Speaker 1: Welcome back to everyone to a new episode. If 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 a show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
We'd love to hear from you. Molly. There's a war
on a lot of negativity out there. Have you noticed
that about the war? Am I misreading what's going on? No?
Speaker 2: I think that we are taping this on day like
eleven or something of the war. It's in the early days.
It seems that there are debates about the war, but
the war itself seems to be going fairly well as
you might expect given our overwhelming military mind. What are
you What are you hearing?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 2: You're hearing negativity?
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe I have the I mean, maybe I'm on
Twitter or x too much because I think that's a
place where negativity thrives. But people are already kind of
ringing their hands over how long it's taking over. You know,
the oil prices legitimate concern, right, especially oil prices, even
though they've they've dropped today significantly from the other day.
But you don't know, you know, I can't predict what's
going to happen there, and neither can anyone else. But
I think the war is going spectacularly well, far better
than perhaps any military conflict we've engaged. And in the
sense that we have decapitated the enemy, we are meticulously
destroying their entire military infrastructure. We have gone after their leadership.
They are the revolutionary guard within the country. I you know,
I don't know exactly because we don't know exactly what
all the aims are as far as as getting to
certain kinds of nuclear material or whatever. No war's perfect.
War is always going to have unintended consequences, like we discussed.
But I think it's going incredibly well. The messaging hasn't
been great always, but even if we picked up and
left today, we would have accomplished a lot against a
sworn enemy of the United States that has been after
us for forty seven years in different ways.
Speaker 2: Well, I was looking at there were all there was
a major effort to put forth polling showing that Republican
voters love the war, and by and large, you do
see very strong support among Republicans for the war. And
then you see much softer support among Democrats, but even
independents who are much closer to Democrats than they are
Republicans on this issue. I think if you look at
that another way, though, these polls are showing basically what
do you think of Trump? And even the way that
questions will be asked, do you support President Trump war
in Iran? You know? Do you support President trump handling
of the war in Iran? And so people are just
answering do you support President Trump or not? And it's
hard to get a really good analysis of what those
numbers mean, particularly this early in If things continue to
go as well for the Americans as that's us, as
they have thus far, I think you will see even
you know, you will continue to see those high numbers
from Republicans. It is also true that if it goes
on for a long time, if it's very disruptive to
oil markets, if if it's where you're starting to see
a supplemental have to be put forth for a lot
of money, you will maybe see more diversity of thought
among each group of those polled. But thus far, people
trust Donald Trump to engage in war fighting better than
his predecessors. But part of that does mean that you're
not going to do a big nation building war that continues,
I believe to not be as popular even among Republicans.
What do you think?
Speaker 1: You make a very good point about polling, because when
you dive into those polls, it's not just absolutely a
lot of them tie it to Donald Trump, which is
both the positive probably and a negative depending if you're
a Democrat or Republican, but they also the sequences of questions.
So essentially they'll say, like Donald Trump has started a
war with Iran, you know, and the next question will
so it'll be connected to Donald Trump in some way,
and so you see the normal splits that usually happen.
So I don't really trust those polls. But again I
don't know. I am out of touch with the American
people in that way, I don't, you know. I for me,
this seems like a very good thing to do, but
I understand why other people wouldn't feel the same way.
I get it. Do you think if it was a
different president that the polls would look completely different? Would
more people be for it? Would more people be against it? Like?
Is it just because it's Donald Trump that everyone's staking
out these positions or there is there an American, you know,
is there some kind of do Americans have some kind
of belief and how we should use the military?
Speaker 2: I mean, oh, I think it would be wildly different.
But it's impossible to separate the two things right now.
If Joe Biden were doing this, it would be prosecuted
in a very different way. If George W. Bush were
doing this, it would be it'd be done in a
very different way. Who who is leading the effort has
everything to do with whether you support it or not,
both good and bad. So I don't even know how
you would ask the question without having you know with it.
If you're saying, like, if this were a generic person
prosecuting this war, would it look differently? But it's an
every generic person. It's always someone in particular.
Speaker 1: I totally get that who leads a wars is part
of why you would feel more secure in it or not.
My point is that the argument that it's well, Donald
Trump is doing this, so don't worry trust the plan,
all of that. I don't love that. I mean, you
have to have some kind of idea. Do you think
it's right to eliminate Iran as a threat to the
United States? Do you think it's right to go in
and take away their nu because I get that. I don't.
I don't think you know on that.
Speaker 2: I would be more curious to see how it breaks
down more by age than anything else. You notice that
people who remember nineteen seventy nine, which at this point
is people who were you.
Speaker 1: Know, the olds. Yeah, I get it.
Speaker 2: I don't remember nineteen seventy nine. I do so. Yeah,
people who are older are going to have had a
longer history of liking Ran, much like people who are
older are going to have a natural distrust of the
Soviet Union's you know, major state, which is Russia that
plays in I do not think younger people in any
way have the same idea about this war as older
people do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm sure you agree with that, right well overall? Yeah,
I mean obviously your background and your history in the
world and not what you've seen plays a part in that.
Do you think that when people get older they become
more open to this sort of thing or less open?
I feel like when you get older, you have a
longer term view of history and you sort of change
maybe or maybe this is maybe a witial thinking on
my part.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's that so much as you
are a product of the era in which you grew up,
and if you are an older person coming out of
World War Two, which was a dramatic success for Americans
working with allies, you will have a different belief about
what's possible with use of the military than if your
only experiences are the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, Libya,
you know what I mean. It's different. Now we have
a little bit of a different situation. Donald Trump has
had very successful military interventions, and he's done them in
a way different than those other conflicts. Usually, it's very quick,
it doesn't have democracy building aspects to it that we
saw in some recent efforts, not just under Bush, but
Obama and Clinton. And so I don't think it's that
you get smarter or wiser as you get older, although
we tend to do that, even so much as how
deeply do you understand the success that's possible with the military.
Speaker 1: I we finally found a point to argue, maybe I
completely disagree about World War two. World War two, if
we had the same kind of if we had the
internet during World War two and people saw the massive
casualties that the Americans took just to take a hill
or just to move forward by a few miles. I'm
not sure that they would view it the same way.
And World War Two was the biggest democracy building, regime
change war that has ever existed in the history of mankind.
We literally demanded unconditional surrender of Japan and of Germany
and instituted democratic governments in those countries and rebuilt them.
They were a huge successes.
Speaker 2: We're talking about completely separate things right now. I was
talking about if you were a product of the World
War two generation, you saw success with your military. If
you were a product of the Gulf War Afghanistan War era,
You're going to have a different view of it. I'm
not talking about whether any of those wars were right
or wrong, or justified or not justified, but simply people
who grew up in the post World War two era
were in a period of great optimism, great patriotism. You know,
just how it's different for different generations, and I think
it's worth contemplating that. Well.
Speaker 1: For sure, I agree with you on the aspect that
we are prosecuting this war to win and for American
interests and not for the interests of other people.
Speaker 2: On that point, I actually think that's always been a
real unifying theme for Americans. They're not super jazzed about
having our military everywhere, but if we do have our
military somewhere, they want to win. They want people's lives
and money to be treated respectfully. And yeah, they wanted
to also have like a strategy for success. And so
this is where we go back to those poll numbers
for Trump. If you don't trust Trump already, you might
be more anxious about what are we doing there? What
are the goals? Why have they not been communicated more clearly?
If you do trust Trump, you just think those questions
are silly. It's like trust the plan. He's always he's
always done it well thus far, it's gonna work out fine.
Or if you have been wanting to bomb her on
for a long time, you're just happy about it, you know,
like this is something Lindsay Graham has really wanted for
a long time. He's very happy.
Speaker 1: Goshcha, the isolationists, right, I'm not throwing you in there.
They are so lucky Lindsey Graham's around because he says
ridiculous things all the time. He pretends he's King of America.
And you could punish the Saudis punish the Syrians. I
saw him on TV for not helping out. But yet
he's literally the only real neocon out there. I have
literally not heard a single person talk about nation building
or talk about this in the way that he has.
He's alone voice here.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 2: I'm not a fan of him, but I don't think
we should undersell how important he is, right, you know.
The Wall Street Journal reported that he had personally been
involved in crafting the conversation with Israel about how they
would commence Trump to get involved. I mean, he's not
an uninfluential figure. He he's someone who President Trump definitely
talks to and you could like him or dislike him,
but I think it's okay to acknowledge that he has
played a role in this conflict.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that story for a second, but I
will say this, Yes he has.
Speaker 2: Well, I will tell I can tell you this. He's
definitely telling people that he played that role.
Speaker 1: Yes, this This administration has the Marco Rubios and on
the edge the Lindsey Grahams. What also has the Vances
and other people in the administration were probably much more,
uh you know, who are less far less inclined to
do that, you should hear both sides anyway, I guess.
Speaker 2: I think Marco Rubio, from what I've heard from my reporting,
probably was pretty similar in his perspective. In fact, I
would say there hasn't been a huge diversity within the
administration on whether to do this or not. This plan
really is a Donald Trump plan more than a Pete
hag Seth or a Marco Rubio or a JD. Van's plan. Yeah,
like they're serving him. They're supporting him, and they're serving
him well, I think, but they're not the originators of this.
Based on my.
Speaker 1: I have no reporting. I trust your reporting, but I
just don't believe that Jdvans would ever do this ever.
And I'm not.
Speaker 2: Sure that Mark, what do you think He's like, what
does that have to do with what I said?
Speaker 1: Though, Well, you're saying that everyone's on the same page
as and it's just Donald Trump's plan. Don't you think that?
Speaker 2: Mark? Okay, let's listen to what I'm saying. They're not.
They were not the originators of this plan, even as
they are supporting Trump, which I do believe each one
is quite publicly supportive of Trump. But they didn't this
plan did not come from a Pete Hegseeth or a
Marco Rubio or a JD. Vance. This was more a
Donald Trump plan than there's that.
Speaker 1: But I'm just saying that I could see a President
Rubio militarily acting against Iran if it would not agree
to limit its nuclear program or whatever. I just don't
see that happening with a lot of the other people
in that administration. That's all I'm saying. Don't I don't.
Speaker 2: Well like that. I mean, I think with the Venezuela
situation that was that was something that originated out of
the Pentagon, I believe. So it is just successful, and
it was very successful yet and they worked so hard
on coming up with a plan that would be achieved
with I mean, just it's so remarkable that whole thing
was under a day, just a few hours. I mean,
it's really impressive.
Speaker 1: There are people who are comparing that operation to the
Iranian thing, which is it's just very different. Iran is
a far superior military power in a way far away.
There are other intricate things that are very different.
Speaker 2: Culturally, yeah, very different geographically. We'll see, you could accomplish
a lot in Venezuela just by going in there and
grabbing Maduro. You don't do that with this entrenched IRGC
doesn't really matter if you take out the head, there
are many layers below it.
Speaker 1: Right, They're not rational actors in the way they believe
they're rational in how they view the world. But they
don't view the world as someone who is trying to
hold onto power in Venezuela. Right, who is going to
be more apt to work with Donald Trump not to
lose power hopefully moderate that country. Maybe Cuba's next. I mean,
you hear a lot about that. I think I just
don't think countries like that should exist in our hemisphere. Frankly,
who are our enemies? And but we'll see.
Speaker 2: I think I saw some people when I think it
was Lindsay Graham maybe, but maybe someone else who said
and Cuba's next, And some people were like, oh my gosh. Really,
But I think Cuba is a much greater or much
easier to understand problem, not a greater problem than Iran.
But it is insane that they have just been allowed
to pose problems from such a close proximity to our country.
Speaker 1: They're right there, yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't want to
see an invasion in a regime change, Aron style. I
would like to see what happened in Venezuela, happened to them,
or maybe not even happen to them. Maybe just threaten
them and see what they're a minimal to some sort
of agreement to reform in some way. We'll see you
want to move on?
Speaker 2: Maybe I just I was gonna ask there was something
you said that made me want to ask a question
about you're not entirely sure what all the goals of
this war are, but also you said that you think
it has been so successful that even just with what's
been accomplished thus far, you could kind of call it
a day or say, you know, take the win and
move on. What are your thoughts on that going forward?
Do you want them to articulate more clearly specific goals.
Do you want them to just kind of wrap it
up and get out? Do you want to Does that
make sense what I'm asking for me? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think I think they need to clean up the messaging.
I think it should be simpler. I think it's been
better lately, but still not great. I think, like I
said last time, there are an array of possibilities. The
best case scenarios regime change. I went back to see
what Donald Trump said about that, and listen, I'm not
here to defend Donald Trump's rhetoric. I think it's a
very messy, but he didn't when he was talking about
regime change. He was talking about the people rising. We
because of what we're doing doing for ourselves, have allowed
and given the opportunity for Iranians to rise up against
their regime. I think that's a long shot. Regime change
is incredibly hard through just a you know, in air war,
so I don't know if that's going to happen. I
think that's the best case scenario, and that's what they're
hoping for. The idea that Donald Trump has to go
out there while a war is raging and let everyone
know exactly what he wants to do and let the
ene of me know exactly wants to do is not
the norm they have. I'm sure operations that are happening
right now to procure, for instance, the nuclear you know,
the enriched uranium. I'm sure they know what they're going after.
I'm sure there's a plan. People will pretend there's no plan.
Don't understand how terry works, and we've shown that we
are very competent military right now. So I think we've
weakened them tremendously. We'll probably take them decades. But if
we have allowed their nuclear program to survive in some way,
I think that's a big problem, because then you have
to go back again, and I hope that we never
have to go back again. So I don't exactly know.
When I said I don't know, is because I don't
know what these operations entail. But it's still a victory
for us to weaken them tremendously in their military and
their ability to undermine American interests. I think there's still
work to be done because they could still obviously create
problems in the straits of har Moves, and you know,
in oil delivery for the whole world, which matters. It's
a fungible commodity. It's not that simple. Though. We use
very little gulf oil frankly, I mean, we get most
of our oil from Canada and Mexico and we make
it ourselves. So I don't know, I don't know. I'm
on a tangent.
Speaker 2: Yeah on that point, though, It's true that we don't
get much oil through the straits of our moves, but
Europe does a lot of their products are able to
be made because of that oil coming through there, and
this is why we were targeting the pooties in Yemen,
because they were making shipping difficult in the Straits of
prom So, so we are clearly doing this war in conjunction
with Israel, and I have thought that Israel isn't giving
away what they're doing there, but they've done a pretty
good job of messaging. Part of that, I think is
because Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Everyone understands
in that country, you know, even you see it in
the support that Netanyahu has in his country for his
for what he's doing with this war. Everyone understands Iran
wants to wipe Israel off the map, and they seem
to have a clarity of explaining that. That would be good,
I think for the Americans to follow in explaining why
they're doing this, what the general plan is. Getting that
messaging out to people is important because part of you know,
this is using our money and our boys, and so
you do want to have broad buy in from the public.
You do have a lot of that among Republican voters already.
They're enthusiastic about this or or at the very least supportive,
and I would just even understanding that we have different
interests than Israel, we should be communicating in a way
similar to what they're doing in terms of just getting
that message to the people. Different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's very difficult because we have a far
more complex case to make to voters about the long
term problems that a nuclear Iran would pose to us.
And though I think we share many of the same
interests as Israel, we also have broader interests that include China,
where Israel's interests are more narrowly focused on proxy armies
that are literally bombing their people. So it's easier case
to make you know what I mean, like like Hesbala.
Speaker 2: So, but if the Iranian rest agree it is, it's
still good to do that kind of communication.
Speaker 1: They have done a lot better military planning than messaging planning,
I think in the White House, I think Rubio has
been the best. But even his words can be taken
out of context sometimes and have been, so they should
clean it up. But it is a tough It's tough
to explain a lot of it. It's tough to explain
a preemptive war that maybe saves you know, it's tough,
like the line of immunity where Iran has these ballistic
missiles and it makes it into a far more dangerous war.
That's difficult to explain. Maybe it's not difficult. Maybe they
don't give the American people enough credit. I don't know,
but it is to message that in a SoundBite when
you're on Fox News or wherever you are, making the
case super super difficult, I think.
Speaker 2: And then the other thing I would just say, and
I mentioned this on Box News Sunday, was that Republicans
are supportive of President Trump pretty much across the board.
Whatever the issue is, they tend to be supportive. It's
also true that there are a lot of things that
need to be done to fix America, and a lot
of people voted for Trump believing that he alone could
really fix some of these problems in America. A lot
of work has been done closing the border, beginning the deportations,
but the Trump administration should not neglect that domestic policy
agenda if they want to have any shot at some
wins in the midterm elections.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I almost think it's I don't make predictions anymore,
but that the midterms were going to be very difficult
no matter what, in my opinion, and even with the win.
Once we talked about this last week, once you win,
everyone's moved forward to something else. It's incredibly difficult in
this environment, especially where I don't know. I was thinking
about this the other day. I don't know there's ever
going to be a popular president again. Like we're so
divided on partisan lines. That's difficult for me to think
that there's going to be a president with like sixty
seventy percent approval rate, even in the midst of a
war like we're in. Usually you get that bump for
like a week or two. Trump wasn't even given that bump.
And like you say, if Biden did this, I don't
think he would have been given that bump either. And
maybe maybe it's those personalities. I don't know soundlikely.
Speaker 2: From Fox News Sunday, Senator Mark Warner was there, and
he's on the Senate Intel Committee. He had some critiques
of Trump with the war, but they were all procedural.
He didn't disagree that Iran was a very serious threat
that needed to be taken seriously. Thought that was interesting.
He didn't like that he didn't come and get approval
before the war. He didn't believe that that was the
right way to do things, and he said because it
wasn't you know, he chose to go to war rather
than doing it because there was some imminent threat, even
though the Trump administration says there was an imminent threat,
whereas Tom Cotton says they have been an imminent threat
since nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 1: Earth, can I say something about that?
Speaker 2: Well, Warner was I'm just saying Warner was supportive, and
he's a big Democrat, So I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 1: Well, did you see the George Wild column about how
he argued that Trump doesn't need any congressional approval for
this war? I it was quite interesting.
Speaker 2: I might agree with it, But what was his uh?
What don't I don't think the War Powers Act is
very good, but go on? What was George Will's argument?
Speaker 1: That you'd have to go read it? I mean, I
don't know if I agree with it, but essentially he
argued that the Founder is never envisioned having to go
and ask Congress for military you know, to engage in
military action in when when the when you need the
surprise to do it, when you need to move very
very quickly, and all of that. I don't know if
I agree, but it was interesting and unexpected for me
to read him defending Donald Trump but also saying that
so something to think about, right, Oh so surprising.
Speaker 2: All the people who suddenly support Donald Trump worked very
hard to get him out in twenty sixteen, including some
publications that did some pretty dramatic stuff to try to
thwart Trump. Now being very supportive.
Speaker 1: George will was not a big He's not a big
neocon type, though he did initially support a rock but
he quickly were call him saying it was a mistake
and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: You know, I just if Congress wants to say something,
they control a lot through the budget, and that's where
they should show their power, right, and they will have
an opportunity to do that here fairly soon. If the
reports that this is costing one to two billion dollars
a day are true.
Speaker 3: We shall see eighteen hundred companies are in the amazing
tariff for refund race. The watch Dout 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. One hundred and thirty billion dollars was taken
in tariffs because those tariffs were crawled off, companies won
their money back. Will they get it? 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 Watchdout on Wall Street podcast with Chris
cast on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Would you like to move on?
Speaker 2: Yeah, speaking of midterms, did you follow the Texas situation?
Speaker 1: I did follow the Texas situation. You're speaking of the
Democrat James tell Erico winning against Jasmine Crockett. Yeah, in
the in the primaries there. I am obviously not a Christian,
but I he said, I wrote a column on this.
But to me, he sounds like he speaks with the
moral authority of nineteen eighty is like televangelist, but he
has the intellectual depth of a freshman, like gender studies
major at Oberlin. That's that's basically how I think of him.
When you listen to him speak, it's it's vapid, right.
And because I know many social conservatives, and I could
say not all of them are perfect and this or that,
but I think that their views are informed by their
faith like their political views are informed by their faith,
which is completely normal and expected. This guy's faith is
informed by his politics. Like I feel like the whole
thing's in verse, Like he comes up which starts talking
about trans kids, and he flips through you know, Paul's
you know, apostle Paul's letters or whatever, and comes up
with some sentence that allows him to rationalize some kind
of insane view of abortion or whatever. It is. Right,
So I cannot. I find the guy just insufferable. Let
me ask you, what do you what are your thoughts
on him?
Speaker 2: Well, again, I'm thinking back to some stuff from Fox.
On Sunday, a Wall Street Journal reporter Ami Lensky was
saying that Democrats were in a very good situation in
Texas because they had been able to dominate this moderate
James tallerco over Jasmin Crockett, who said, this is Helen Ski. Okay,
I just make that up. In fact, that is the
general consensus, right. You saw it with the Stephen Colbert
conspiring with tall Rico to to not help out Jasmine
Crockett and make a big production out of it so
it would gain money and recognition for tall Rico. The
Democrats were very focused on that, and they did consider
it a big thing that they could run him instead
of Crockett, in part because the big Democrat operation now
is to take the most left wing person who presents
the least left wing as your ideal candidate, and so
they think tall Rico is their most left wing but
presents his not left wing, in part because the media
keeper saying that he's moderate. There is It reminds me
of when the media we're saying that Democrats had cracked
the code with Pete Buddha Judge and Tim Walls. These
are the men that cote for beta or and it's
it's just clear that Democrats aren't talking to any actual men.
These men are very effeminate and do not appeal to
men or many women, and yet the media keep going
with this line. So Tallarico is his views are radical.
He led the effort to trans children at the state legislature,
and he said that God wanted you to do that.
He said that he wanted arbortuaries in every federal courthouse
in America and that abortionists should be federal employees. He
said that there were six genders, that God is non binary.
This is a guy who would come off like a
kook in Portland. Well maybe not Portland. He would have
trouble getting elected in California. The idea that he's going
to be this like miracle candidate in Texas, I don't
really buy at all.
Speaker 1: He proves, Yeah, he proves that they're trying to prove
that progressivism is compatible with traditional notions of faith. But
what they're proving is that modern progressives are bigger quacks
than average social conservatives have ever been. That they are
willing to believe anything that they are willing to believe.
There are six genders you can choose from that they're
willing to believe. How you didn't even talk about his
racial stuff during Black Lives Matters, or maybe you did,
but he talks about how your skin is white, it's
a virus. It's like he speaks like a clansman from
the thirties, but in reverse right, like he thinks being white,
that does he really believe that Christianity that don't speak
for Jesus, but that Jesus believes that your skin color
defines you, that you don't have any kind of free will,
that you're a hater because of who you were born to.
I mean, this kind of stuff is radical and using
faith to hide it and to justify it. I think
is really just gross in a way. And I can't
imagine voters won't see through it. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that many voters will see through it.
It is also true that this kind of shtick does
work on a certain type of individual, and we saw
this the New York Times has. You know, they are
engaged constantly in propaganda operations, and so one of their
long running propaganda operations is to have David French as
their in house like anti Christian critic basically but again
much like James tall Rico, under the guys that he
is actually the most Christian of them all. And so
every Sunday he does a sermon column, and I think
it was this Sunday he did a column praising James
tall Rico as the best Christian in America vis a
vis other Christians. And did you read it? Yeah? What'd
you think of it?
Speaker 1: Christians are involved in debates that are none of my business,
you know, just overall, I'm just going to say, but
it seems like he puts a lot of importance on tone.
You know, how you sound, not what you do, like
a non judgmentalism. But of course it's just judgmentalism a
different way. But you know so, and he likes the
tonal value of someone like this who who says that,
you know, abortion and gay marriage are not the most
important things in the Bibles. But David French then doesn't
care that he uses the Bible to justify having an
abortion mill in every federal building. So is he like
is he only is seeing half of the equation. I
don't know. That's what it seems like to me, Like
to him, the tone is more important than the substance
of this sort of candidate. I don't know, what do
you think.
Speaker 2: I don't read David French, but I have enjoyed some
of the anti David French pieces that have come out
in reaction to his column. And Chris Bray, who's very
similar to you in like not the most religious person
or doesn't come off that way although he is Christian.
The Tallarico guy annoys him like any red blooded American man,
and also David French's little stick that he does annoys
him quite a bit. Did a great takedown of all
of the logical fallacies in the David French column, including
how he rewrites MAGA and Trump as Christian leaders and
Christian as a Christian movement, which is just not accurate, right,
Donald Trump does not purport to be a Christian leader.
MAGA is a political movement, not a religious movement. Even
if it contains quite a few Christians, it also contains
people who aren't, you know. But he rewrites these things
that he can compare. Albert Mueller had a response to
David French where he was saying in a call him,
David French states that tall Rico is one of the
few openly Christian politicians in the US who acts like
a Christian, and by acting like a Christian, he reveals
a profound contrast with so many members of the MAGA
Christian movement that's dominated American political life for ten years.
A few paragraphs later, he cited tallar Rico as saying,
I'm tired of being pitted against my neighbor. I'm tired
of being told to hate my neighbor. And then Muller writes,
who told him such a vile thing? To state my frustration? Clearly,
I am tired of being told about people who told
him to hate his neighbor, who told him that to
be even more clear, we know what he is doing here.
He is a talented politician who is running as a
faith forward candidate while condemning Conservatives for running as faith
forward candidates, and he condemns evangelical Christians for attempting to
influence politics while he seeks to establish his own religious
liberalism as law. Tall Rico wants to divide voters just
as much as Donald Trump, but on different grounds and
along different lines. That was a good point.
Speaker 1: That's a great point, of course he does. And what
about the hypocrisy of secular urban liberals who are constantly,
you know, yelling at social conservatives not to bring God
into politics and so forth. But when a Canada comes
like this comes along, you know he's on Stephen Colbert,
He'll be on the cover of GQ for all I know,
like Beta or Orke. It's a massive hypocrisy. I have
no problem with people bringing God into politics because those
are those are the beliefs that help dictate our choices
in life. But he's a hypocrite. Yeah, he's a talented politician.
People say, I guess so I am not. I think
I'm immune from those charms in general, But I don't
you know, especially with him. But we'll see. I don't
buy it. I don't buy that he's going to beat
either of the Republicans who who move forward. I don't
understand why. I mean, David French mentions Corning. But you know,
if you're that put off by Paxton named Pakston and
then you have a candidate there, a milk toast Republican,
you could support it. Right, why put your who I'm
fine with? But why do you have to put your
support behind the person who is attacking other Christians in essence? Right,
he's constantly telling other Christians how to think, but other
Christians aren't allowed to say anything. I don't know. I
don't mind going off on this. This isn't my business.
Speaker 2: All of our business.
Speaker 1: It is my business that a guy who thinks it's
okay to mutilate young children in schools is going to
be in the US Senate. That's my business. I'm against that.
A guy who thinks your skin color dictates that you're
going to be a racist, I'm against that. And you
know that people who believe those two things but believe
a whole we'll just say then you of crazy things too.
Speaker 2: And the guy is super motivated about trans children. I
saw this clip where he was asked, who's someone you
care about other than family and friends? And he's like
trans children. He frans again, do you see this as
being a winning message in Texas? You know, even Abigail
Spanberger was running away from the transing of children when
she was pretending to be moderate. But this guy's on video,
way too online, way too much video.
Speaker 1: We don't mention her name. We don't mention that woman's
name in this house.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: We're trying to. Yeah, they can put out a sign
they're trying she's trying to or Democrats are trying to
pass a ar band in Virginia. Right now, let's talk
about the media. Usually I think you're the media critic,
right but I have a beef. I have three beefs.
First one is did you see the story of Zohar
Mam Donnie's wife Rama Duaji, who liked on October seventh,
liked a bunch of posts on Instagram celebrating the mass
burder of one thousand, two hundred innocent civilians in Israel,
and then liked an Instagram post calling the rape of
women that day a hoax. Well, she is now, and
that's bad enough. I would say that that's one of
the least surprising things I've ever read in my life,
just to be honest about that. But did you see
the coverage of that.
Speaker 2: Did you see the reaction to the article, the investigative
report into her likes? Yes, they seem to go after
the reporter and defend missus Mumdannie.
Speaker 1: Yes. One of the headlines in The New York Times reads,
Mumdannie defends wife amid criticism of her support for the
Palestinian Cause. Now, either the person who wrote that believes
that the Palestinian Cause entails hunting down terrified, unarmed young
women who at a music festival and killing them where
where they're trying to be evasive, right, or obscure what
that was really about. Knowing the New York Times, I'd
say both are very possible, and maybe both happened at
the same time.
Speaker 2: The thing I couldn't get over is that the New
York Times, the New York Times was doing this. Do
you remember The New York Times thinking that it was
inappropriate to go after the wife of an influential figure
when they ran multiple stories about Martha and Alito's habits
with flags. Can you remember this? You know, she likes
flags and she had a dispute with a neighbor and
she had a flag flying upside down, and they made
that a front page story, tried to get Alito to
be forced out of the Supreme Court or to recuse
himself from all sorts of cases related to various you know,
lawfair that the left was doing. And then they kept
it going. She had an appeal to Heaven flag up
at her beach house, which is a great flag that
everybody should fly, a flag that has been flown by
left and right. The San Francisco City Hall or whatever
used to fly it for decades until this story came
out where the New York Times set again because Martha
an Alito likes flags, and I can verify this, Sam
Alito is not a big flag waiver in any way.
Martha Ann loves flags, has a ton of them, loves
to fly them. And New York Times made it a
really big story. It was a massive story. You had
sent it ethics investigations, you had all sorts of drama happening.
But then they get mad when their own mayor's wife
is caught liking tweets that are politically difficult to justify.
Speaker 1: How many stories has The Times of Pro Public and
other outlets run about Justice Thomas's wife and what her
political opinions, Right, here's it.
Speaker 2: And then when Mom Donnie said, you know what, my
wife's her own person. This is her business, not anyone
else is. Everyone was like, well, case club. If Justice
Thomas or Justice Alito or Justice Roberts or anybody on
the Court who's a Republican appointee says that people make
fun of them. The New York Times said that when Alito,
who anyone who knows him knows he's not a flag person,
when he said those are my wife's flag. She's her
own person. She has First Amendment rights, they said, this
is despicable. This is he is using his wife so
that he can protect his career. There were other media
outlets that said their marriage is probably in trouble because
he's throwing his wife under the bus. But none of
this from Mom Donnie. Interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's the title to her opinion. I don't
want to stop her from saying what she wants to say.
But if you Mom Donnie said that she's a private person, well,
if you pose for magazine photos, You give interviews to
New York Magazine, to the New York Times, to one
of the I think it was vanity fair what ever
it was. You offer your political opinions on social media,
then your positions are fair game for public to scrutinize.
A but I looked up how many stories the New
York Times did on this private person before, and just
like last week, there was a story called the Complicit.
Here's the headline, the complicated politics of Rama de Wagi's
style celebrating the New York ladies sent into the spotlight.
You know it complicated as a euphemism for in the
New York Times, it means that you have imst cursed,
you have insane positions, that it's a you know that
an extremist view is that they that are too nuanced
for you prolls to understand. We're gonna layer it with
all tons of context. What she really means when she's like, yeah,
people weren't raped, you know, rape, there was a rape hoax.
And that's what they do. And I believe this is
driven not only because she's so the wife of a socialist,
because people they have internalized the idea of Islamophobia. These
young reporters and these people to New York and they
simply can't get themselves to ever be honest or say
anything about someone who is Muslim. It's part of it
for sure for me. Because there were two other stories
that The New York Times participated in that show this.
I was going about to mention there was an event
where two Isis inspired terrorists through homemade bombs. They were duds,
but they were packed with like nails and things like that.
At a peaceful protest some anti Muslim protesters and want
to kick all the Muslims out of the country. Whatever,
they were peaceful, these people threw bombs at them. Here's
the New York Times headline, smoking jars of metal infuses
thrown at protests near Mayor's house. And if you read
that headline, would you know who was involved in throwing
those bombs? You wouldn't even know. The subhead says six
people were arrested after anti Islamic protesters led by the
right wing activist Jake Lang clashed with counter protesters there
near Gray c Mansion. You could read the subhead and
you wouldn't know who actually threw the bomb. You have
to go pretty deep into that story. You know what
smoking jars and metal fuses are. They're called bombs. You
could have just said bombs, right, And it's interesting.
Speaker 2: They always tell you use fourteen words that obscure the
truth when a single word that would say it clearly
should not be used.
Speaker 1: I'm happy you brought that up, because this is anti journalism.
Journalism is supposed to synthesize information, bring it clearly and
as truth to people who read it or see it.
I mean, that's like the core job I think of
a journalist. This literally leads you away from the truth
on purpose. Like, that's anti journalism, it's propaganda. I don't
know what you want to call it. Come what read
you CNN's lead from that day, from their story on
that two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday
morning for what could have been a normal day, enjoying
the city during abnormally warm weather. Their lives were drastically changed,
as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bomb
homemade bombs during an anti Muslim protest outside Mayor Zoron
Mamdani's home. That is insane. It reminds me of the
cover of Rolling Stone when they put the Boston Marathon
bomber on and made him into like, what was that
a teen magazine idol or something. These people are insane,
something wrong with them. You're just not on your head,
you know it. I don't know when it's horrible.
Speaker 2: I mean I saw some funny parodies of this where
they were rewriting, you know, the Ted Kaczynski as a
promising Harvard student or I T student whatever he was,
who had some interesting ideas about technology and writing skills
and his life took a turn. But it's not funny
because it's so bad. And you just said, I don't
know anything about this group that protesting, so I literally
don't know what they're called or who they are. The
name of the individual didn't match for me. But it
does concern me that we are whistling past the in
some cases literal graveyard when it comes to difficulties having
a pluralistic society with people who support killing those they
don't agree with, and we're not answering those questions because
they're very difficult, and we are importing massive numbers of
people who don't necessarily have a problem with this type
of violence, who have religious justification for it, and because
it's a difficult conversation to have, we just don't have it.
And you see this on left right media we can
make fun of. But you know, I keep on thinking
about how after nine to eleven, the big mantra from
Republicans was that Islam is a religion of peace, and
how the worst thing would be if any there was
any blowback on Muslims for the Muslim terrorism that had
killed so many thousands of Americans. And I would like
to see better conversations. They're acknowledging that there are varieties
in Islam, and also acknowledging that the percentage of Muslims
globally who support violence as a means to accomplishing political
and religious ends is way too high.
Speaker 1: That's all fair enough. I mean, someone made the joke
that there was a protest to say that Muslim Islam
was incompatible with Western society, and a couple of people
showed up and through bombs to prove them wrong. But
I think it's important to note It's not the most
important thing, honestly, but it's important to note that there
are many Muslim people or peaceful and all of that,
and they live in America and their citizens, and we
should want to secularize them and bring them into the fold.
But it's also not we shouldn't obscure the truth that
there are Islamic people who cannot abide by someone disagreeing
with them or saying something they don't like, and this
is that. And I just want to say CNN retracted
that lead.
Speaker 2: Not really they didn't. I mean they took away the tweet,
and then the story stayed basically the same.
Speaker 1: The tweak the lead, but also the New York Times
change one of its headlines. There are still I think
some older leftist editors in these places who will rain
in this craziness. But at some point soon the nuts
are going to be in charge, and I wonder what's
going to happen then I think it's going to be
a lot worse. The last story on this I could
quickly say is that that there was also a obituary
in The Economists, which was once kind of like the
house magazine of neoliberalism in the world, right in the
Western world. It was a serious concern. It has become
a joke. You know, there there are no there are
no bylines on it, so you don't even know who
rites this stuff. But they decided to write in OH
bit about Ali Kahmani, who is dead, told to the
prism of his own eyes, with a downplay virtue that
he is basically was some kind of Nazi in essence
to his own people, the misogyny, the murder, the destitution,
and you know, the executions, and talks about how he
believed he had divine right on his side and had
countless reasons to hate the West, especially the United States
States the tip of a phalanx of morally corrupt countries.
I mean, this is just outrageous. It would be like
writing an oh bit of Hitler through his own eyes
he had good reason to hate the Jews, who blah
blah blah. Right like, it's just unbearable. But then I
thought about it. We've been seeing this forever. You remember
the infamous Washington Post obit on al Bagdati where they
called him. They led with calling him an austere religious scholar,
not a person who brought back white slavery or or
you know, buried people, you know, by the thousands. It's
just something.
Speaker 2: The New York Times had started responding to critics of
its favorable obituaries for dictators and murderers, and they said,
you know, we try to present people in all of
their complexity. And I don't hate that idea at a
time of death, to just describe their importance and put
the best construction on it, except for two things. One,
if you're a conservative, they lead with the worst thing
they can say about you, and it's in the headline.
And they take things that they took out of context
when you were alive and they lead with that at
the time of your death. So no offense, but screwed
these people. They're not painting a you know, picture of
their full life. And then secondly, there is a difference.
You know, if you are angrier at a cartoonist who
supported Trump than a guy responsible for untold bloodshed and calamities,
there's something wrong with you. You're to quote to quote
George W.
Speaker 1: Bush.
Speaker 2: You don't remember how he was like, if you're a
critic of the Iraq war, he said, you're either with
us or you're with the terrorists. But I just think
the New York Times is basically with bad people. They
write positive or you know, the Economist or the Washington Post,
they write these positive things about these people because they
agree with them in their fight against America. What do
you think.
Speaker 1: I think that's harsh and true. Sometimes I think it,
you know, a less less harsh way to put it
was that they sympathize with them more than a normal
person should. Maybe, but you know you mentioned you're talking
about Scott Adams and that a little bit right. But
think Rush Limbaugh. I think this was the New York Times.
It might have been the Washington Post like it led
with like radio personality who weaponized a radio against Democrats,
like they always pick the worst where they put the
worst formulation on it. I don't. I think what Russia
limbag doing that was good actually for America, but I
understand that it has a negative connotation for them. Yeah,
something's wrong with these people. There is something wrong. Like
you could I was thinking about missus Mum Dannie. You
could stake out a position that you think that Israel
is a moral in the way they acted towards Gaza
and not celebrate the wanton murder, the taping, the laughter
of mass murder. But they have a problem doing this.
There's something wrong with these people, and I just I
think there's an evil there. I'm sorry there's a bloodlust
when you are liking something like that that is not
normal for a person in Western society to do. I
don't know where this all goes, but it's not great.
You want to talk about culture. It's so funny we
turned to culture after talking about such horrible things.
Speaker 2: You want to add one? I just wanted to add
one more thing about the Mom Donnie wife, which is
I definitely judge people by their wives. And I think
that if you want to know if you've got a
good like justice or judge, just look at who their
wife is. That will tell you more than more than
a lot of questionnaire. And Mom Donnie having this woman
as his wife, I think it's just it's informative, tells
you a lot about who's trying to please when he
goes home at night. It's not like a perfect metric,
but something I like to do. But yes, for culture,
I have two things. First off is there's this documentary
on mel Brooks. Have you talked about this previously.
Speaker 1: I have not watched it, but I will.
Speaker 2: Okay. So it's called ninety nine year Old Man and
a riff on his two hundred year Old Man comic record,
and it's actually really well done. I'm watching just like
a little bit at a time. Yeah, so I've made
it through one episode.
Speaker 1: And then I also say on mel Brooks, like I
like mel Brooks as a person. I think he's funny.
I like interviews with him. But I'm not as big
a fan of his movies as a lot of people are.
I've always found them too slapsticky for me, especially, you know,
I think some of them are better than others, but
I'm not. I just don't think he's this great talent
that other people do. Not trying to put him down.
He's still alive, so I could say some bad stuff
about well you're a fan, like do you love Blazing Saddles?
Do you love Spaceballs?
Speaker 2: I do love Blazing Saddles. I think the rest of
his movie output is pretty bad. I think he's interesting
because comedians I like love him. I want to know
more about why do they love him so much? But
for me personally, I.
Speaker 1: Mean I should say I like the producers as well
quite a bit. I like Blazing Saddles, but that's a
revealed mark.
Speaker 2: I hadn't seen that, and he was mortified. So cue
all the letters from people angry when I say that
I haven't seen something. I am working on it, but
I don't.
Speaker 1: Know if people understand how radical that movie kind of
is because it was only twenty twenty something years after
World War Two, where there's a story of two Jewish
people putting on a play celebrating Hitler because they wanted
to go bankrupt. It's a hilarious premise and the songs
are funny, and the movie's very good. And Gene wild
Gene Wilders, who's wonderful always in my opinion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, So the other thing I watched which I
loved is Tron Legacy, the twenty wow on movie. Have
you seen that?
Speaker 1: I have not which one? Is this the latest one
or earlier?
Speaker 2: Okay, came out in twenty ten. It's the first sequel
to Tron. I think there are several.
Speaker 1: Now, Yeah, man.
Speaker 2: Mark thought that it lacked a plot, a coherent plot,
and I would agree that it struggled a little bit
that area. But I loved the soundtrack. I thought the
the concepts that it introduced were great, lots of Christian
allegory and it looked beautiful. So I enjoyed all of
those things.
Speaker 1: I love that you see Christian allegory in all movies
like I remember You're like Girls is the most Christian
show ever? Like talking about.
Speaker 2: No I said it was a Christian but I didn't
think that it was a morality play you fale of
like what goes wrong when you would accept feminism? And
I still think that.
Speaker 1: I'm just keeping it's truth.
Speaker 2: A good, good art is truthful, and so sometimes people
who don't want to reveal truth still do it accidentally.
Speaker 1: I agree with that actually quite a bit. Did you?
I know, as we discussed, I think before the show,
I am older than you. But did you see Tron
the original when it came out?
Speaker 2: Did I liked it a lot? What did you think?
Speaker 1: I loved it when I was a kid. I thought
it was it was kind of innovative for its time.
It had a kind of a cartoonish quality to it
that I liked, and a video game quality. Obviously, I'm
not seen I might have seen that one. I will
rewatch it because I'm into Tron. So wow, that's a
strong recommend for you on Tron. I didn't think that.
You know, you're not real sci fi type.
Speaker 2: So I just also need to reiterate that Mark didn't
think it was as good as I did, and he's
pretty good at movie reviews. I forgot that. I also
rewatched La Confidential.
Speaker 1: Oh I love that movie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I like it too.
Speaker 1: It's funny. You know the guy who plays the model
who is like the gay hustler who has killed the
blonde guy. I was watching a show with him called
The Mentalist that was not terrible for a few episodes.
I think he's Australian Simon something or other.
Speaker 2: I'll just point out too that Jerry Goldsmith did the
score for La Confidential, and I really like him.
Speaker 1: If you can't get John Williams, you get him.
Speaker 2: Does like every movie, prefer Jerry Goldsmith.
Speaker 1: But that's an insane thing to say. Oh my lord,
John Williams, the guy who who did Raiders of the
Lost Arc. You think that Jerry Goldsmith is a better
composer than he is.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not. I just said I would prefer I
Some of my favorite things have been done by Jerry
golds including one of my very favorite movie soundtracks ever,
which is The Russia House.
Speaker 1: Whenever I'm in a i'm in a record store, I'm
always I always go to the soundtracks to look if
they see that to surprise you, because you have mentioned
it so often and I'm starting to think maybe it
never came out in Vinyl. I've never seen it in
any form.
Speaker 2: Msgggs does have it, but they're so expensive then they're
only in foreign countries. So thank you for looking. Though
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I'll keep at it. I have a strong recommend kay,
and it's it's top goal in a way. It's called Tehran.
It's a show on Apple Plus about in Mosad woman
who a spy, who is a younger, not a young woman,
maybe youngish woman young to me thirty, let's say, who
has parents from Iran, who speaks the language, all of that,
and she is dropped there and gets stuck in Iran
and is being chased by the person who is the
head of the Revolutionary Guard, you know, anti Mosad Squad.
It's very well done. It's an Israeli show. But the
second season has Glenn Close. The third season has Hugh Laurie.
Like really well made, doesn't it's not cartoonish and how
it portrays human beings, they're complicated. I liked it a
lot until the last episode of the first season has
something that I think is quite implausible in the real world.
But overall, I don't want that's but overall it's a
really good show. I think it's a really good show
if that's your thing, and I would recommend it great.
The other show I watch was Young Sherlock. I started watching,
which is a Guy Ritchie show on Amazon. I think,
and I don't know. It has all the markings of
a Guy Ritchie directed show. It's fun like that.
Speaker 2: I like Guy Ritchie.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do too. It's it's nothing deep, but it's fun.
I would say it's fun. It's crackling, it's a live
the way he films that, the dialogue, all that. Pretty
good show. I've only I've only watched a little bit
of it. That's all I have. Oh I did, I
did want to I'm I am. I have an event
coming up where I'll be speaking, so I wanted to
mention it in case people wanted to come. It's in
Virginia if you live near Richmond. Even if you don't
want to come to it, you can. It's at the
Virginia Forum on April one. I'll be talking about the
history of American guns. I think we called it Forged
in Freedom. So if you're interested in that. You can
go online to virginiaforum dot com I think it is
and scroll to the bottom. You'll see events.
Speaker 2: I hope you talk about ammunition.
Speaker 1: I was going to talk more about kind of the
most the biggest innovators and industrialists who did a lot.
I think people don't know, or maybe they do, but
many people might not how innovative gun makers were in
the larger context of like mass producing things and manufacturing
and other mechanical innovations. But yeah, I can mention ammunition too.
I'm into ammunition. Should I mentioned that I did? Remember
I mentioned that I was going to get a concealed
carry gun and people had a lot of suggestions, and
I went with the Springfield Hellcat Pro And when I
went to pick it up at the local what's it
called best Pro show, the guy made fun of me
and laughed at me, said it was a terrible gun.
I've never experienced something like this gun. People are so
opinionated that they will when you're buying from them in
the store that they are managing the area of will
mock you for your selection. I think it's a great
little gun. I got an extended mag so my handfits
around it.
Speaker 2: Really well, and why did he lock it?
Speaker 1: He thinks it's a bad gun. I don't know. I'm
not that friendly. So once he mocked me, I sort
of like stop paying attention to him and appreciate that
at all.
Speaker 2: If Abigail Spanberger and the other Democrats successfully ban the
AR weaponry, what happens to people who already have, say
an AR fifteen.
Speaker 1: I think they keep it. I believe the it's like
kind of like if you have it, it's grandfathered in
or whatever. I mean. I'm loading up like the Soviets
are about to invade Red Dawn style. Like I think
people should buy as many guns as possible in Virginia
because I don't know what's going to happen. That's just
me where Yeah, okay, great. If you want to make
fun of my gun, you can email us at radio
at the Federalist dot com. We love to hear from you,
and we'll be back next week, and until then, be
lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray