade barriers we had on
the Soviet Union?
Speaker 1: I was in elementary school. I don't know that. I
have to go look, but I bet you are trade
barriers with the Soviet Union, except for individual cases, was less.
I know we were a huge seller of wheat to them,
for instance.
Speaker 2: No, there was some, but there was.
Speaker 1: It was because of the Soviet limited Soviets didn't one trade,
not US. I am for economic sanctions on like Iran,
for instance. If we want to sanction China when they
misdo something wrong with stealing our intellectual property, I can
understand that. But that's not what happens. You're making me
have a debate about something that is not.
Speaker 2: That's what this is.
Speaker 1: It's a that is. Is that why Donald Trump said
that tariffs are more beautiful the word tari's more beautiful
than love, and that we're going to go back to
the McKinley era. He's been saying this about your pan
He said this about Japan thirty years ago. He was
wrong about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think like all presidents do tariffs, but they
usually say, oh, it's just horrible that we have to
do this. I regret so much because tariffs are so so,
so badfs are the most beautiful thing in the world. Like,
they all do it, but he has this.
Speaker 1: They all do it for politically expedient reasons on a
certain industry for a short time, but it's wrong. But
Donald Trump, I believe, I believe he actually is a
protectionist in his heart. I think he's believed this for
his whole career. And this is what he wants but
didn't work out for him.
Speaker 2: Do you remember at the G seven in the first
Trump administration when everyone was freaking out because he was
proposing large tariffs on Canada and Mexico and stuff. And
they were up in Canada having a meeting and they
were freaking out, and He's like, we could all go
to zero, and they were like no, no, no, no no,
which is literally what you just said, like three minutes ago,
we should all go to zero, which is what Trump said.
Speaker 1: So I would love to go to all to go
to zero, But what if they don't. We have to
match their bad policies. It makes no sense. And let
me ask you this, This is not the argument they're making.
You keep are you saying you want more globalism? Globalism
is good? Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 2: You were so hyper autistic on this, Like, that's not
the argument they're saying. Oh, politicians are giving like twenty
eight different somewhat contradictory they're doing. I'm shocked.
Speaker 1: Set that aside. Will you say the globalism is good?
You want zero tariffs across all the all the arguments
of the of the socially conservative populis wing of the
Republican Party right now who say that we can. Basically
they want a socially engineer to reinvigorate, you know, russ
Bell towns and to make families come back together and
to get people in sitting in church. You're saying that
you don't agree with them, that you think we should
have more globalism.
Speaker 2: So yes, and no. First off, I actually am a
huge fan of a legitimate free market. I love the
idea of a free market, and I wish people who
claimed to love the free market were actually fighting for
a free market. It seems frequently they're fighting for these
like really complicated, lobbyist written trade agreements that there's nothing
free about. So yes, I actually firmly believe that not
just the free market. But you know, like you said,
you can never get a fully free market, but moving
in that direction is great and I fully support it.
And so no, I don't really believe in all of
the engineering of the what you know, I remember it
used to be what did ros stoutit and his buddies
used to call themselves.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, common good it.
Speaker 2: Anyway, I don't. I just don't love government engineering of
stuff like that. Now, I do think that when you
have had massive government programs. Like I was thinking about
this after our fight last week on food dies, how
much the government was responsible for encouraging some of the
bad dietary habits or bad food supply issues, Like it
did just happen that these things show up on the
shelves in a free market. Sometimes it was through strong encouragement,
you know, government programs for certain materials to be in
these things. But hold on it. I did have a
caveat to this, which is a nation needs to be
able to defend against its enemies. And the COVID supply
chain breakdown did frightened me quite a bit in terms
of our inability to make certain things or we need
to be we need to really think about our own
national security. So I'm not like one of these libertarian
free marketers who's like, there doesn't need to be a
country or borders or governments or whatever. No, I'm not.
We are a country, and our first interest should be
the American people and their you know, security and safety
and flourishing, and so there are things like we need
to always be able to make and send our own weapons,
you know, have the ability to feed our people if
things got bad, and so you have to have some
balance there, or you know, you should. That's also an
issue that's very important to the American people, like we
can't outsource our weapon making to other countries or aspects
of our weapon weaponry. Does that make sense? It's like
a it's a caveat.
Speaker 1: But generally we are the number one weapon maker in
the world. We dominate that field.
Speaker 2: I'm saying every you know, there are so much made
in different countries that get put in these things, and
it can be okay, and it can totally be okay,
but it's just something we should be mindful of that
we have to be focused on our national security as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, of course I believe in borders because I believe
within our borders we should have free markets, and other
people aren't doing it, you know what I mean, So
I believe in all that. I will say something you
mentioned the FDA food eyed debate we had. It just
reminded me of something kind quickly.
Speaker 2: Okay, I want to say something else, but I didn't.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, this is way off topic.
Speaker 2: But back to the Oh, dang it, I forgot what
I was going to sort something free market related. Oh oh,
you had said like you thought the rollout on Liberation
Day was bad, and I usually hate it when people
talk about optics or communications, but I completely agree with that.
Like I am, as I said, I'm open minded. I am.
I have strong free market bias, so I'm and I'm
aware that tariffs are attacks, and so I'm nervous about
all of this, but I'm open minded, like I can
kind of see the theories behind what we're trying to
do or how it could how it could work redown
to our benefit and stuff. It has not been communicated well,
including like what's the timeframe of how long we're going
to suffer here? What is the like, what's the what's
the end results supposed to be? I just don't think
it's been communicated very well, and that's something that they
should really think about.
Speaker 1: Well, I should say this. I don't think. I'm not
I don't care about the optics that much, but I
do think that when you roll we run the world's economy.
When we do something it matters to all economies. You
could you know that there's there are going to be
repercussions here. And all I'm saying is, even if if
I saw today Trump said, what you know this is
Biden's economy and all that. Voters aren't going to buy that.
You know, in the end, you want voters behind you
to do all kinds of things, and rolling something out
this way and then backtracking and all the uncertainty could
have a big effect. Quickly, just wanted to say on
the food Ie not to relitigate that. But I saw
this week the FDA, this is way off topic. They
are going to do nothing on abortion pills. That's fine,
that kills women, but dies, these dies that there is
no evidence they hurt anyone are going to be banned.
But RFK Junior won't do anything on abortion pills because
he's pro abortion.
Speaker 2: Well done, I think you're wrong on that. Jordan Boyd
at The Federalist wrote a piece on this because the
claim that nothing would be done came out before this
week's explosive study showing that injuries to women who kill
their children with an abortion pill are like twenty times
higher than they were first reported, and so she reached
out to the FDA to see if this new study.
They'd said, barring any new studies, we're not going to
do anything. Well, then this new study comes out like
five days later saying that the injuries, which is not surprising.
People have been reporting horrible hemorrhaging and death related to
the abortion pill for years now and it was not
tested properly. So new studies are coming out, and so
I think it is a Maha type thing and they
might take action on it. They certainly should if what
they claimed was you know is Barney Mackrie who said
barring new studies, we won't take action. Well, new study
comes out very quickly. I don't know. I'm not optimistic
that things will be done, but I don't think we
can say yet that they're not going to do anything.
And the other thing I want to point out is
that pro abortion radicals in the media and the Democrat
Party and otherwise they keep blaming pro lifers for this
abortion drug. So like they were like, oh, the Dobbs
decision is killing people, and then you look into it,
it's like, literally the abortion drug has killed someone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was a story I don't know if we
spoke about this last week right before the election. It's
propaganda piece by Pro Publico which blame the death of
the woman on and I believe Georgia's abortion laws, which
turned out that it was the abortion pill that had
caused problems and unfortunately killed this poor woman and her children.
But for sure, so one hundred days, I guess we
slightly disagree and we'll see how it goes from here.
I mean, I understand why there. You know, Donald Trump
wants to do a lot of things very soon because
you know, midterms come and it's probably not going to
go well for Republicans. Historically doesn't go well for the
party in power. If there's any saving grace right now,
where there's you know, for Donald Trump, is that there's
no opposition party really. I mean, the Democrats are so effeckless,
aimless ridiculous that even if Donald Trump is unpopular now,
which seems like his numbers are going down, the Democrats
are far below him. I believe they that Democratic leaders
now the lowest ever measured trust factor, the gap you know,
through gallops. So let's yell at them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just want to say on the kind of
both parties are pretty bad. So Democrats just got had
a shlacking. And it's a shlacking because they should have
won by such a big margin and instead they lost
by a fairly noticeable margin. They have everything in there,
you know, they've got the complete media environment backing them up,
and that's that should be worth quite a bit. They
have all these like systemic issues that have balanced in
their favor, Like they import all these illegal immigrants, which
gives them congressional districts that they control, because we count
congressional districts not by citizens or legal legal residents, but
by just people who are there. And so you bring
in tens of millions of illegal aliens and you use
them to create congressional districts that give you like a
twenty seat advantage in the House. But they still lost,
and they're not really doing a good job of assessing
why they lost. The only movement you see is the
AOC Bernie Sanders one where they're like, what if we
became more progressive, But they don't really articulate what that
progressive thing is. And it's like the progressive wing has
been a big part of their problem anyway. It seems
too radical, the identity politics, the radical trans insanity, the
economic position that you and I just you know, kind
of talked about is making it hard for Democrats to
move in a more populist direction. Democrats kind of leaned
into the Liz Cheney wing of the foreign policy establishment,
and that's not very popular. Like they're just reeling. They
had Corey Booker and Hikeem Jeffries do a sit in
stand up at the Capital. I don't even know what
I literally do not understand what it was for on
the capital steps. Do you know what it was for?
Speaker 1: They don't like Trump is what it was for. It's
only these things are always for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so like they're big. Their big reason to
vote for them is to impeach Trump. But Trump, you know,
people kind of don't don't want to impeach Trump.
Speaker 1: Well, can we talk about this for a bit. So
the problem with the economic policy and the tariffs in
the left is that they are economic status. They don't
have any good arguments to make against Donald Trump. Donald
Trump essentially stole an issue from them, in my opinion.
I mean, Bernie Sanders is pro tariff all. Their whole
argument is always you know he's on it's too chaotic
or whatever. That's not a good argument, I mean. But
more than that, I don't understand what they're doing. Like
they've championed this kilmar Garcia. Dude, this is a person
they champion. Now, if you want to make an argument
that due process. I get it. I'm with you, right maybe,
but that's not what you know. They're making a hero
out of this guy. They're making a hero out of
what was that guy's name, Mahmud Khalil. You know that
they're championing people who will turn off most Americans. An
illegal immigrant is probably a gang member and a guy
who hates America and is a bigot. So I don't
know what they're doing, Like even what did they go
out of march for? They marched for USAID, which most
Americans will read in the story of where the money
is going and be like, this is ridiculous, But this
is what they're championing. I did want to mention one
thing quickly. On we were talking about all the good
things doged in and the good things Donald Trump did
about deregulation and Department of Education, for instance. Congress does nothing.
If they don't codify all these changes, it's going to
not really matter in the long run. And I just
it boggles my mind they're having I saw Ron Johnson
is going to have a congressional hearing on some nine
to eleven conspiracy theory about how Building seven burned down
they're jfk Epstein, like, no one cares about these things
in the real world. They care about you doing something
and that helps them, and Congress does nothing. I don't know.
I'm just ranting today. You got me all worked up
on the Tierff thing, and I'm just like reeling. Do
you want to move on to the media, which will
really get us going even more?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 2: No, wait? Sorry, yeah, I want to say that the
Republican Yeah, that the Democrats don't really have a plan,
which might mean that they maybe they'll come up with
something before the midterms. It probably will, and as you noted, historically,
you should see big gains for the out party and
maybe they're just counting on that and they don't really
have to do anything since the margin that they need
to make up in the House is so infinitisimally small.
But also the Republicans aren't doing thing. They have an
opportunity to have one of those weird mid term election
years where you gain seats as opposed to lose seats.
Which when did I mean, I know that happened after
the nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: Attack, and it's rare.
Speaker 2: Oh w when it happened, didn't didn't New Gingrich do
it in the Contract for America.
Speaker 1: Maybe the second one. I forget one of the four. Anyway,
it was another big wave I think a few years later.
But anyway, Yeah, but you kind.
Speaker 2: Of have to give people a reason or you know,
they're they're looking and comparing. And I don't see much
happening from the Republicans either. They the Congress in general,
both parties have done such a horrible job over so
many decades of destroying their constitutional governance by handing everything
over to the executive branch's permanent bureaucracy, and they need
to do a lot to fix things, and they just
don't seem to have any sense of urgency. And again,
I understand small margins, but big ideas win elections too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, at least get I mean, at least
focus on things people care about. No one cares about
nine to eleven conspiracy theories, No one cares about the
JFK files. There's nothing in there. You can let let
these things dominate the news. And the media is not
going to help you, though, as you mentioned, they do
have the media on their side, but I think they
have less and less power to really affect an elect
picking up perfect sadly, Yeah, did you watch or not watch?
But did you see what happened at the White House
Correspondence dinner last weekend?
Speaker 2: Vaguely? I was out of town. I would never, ever,
ever go to a White House Correspondence Association dinner, and
I hate the dinner and the people who go. By
the way, I frequently tell people who tell me they
just went, I say, oh, I hate that dinner and
I hate people who go, which is like the meanest
I ever get. I think it's embarrassing to attend that dinner.
I think you're a loser if you do it. And
I'm so glad that it bombed this year and that
nobody of any import went.
Speaker 1: So I wrote a piece on it, but I just
want to read the lead, which I railed you. But
this is how I view it. Imagine getting an award
for doing the bare minimum at your job, doing it poorly,
and then handing it in your work so late that
it becomes irrelevant. That's exactly what they celebrated at this one,
so Axio says. Alex Thompson, who I actually think is
better than most, which doesn't mean that he's doing a
great job, said this President Biden's decline and its cover
up by the people around him is a reminder that
every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception.
But being truth tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. We,
myself included, missed a lot of this story. Now, this
was kind of framed by most media as an I'll
give you like a headline would be reporter slams media
for missing Biden's story. But I didn't read it like
that at all. I think this is gaslighting. This is
like copying to a lesser charge. You know what I mean,
Because first of all, let's read this regardless of party.
Every White House lies, regardless of party. That means that line,
regardless of party, means that he's speaking to Democrats. The
idea that democrats lie less than publicans is nonsense. And
any reporter who believes that is not a good reporter,
and I think most reporters probably do. But more than that,
you didn't miss the story. You covered up the story.
You aggressively. I'm not even at Thompson like he Yes,
he was an early adopter, i'd say, but even in
twenty twenty three he was calling it a weaponization, and
that Republicans were insinuating that Joe Biden wasn't okay. Now,
I was at the Federalist at the time. I wrote
about five or six columns saying, Joe Biden is not okay.
It's obvious anyone with eyes can see this. And if
you're actually in the White House and you have a
journalism degree and you don't see it, then you shouldn't.
You don't have the skills to be a journalist, or
you're lying. I think mostly they were lying, and you know,
I'm not going to go through it. I have a
list of every major establishment media outlet calling those who
made the claim that he wasn't okay, conspiracy theorist saying
there you were you cheap fake videos, saying that voters
were being misled about him. And then here's my last
point on this. They flipped on him. Then they went
after him like, oh my god, look, Joe Biden's not okay.
They didn't do that because they cared about the journalistic
any kind of journal or they had any kind of
journalistic integrity. They did that because it was obvious Joe
Biden couldn't win. And then they decided, let's push Joe
Biden out, you know what I'm saying. It wasn't like
they you know, a switch flip that oh my god,
he's not okay and we didn't notice and this is
not okay. No, they pushed him out because that's what
Barack Obama and other you know, big wigs wanted, and
then they brought in whoever they thought might be able
to win. In my view, and I wrote this at
the time, I thought that Biden would have done just
as well as Kamala Harris even in the way he was,
because she was one of the worst candidates who's ever
run for president. So anyway, I don't know that's my
spiel on this.
Speaker 2: I completely agree with you on all of it. So
I including it is true that Alex Thompson of Axios
was slightly better than everybody else. And what I mean
by that is that he wrote like three stories in
twenty twenty four that were so nice, but that they
did kind of sort of raise the issue of Biden's decline.
He would write something with like a really anodyne headline
like Biden's walking path has changed. Would you click on
a piece with the headline like Biden's walking path has changed?
Or would you skip over it for real news, and
then in there it would say he's you know, he's
changed his route and now he walks with some people.
And some people say this could be that he's aging
and they're trying to obscure, but other people say that
he's fresh and focused and whatever, and that's who we're
supposed to praise Alex Thompson for saying the most gentle
things that normal Americans had noticed literally eight years prior.
That's not worthy of anything. And I do agree he
was less bad because everybody else was saying it's a
conspiracy theory, something he said too, but he stopped saying
it around twenty twenty four. That was last year during
the presidential election.
Speaker 1: My theory on this is that he realized, like he
came to the realization that we have to stop doing
this basically earlier than other people, and that he wants
to be a better journalist. That's my charitable take on him.
I've been reading him since then, and I think he's
a lot better than most from that point on, but
that I.
Speaker 2: Actually used to kind of think that Alex Thompson was
I used to actually think much more highly of him
until that final rally at Madison Square Garden where he
was like leading the charge that this was like a
dark and dystopic Trump rally that was going to cost
him the election, and I was like, he's just a
hack like everybody else. People are upset even by Alex
Thompson's admission. You know, it's a false admission. Like you said,
the allegation is not that they're so bad at life
that they shouldn't be employees anywhere, much less in journalism
that they missed the story that everyone with two eyes
and a brain could see. The allegation is that they
covered it up. And so until you acknowledge, like, we're
so far beyond, oh, you're really bad at your job,
you can't be trusted to notice the most obvious things.
We're so far beyond that, we're like, no, you're corrupt,
mendacious liars who do nothing but propaganda all the time.
And until they address that, I don't really care what
they have to say.
Speaker 1: And until they do fix things, there's not going to
there's a vacuum of trust, and a lot of you know,
disreputable people and liars have filled that vacuum. I'm not
saying all, but many have and that's a problem. We
need a functioning media. We don't have one, and I
think it needs to be kind of like burned down
to the ground.
Speaker 2: One thing that makes it more difficult to hold the
corrupt media accountabile is Donald Trump, who decides to reward
some of the worst liars in a sea of liars.
Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, who's who did the Weapons
of mass destruction hoax, He did the ein marn hoax,
he published all the Russia collusion hoax stuff. And Donald
Trump said, I'm going to give him an interview as
a reward for his lies. And it's really hard to
fight and marginalize the corupt media when Donald Trump is
giving them fun time.
Speaker 1: Well can I read you something? So one of someone
at The Atlantic says, here's this is like the announcement.
Here's Jeffrey Goldberg's editor's note from our next issue on
Signal Gate, his big Trump interview and what it means
to choose steadfastness over cowardice in the age of autocracy.
How about one? Do you know? Well, someone said that
maybe he can get Kevin Williamson to write something about
steadfastness over cowardice, even though it would be fine, but
the age of autocracy. So this hit hit me. The
guy is literally interviewing the president of the United States.
He gets to challenge him on anything he wants. There
are no limitations to what he can say. This guy's
made up stuff about Donald Trump. He has he maybe
helped Donald Trump, you know, maybe help Joe Biden win
the election. I mean with his story about the cemetery
and everything. He never has to worry a second of
it of the day about his livelihood or his life,
or his freedom or anything. This is the this is
supposed to be the age of autocracy. I mean, these
people are hysterical. This is a reason that they can
never really challenge Trump. And you know, it's all on Trump.
Trump does poorly, people aren't going to vote for him.
If he does well, they will. It has nothing to
do with the left because the left is off their rocker,
That's what I think. They're just hysterical. They've done this
from Russia Gate on and it's even losing more and
more of its effectiveness. Why does he do it. I
think he does it because he actually wants the He
wants media to like him. He wants the New York Times.
I mean, he talks to people at the New York
Times all the time. It seems where you used to it.
Speaker 2: I think they always like claim that they talk to
him more than they do. But and it doesn't seem
that he's been talking to them much at all. Like
there's not even a basis for saying he's talking to
them much this time around. But I didn't mind, Like
he did this interview with a kind of dummy, dumb,
dumb media guy Terry Moran.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, Terry Moran.
Speaker 2: Did you see this?
Speaker 1: It was I saw the highlights or low lights.
Speaker 2: I don't know, going well. And I mean, when you
can have someone as stupid as him, definitely take that
take advantage of that, Like you can just bat him
around and it's pretty funny. But like a Jeffrey Goldberg
who's an agent of the deep State and pushes known
hoaxes like WMD and other things like that, I just
don't think you need to, Like that's just stupid to
give him that time.
Speaker 1: Okay, I won't be as worked up for culture Molly.
I'm going to be rational on this. Have you done
anything culturally this week? Watched anything? I know you've been busy.
Speaker 2: I was traveling a lot. I have been watching The
Apprentice Season one with my kids, and Mark makes so
much fun of me, because I'm like, Mark, this show
is so great, and he just keeps making fun of me.
And I traveled to Boise, Idaho. I gave a speech
there on Saturday, which was super fun. And I love
the people in Boise and I got to visit with
my aunt and uncle and my cousins and my cousin
My cousins are awesome and it just was really great
to be able to spend time with them. I like
Boise a lot, me too.
Speaker 1: In there, Yeah, I love it, It's really nice. I
was in my head, I'm like, maybe I should move here.
It's kind of like a quieter Denver.
Speaker 2: Maybe you know, it's like Denver from decades ago. Yeah,
And I like that, and I like that family's there.
Speaker 1: So every time I said boiz, though they corrected me,
it's boy c with an s, right.
Speaker 2: Boys, Yeah? And what else. I also drove out to
the eastern Shore of Maryland for a work thing, so
I justly, oh, this is so stupid. But my husband
got me really nice headphones for Christmas, and I usually
don't use them because it's like weird to me when
noise blocks out everything else. But I got them set
up and I used them on my flight to and
from Boise, and it was just an utter revelation. And
I'm one of those people who's like dancing in public
because I've got great music going in my earphones.
Speaker 1: I love, love my noise canceling your phones. I'm wearing
them right now. So that's it. Oh yeah, Apprentice, Okay, just.
Speaker 2: It's not very exciting.
Speaker 1: No, I just I don't know that I can get
myself to watch that. We'll see.
Speaker 2: Actually, I just want to also say I have to
check for movies constantly to see if their kid appropriate
because my memory of what's appropriate or not is the
worst memory in the world. And with my oldest child,
I was like, oh, I think four weddings and a
funeral is okay. And we turned it on and had
to turn it off like almost immediately, And what is
wrong with me that I can't I mean, it's been
a long time since I've seen it, but I just
I have to read the parent's guide on IMDb or
the other things to know what I can show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember that happening with Ghostbusters.
Speaker 2: Oh, that is so bad, like metuitously bad.
Speaker 3: Me.
Speaker 1: I watched a show called Tulsa King. Have you heard
about this?
Speaker 2: Yes, I have.
Speaker 1: With Sylvester Stallone, I kind of binge watched it a bit.
I like the first season quite a bit. It's about
a former mafioso who is out of jail and goes
to Tulsa kind of new territory, and it's you know, anyway,
I think Sylvester Soon's quite good in it, and the
first season was good. The second season I started, I
lost interest in left. I don't know if that's consensus
on the show or not, but I didn't think it
was very good. Then I did something very cultural. I
went to a museum to see I think this is
the debut, the American debut of A. Michaelangelo's sketches for
the Sistine Chapel. It's cool. It's just cool to see them.
It was, you know, they were sort of you know,
a blown up picture of it, and then you know
the sketches and they'll show you what part of the
you know, the ceiling or whatever he catches relate to
and so on, and there's some historical stuff and you
know it. It's like a half an hour of your
time and I enjoyed it. It was nice. Hey, I
would recommend it when it comes to your town. I
think it's going to be good traveling around the United
States over the next few years. So that's it. Just
a reminder. If you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. You
look forward to talking to you next week. Until them
be lovers of freedom and anxious for the Fray.