Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of Your Wrong
with Molly Hemingway and David Harsani. Just a reminder, if
you'd like to email the show, please do so at
radio atth Federalist dot com. We'd love to hear from you. So, Molly,
did you watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in
Paris the other day?
Speaker 2: I did not, and I sort of would have watched
them even after they were done, but I saw the
blasphemy and so I just did not feel like watching them,
so I didn't.
Speaker 1: Are you an Olympics fan in general, because I'm not.
Speaker 2: I don't know how to explain this, but I was
a super Olympics fan, Like as a kid, I really
enjoyed watching the Olympics. I am one of those people
you hate, you know, a nationalist. I get super into
the US. I'm a patriot. I know that's noxious for you.
Speaker 1: So it is good. Nationalists is different. But I don't
want to get into that. Why are you baiting me?
Speaker 2: I'm just saying I like the USA, unlike other people
who are anti that. So I would like get into
winter summer, it didn't matter, totally into it. And then
I kind of feel like something happened to the coverage
of it that annoyed me. So instead of it being
you know, Bob Costas out there talking about the deep
values of America and how great it was to do it,
it became this, like everything else, you know, everything woke
turns to bad things, as a great president once said,
And it just kind of got annoying to me. And
so I just got less and less interested that as
it got less patriotic, I got less interested.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm I'm not a fan of like individual sports
as them. So listen, I like the Olympics if there
are people with skates on playing the Soviet Union, Like,
that's what I like about the Olympics.
Speaker 2: You stopped liking the Olympics in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 1: I probably watched it a few other, you know times,
but I didn't. I didn't feel super invested. Obviously, I
root for the US, But I will say, and I'm older,
but I do think that once the Soviet Union fell,
the Olympics kind of lost that good versus evil narrative
and storyline that goes on. Sure you can root against
Gambia or whatever country.
Speaker 2: Right China red, China is a great country to root
against if you're an American who loves America.
Speaker 1: It's like the only time I watched soccer is that
World Cup. And all my positions and rooting interests are geopolitical,
you know what I mean. Like I'm like France in Germany,
who do I hate more here? But I don't know.
I just can't get into the Olympics. Haven't really been
into them at all. But so let's talk about the blasphemy.
My favorite part of that is how all these experts
and history professors got on to explain Dionysus to me
and how it was actually a Dutch painting from the
thirteen hundreds that I'm offended by when clearly it was
mocking Christians, which I just want to say, yeah, all right,
you can be offended, but it's so boring already. It
was boring in nineteen eighty seven when people were putting
paintings and extrement or crosses. It's boring now, you know
what I mean.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know if I agree with that.
I heard so many people say this, Oh, the real
sin was not the blasphemy against God. It's that it
was boring. It is true that it was cliched. It's
true that it was overdone hundreds of years ago, but
I still think the reason why it works is because
Jesus is powerful, and also blasphemy is intended to be offensive.
It achieves its goal, and it's something to be opposed. Tom.
I'm not saying do a Charlie hebdo style murder the
people who are blaspheming or mocking God. I'm just saying
neither should it be just aay, oh, let's not worry
about this at all. People should care more about yeah,
not having this type of thing happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, having written a book about Europe recently, it
was unsurprising that this happened. And you know, as a
person who's not you know, religious or anything, I found
it worrying. But I want to say also just in general,
and I think I tweeted this, but if anyone really
wanted to do transgressive art, it would be a figurative
painting of a heterosexual couple with their three children and
their dog in front of a split ranch in the suburbs.
Like that is the most aggressive thing you can do.
Speaker 2: We need to save this for when I assume we're
going to talk about the campaign but I'd like to
actually explore that you are. When I envisioned it, I
was like, oh, that's kind of shocking, intact family and
in a happy marriage. Oh shocking. We don't do art
life like that anymore. Okay, I want to say one
other things. A lot of people focused on the trans
send up, you know, the l gbtqy a transcend up
of the Last Supper plus sorry, but I also thought
it was interesting the beheading of Marie Antoinette, which I
also didn't watch, so keep that in mind. But did
you see that about I didn't apparently like a pretty
good metal performance, but it involved like delightful send up
of the beheading of Marie Antoinette, which also seemed like
maybe France should be revisiting what they did there in
that Marie Antoinette was murdered by mobs. And I would
recommend to people to read the letter she writes to
her sister upont Like immediately before her execution. It is
so touching and beautiful and Christian and heartbreaking because she
clearly does not realize that her son is about to
be killed too, so she's talking about how to help
them handle their lives and doesn't realize that her son
is going to be brutally sexually abused and otherwise and
left for dead. This reminds me that I was talking
with a friend who listens to Federalist Radio hour, and
when I was talking about Marie Antoinette and talking about
that letter, he sent me Charles the First Scaffold speech,
which is also amazing also you know, wrongly executed monarch
and talks about his innocence, but also very Christian forgiveness
and cares about the health of the country. I'm sure
we'll have people, maybe we'll have people Republicans, anti monarchists
upset about this. But so we were talking about it
and he goes, Okay, when you get to the you know,
culture portion of the podcast, you have to mention that
we were talking about these things. And he was like, oh,
you know, say, after you say what you did for culture,
I'll say, oh, you went to a violent Femis concert
my friends and I read the last words of murdered
monarchs just for fun. So I'm gonna know that's my
culture part.
Speaker 1: That's a very high brow culture. I'm more lowbrow and
my cultural taste we're middle brow, middle brow.
Speaker 2: Did you know speak Oh I shouldn't. I should be
saving this, but it was the On Sunday, we commemorated
the anniversary of the death of Johann Sebastian Bach at
church and it was fun, and so another friend of
mine and I just listened to Saint Matthew's passion for that.
We'll save this exciting commentary for later.
Speaker 1: This podcast does remind me of the French Revolution and
that you are not you are just doing whatever you want,
blowing up the order that we discussed five minutes ago.
These segues are now no longer playing the mob of
the French Revolution. Well let's start talk. Why don't we
start with the campaign stuff. I mean, so there's JD. Vance.
Everyone's talking about a comment or a few comments he
made about childless cat women. I don't know if that
was before I think it was before he was elected,
but maybe he had started campaigning. I don't know. Honestly,
I don't even really care. I'm just gonna tell you
I don't think it's a great comment for a politician
to make, in the sense that I would rather they say, listen,
we're not gonna I want people to have children, because
it's this wonderful experience, not really mock people who don't
have kids or who have chosen a different way, you know.
But I just don't think it's that important. I don't
think it's going to change anything. But yet this is
like the centerpiece of our conversation in politics when we
have a presidential candidate, nam Kamala Harris, who was taking
a slew of authoritarian nutso crazy positions that we're not
even really allowed to explore anymore. Sorry, I'm just venting now,
you go.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I agree. I mean, you have to be
careful with how you talk about fraud issues related to families.
Jd Vance is a tremendous electoral threat because he prioritizes families, families,
child bearing, child rearing in a sea of people who
don't do that. And so they took these comments that
were made in fact before he ran for office, and
we're directed not at general populations or even like people
who seek to have children but are unable to, but
intentionally childless Democrat politicians who make policy. So it was
like a pretty narrow group. And really what people don't
want to talk about is his family friendly policy work,
which even with your legitimate objections on some of his
economic policy is kind of a separate issue. Yeah, and
Kamala Harris, like last Tuesday, is saying crazy stuff and
they're like, oh, but she issued a statement a few
days later through an anonymous spokesperson, So you're not allowed
to talk about the things she said on air repeatedly,
you know, for fourteen years. And it's insane. The media
coverage of the Kamala Harris campaign is truly insane. I
had thought we had reached Every time I think we're like,
we're at peak debasement, we reach new levels of debasement
by our propaganda press.
Speaker 1: Register. Oh sorry, no go, Please like to.
Speaker 2: Remind people we had a propaganda press that covered up
Joe Biden's sinility beginning with the twenty twenty campaign, so
that they could, you know, drag him across the finish line,
along with a sort of other propaganda operations they ran.
They they mocked, derided as misinformation or disinformation people who
talked about that sinility every single day of the presidency
until the moment of the first debate, at which point
they all turned on a dime and realized they had
to get him out if they had any chance of winning.
In November when I said day, I mean because our
media are just Democrats, and so they didn't start suddenly
telling the truth about Joe Biden. In fact, they kind
of ran an operation against him, using anonymous sources to
leak things to make him look bad, to have him
be out. Once they get him out, they replace. And
the issue there is there's nobody who can take over
the campaign funds other than Kamala Harris. So we also
had years of everybody recognizing that in a sea of
stupid politicians, Kamala Harris was like the top of the heap. Well,
Mazie Herono is the top of the heap, but she's
like way up there, and she says idiotic things, and
she's lazy, and she's mean to her staff, and we
knew all these things. But then, but then she became
the only person who can be at the top of
the ticket, and propaganda press decided that they would just
completely reinvent her, I mean in like completely illogical ways.
So when obviously one of the big failures of the
Biden Harris administration is the border, and since she was
tasked with the border issues related to Mexico and the
Northern Triangle, countries, which is where most of the problem is.
Everyone pointed that out, at which point the media said,
that's a lie. She didn't have anything to do with
the border. And then last night they were like, and
she did a great job with the border. It's like, wait,
was she in charge or not? Was it as bad
as the numbers show or it wasn't great? And they're
just there's like no limit to what they're willing to
say to help her candidacy.
Speaker 1: It might be the most embarrassing sycophantic press performance since Obama.
Maybe though. Ever you're like, well she was the borders are,
They're like, nah, she wasn't. Kid says it right here
in your publication. You called her the borders are. Now
we fixed that. We went back in time and we
revised the borders are thing axios and now that is
no longer in play, and you're not allowed to say
you'll be fact checked if you call her the borders are,
which is an informal title that like The New York
Times has been using for one hundred years, that we've
all used. We all know what it really means. We
know it's not an actual zar like we understand that.
But they will do this pedantic fact checking that muddies
the water so they can let you know, they can
pretend that you know, she didn't have the job she
did that we all know she did and she didn't
do it. Basically, they're arguing either a, she's terrible at
her job and she didn't do anything, or that what
that she's good at her job, but her name wasn't
technically czar. It doesn't even make any sense. And they
did the same thing, by the way, for her fundraising
for BLM racist rioters, which she did, but you have
to get the words perfect or they're going to say
she only fundraised for them, shouldn't actually give them money.
You know, it's pathetic.
Speaker 2: And then actually, on that point, Donald Trump said she
supported the fund to bail out the BLM rioters, and
he was fact checked as saying that was false because
she didn't personally give money. She just ran the fundraising operation.
I mean support can mean multitudes of things, including raising
millions of dollars or personally giving five dollars. You know,
and one of them is actually much worse, and it's
the one she did. I want to point out on
that topic, by the way, that Isaac Arnsdorf who is
this far far far left propagandist at the Washington Post.
This is the guy who's BFFs with the guy who
published the Dobbs decision. And Isaac also happens to be
married to a Supreme Court clerk the year of the
woman who was the Supreme Court clerk the of the
Dobbs decision, and that woman happens to be a pro
abortion activist. But this guy is crazy, far far left,
yet the Washington Post publishes his opinion pieces as if
they were news, And I can't remember what the article
was about. It was an attack on Jade Vance on
behalf of his campaign, on behalf of Isaac Arnsdorff's campaign,
which is the Kamala Harris campaign, and a defense of
Kamala Harris. And one of the things he said was
that if I've got the exact thing right, he was like,
jd Vance or Republicans are saying that Kamala supported the
defund the Police movement, but that was before she joined
Joe Biden's campaign and denounced it. So I immediately ask
him by email and Twitter, like, do you have any
substantiation for this claim that she denounced it? Now? There
are two instances of other propaganda press claiming, like in
a headline, they'll say she denounced it, but then when
you go down into the actual substantiation for it, it's
like an anonymous spokesman saying that she doesn't support it. Now,
that's not true. It's a false claim from the anonymous spokesperson.
But also it's not a denunciation, Like I was pretty
sure that had she come out and said the defund
the police movement is an attack on the country. It's
killing black men and women. It's a vile, horrible thing,
which is what a denunciation would be sounding like, right,
we would have probably heard about it, right, thanks. So oh,
all those things she did to support defund the police,
including you know, condemning additional funds for police, that doesn't
mean she supports defund the police. That's not a denunciations.
That's just a lie and also not a denunciation.
Speaker 1: To see you soon until then, be lovers of freedom
and anxious for the fray.
Speaker 3: Weird how no one's going after CrowdStrike after their transportation meltdown.
The watched Out 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. While Pete
goes after airlines like Delta, no one's saying a word
about CrowdStrike. Remember when CrowdStrike also said Hillary's server was
hacked by Russians. Whether it's happening in DC or down
on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I'm happy you brought that up. So The Hill the
other day had a piece and here's the headline. Harris
does not support fracking, campaign officials says, and that's it
political As a headline, Harris campaign pledges she won't ban
fracking after Trump accusation, which is even more ridiculous. So
by Trump, when you put Trump accusation in the headline,
you're intimating that it could be untrue, that it's just
something that someone is accusing you of, not an actual
fact that's on the record, that was reported tape in politicum. Right.
So that is the kind of I love kind of
deconstructing headlines and the way they talk, because it is
it's it's sometimes it's very obvious, and sometimes it's more subtle,
but this is obvious.
Speaker 2: Let's just take a comparison here. Okay, when the Charlottesville
thing happened, Donald Trump came out with a statement saying, like,
racists are evil, this group is bad. There are good
people on both sides of the issue of whether to
tear down monuments, which which in my opinion, was by
the way, way too nice, meaning I don't actually think
people who tear down monuments are particularly great people. But
that was his actual statement. A bunch of liars claimed
that he was saying there were good people who were racist,
which is not what he ever said. I think he's
been asked about that roughly. I mean my math could
be a little bit off, like fourteen and seventy six times, right,
So they misunderstood, and then they made him talk about
it that much. Okay. Comlin Harris on the record saying,
totally want to banfracking. Fracking is evil. I support the
most radical version of the Green New Deal. All this stuff. Right,
They have an anonymous campaign person tell a low level
reporter at a fourth rate publication that she doesn't believe
it anymore, and everyone says, oh, she has changed her position. Okay, well,
maybe we can ask her fourteen thousand, eight hundred and
seventy six times to explain that in detail, and then
I will possibly believe it. But zero times, like zero,
really zero?
Speaker 1: You're so jd Vance has to answer for why he
said bad things about Trump in twenty fifteen. Constantly. That's
a big story. Not one person is ever ever gonna
ask Harris to explain her evolution, not on one issue,
but almost literally other than abortion, on every single major
policy position she's taken. I've noticed this, by the way.
Once a day, someone, either through press release or some report,
she will walk back a position. No, she doesn't want
to get rid of private health insurance. No she doesn't
want to ban meet. No she you know, with the fracking.
But forget Trump, Let's just talk about Mitt Romney. He
changed his position on abortion constantly to comport with whatever
he was, whatever office he was running for. I looked
it up. They were about three hundred pieces dissecting his
alleged evolution, questioning his sincerity, asking him to explain himself.
She can just release a press release and that's it.
And then now if you say she's pro fracking, you
Molly Hemingway will be fact checked by the CNN dude
or someone else, because we've decided that you're just allowed
to do that. First of all, why should I believe her?
Either she was insane and has terrible judgment, she was
a fifty something year old person at twenty twenty, or
she's a liar and she will do an anything for power.
But they won't let you frame it that way, or
they will never frame it that way. So I don't
even know how to fight back against this. It's Orwellian.
I think that's a dumb cliche people use, But this
is Orwellian. When you go back and you change someone's
history in your own pieces, that's ministry of truth stuff right.
Speaker 2: Well, speaking of that, that also reminds me of this
censorship industrial complex issue that reared its ugly head again.
This is a daily issue that people who do not
support regime narratives have to deal with, which is widespread
censorship and manipulation of facts and information by big tech companies.
And so some people were noticing that if you were
wanting to look up stories or information on the assassination
attempt on Trump, it didn't auto fill in Google Search.
So Google Search is very close to a monopoly, has
like ninety plus percent of all search, and you could
type in assassination attempt of and it would You would
sort of think that the most natural thing to autocorrect
or autofill at that point would be Trump. No, it
was like of Reagan or FDR or Truman. And then
you'd start typing the T, the R, the U, the M,
the P, and it still would not autofill. And so
it was a clear ban on finding out information on
that or a clear limitation on it. And they were like, oh,
this was not done manually. This was done as part
of our, you know, regular efforts to forbid you from
learning about political violence. And it was like a stop
forbidding me from learning about political violence. It's actually an
important thing to learn about. And b why was it
auto filling all the other examples of political violence? Like
their lie didn't even like they were saying, we're bad
people who censor speech and information to limit Americans' ability
to be fully informed people. That was their defense. But
it didn't even make sense because and it was like,
not true. It's actually just very specific to Donald Trump,
because they were filling in all these other things and
then also, if you like type in Trump to get
information on Google Search, you get information on Kamala Harris
and Donald Trump. And even if you get stories on
Donald Trump, they're all like Donald Trump is the worst, right,
And the stories on Kamala Harris is like, oh, you
slay queen, You so amazing. And it's like every single
part of Search is designed to induce people to vote Democrat.
And that's also not surprising because like in twenty sixteen,
the day after the election, you had all the heads
of Google getting up there and telling their staff, who
are weeping, We're never gonna let this happen again. We've
already started deploying AI, you know, to handle algorithm except
but we're going to really ramp it up. And that
was eight years ago. And so everything that you get
on Google, and that's what again, what most people use,
is designed to induce you to change our mind about
basic things, where that's trans issues or education issues or
abortion or politic or other like overt politics things like candidates,
and it's a huge meddling in elections. We have nobody
working on this really, Like ostensibly there's a Republican chamber
in that in Congress, the House that has done nothing
to protect our elections from this kind of manipulation, even
while they're like, oh, China and Russia, I mean, yeah,
China and Russia. What about Google? Like Google is harming
America with this manipulation of facts and information and widespread censorship.
And they are a government supported entity, government launched and supported,
and they're working with the government on censorship. It's just insane.
Speaker 1: You see all of these books behind me, like ninety
percent of them are about political violence, by the way, Like
it's a really important topic and I think people should
know more about it, not less. Yeah, I don't know.
I have to say. I try to put stuff in
myself and I did get different results. So I don't
know if this is how it works. Maybe it has
to do with my own searches in the past, the algorithm.
I don't know how Google works, but.
Speaker 2: So I just want to make sure people.
Speaker 1: I just want to say I was a little skeptical,
but then when the person actually admitted that they had
done it, I was like, this isn't insane.
Speaker 2: And also the way to test it is to do
a private search, you know, where you open up a
private tab and see and that way it has nothing
to do with your search history, and that's what other
people were doing.
Speaker 1: It just seemed like more work than I wanted to do,
a little bit more work. Let's talk about it. So
outside of the Orwellian rema, by the way, my argument
is this, if Kamala Harris was as exciting and compelling
and as beloved as they claim, they wouldn't have to
reinvent her entire history. They wouldn't have to gin up
this pretend excitement for her. And do you have you
ever seen I honestly believe there was a lot of
a bomb eleven the mediate for sure, But I think
legitimately excited the left. I think for the wrong reasons.
But he did. His speech against the Iraq war was
legitimately and organically spread through the Internet, and I think
people were excited about him. There is just no way
that there's nothing that Kamala Harris has done that could
possibly excite the base other than not being Joe Biden.
I get that this is a person who can maybe
speak and walk in all of those things, but I
just don't buy it. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I feel like our country is full of low information people.
I'm somewhat surprised we haven't seen more of a bump
for Kamala given who she replaced, you know what I mean,
Like they had someone who was very near death seemingly
running their ticket. It was horrific. He was so bad
at everything, and you would expect to see a giant
jump instead of pretty similar race to what it was
with Biden. And there's also that historical context that I
think people need to keep in mind, which is Trump
is up like ten points or more from where he
was four years ago, and that election turned out to
be quite close, because you know the way elections are handled,
so you would I have to assume she's going to
continue to climb here somewhat. And they've got a convention.
I think, you know she's smart, she'll pick someone like
I think it's a smart thing to pick someone like Shapiro,
the governor of Pennsylvania, to be her running mate. I'm
a little bit worried that he is so competent that
he will only highlight her incompetence and you don't want
to be.
Speaker 1: You would be a very good pick. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, Pennsylvania.
I mean I just think he would be the pick.
The only reason they won't pick him. Is that if
he you know that he's Jewish and pro Israel, I
think would be the only reasons not to pick him
over Mark Kelly is at Mark Kelly in Arizona, who
you know, has these ties with China and all that.
I just don't think that would be very popular in
Michigan and Pennsylvanian places like that, But we'll see. I
will say this, though, I do feel like the Trump
campaign had this great moment at the convention after Kamala Harris.
They seem a little bit unfocused to me. You know,
there's a like, let's distance ourselves from ROGERCT twenty twenty five. Let's,
you know, try to defend those cat lady comments. Like
they're on the defensive now, it seems to me, And
it's just a sense I get. I don't have any
kind of info to make my case, but yeah, they.
Speaker 2: Claimed they were ready for it, and there is a
memo from May from top campaign people kind of anticipating
a Kamalaw replacement type thing. So I think they should
have been prepared for it. But they do seem to
be flailing a little bit right now. But that could
just be that they had to get through the convention,
and now with all these changes, they're going to have
a reset of a certain kind. I think the campaign
has been extremely well run by Chris los Avitus and
Susie Wiles, who are the two people running the campaign.
But I have two serious complaints. One we already discussed
on the show, which is that they thought it was
a good idea to have Tim Alberta, who's a like
ridiculous person, no offense.
Speaker 1: So they just like that, why would he be offended that.
Speaker 2: You know, works at The Atlantic, and he's very political
in his writing, and he really yearns for like the
days of George w and Mitt Romney, and he hates
Republicans who do not love those people as much as
he does. And so they gave him a ton of time.
They rewarded him for his like anti Republican propaganda by
giving him tons of time to write. I think they
wanted a Gazi profile. I don't know if they got
that or not. I find my life more enjoyable when
I don't read him. But it just showed bad instincts
on a whole number of levels. And then the second
thing is Chris los Avitas in particular has been running
this like attack the base, fire on the base campaign
against conservatives who support Trump, and I don't get it.
I actually truly don't get it. And I tweeted something
about it earlier this week. And so I have a
ton of people I will be talking to later today
who have insight into it and are very concerned about it.
Speaker 1: And so give me an example of what that coup.
Speaker 2: Okay, So if I can just back up a little bit, okay.
Heritage Foundation, for example, is a conservative think tank since
the eighties. They have been developing policy ideas constantly, so
that if a conservative gets elected as president, they kind
of have like they can just like take these things
off the shelf and implement them. Reagan used it to
great effect, okay, and other people have used it, and
it's just kind of what they do. And there was
a period in heritages past where they kind of got
a little less good at that. And so they have
a new president, Kevin Roberts, who is like, we need
to we need to really fix the federal government in
the bureaucracy. We are in a crisis in this country,
and so we want to be aggressive and we want
to come up with all these things. So the end
result was actually pretty much like what Republicans normally do
or what conservatives normally do. You read it, David, so
you could speak to that.
Speaker 1: I did.
Speaker 2: I mean, like, it's kind of just standard.
Speaker 1: There was nothing in there that could in any way
be considered fascistic or authoritarian. I don't like I didn't
like some of it, and I liked some of it.
I think it was I just it was just kind
of like a menu of conservative positions, and I am
heritage has gone in a way I think that I
disagree with them and more and more stuff economically, but
I just want to quickly say they went out of
their way to bring in free market types to kind
of rebut on trade and stuff. So it was, it was,
it was. It wasn't a terrible document. I mean, you know,
but you know whatever, And it was.
Speaker 2: Like more than a hundred different conservative groups got together
to work on this, and the people who wrote it
were the people who are in no offense. They're like
the good guys in Washington, d c. And there are
a lot of bad guys, you know, a lot of
people who are in it for their own political game.
The people who wrote it people I know who were
part of writing it. These are the people who did
not lose the ability to think straight when Trump was nominated.
They did not join hysteria after January sixth, like stood
by him even during these times, or didn't you know it,
didn't join all these efforts to attack it. These are
people who have cared about the conservative movement for decades
and and have the stripes to prove it. And so
what happened is the Democrats who constantly have these radical
policy approaches taken by the most radical groups out there,
like Green New Deal supporting groups or abortion on demand
through all nine months of pregnancy, banning fracking, open borders,
having non citizens vote like these are their policy ideas
that they take. Kamala Harris sits down with these people,
and Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and other people like
that started running a campaign against Project twenty twenty five. Now,
if I were Trump, what I would have said, because
it was clear they were going to make a big
deal about this, I would just say, all Americans are
not just able, but welcome to come up with policy
solutions to fix our broken government. And I will listen
to all of them, left right and center, and I
will take the best ideas that people have to offer. Right,
you don't have to embrace it. You don't have to
say it's my place, and you could say it's not
my plan. I put my plan here, but if other
people want to weigh in, it's America. It's a free country.
You're allowed to do that. And instead Trump or las
Avitas or Susie Wiles, I'm not sure they were like
these people are the worst. They're trying to say they
control Trump. They never said that. They did what they've
always done for decades, which is care about conservative governance
and policy. The media lied about them, Trump being like,
I don't like this stuff about protecting babies, which or
you know, that's too extreme because he bought the left
wing media lies, and they just kept going and going
and going and going and going. And then yesterday there
was some story about Paul Dan's who was like Trump's
was he like a Trump personnel guy, a good guy.
He steps down from the project, and Susie Wiles and
Chris los Avitas put out a statement and they're like,
these reports of Project twenty twenty five's demise our greatly welcomed,
and like, by the way, anyone who claims they're doing
this for Trump, which again nobody's saying apart from the
we're doing this so that any conservative who's elected president
can use our work. There will be hell to pay,
or I can't actually do remember exactly what they said.
Speaker 1: Now, I don't remember. I sent it to you.
Speaker 2: You sent the first paragraph, complained about it to me.
I posted, I get, you know, absolutely attacked by all these.
Speaker 1: Trusting I give a quick theory while you look. What
if it's Trump who doesn't like anyone thinking that that
he can he's being controlled, or someone is telling him
what to do, or someone is laying out his proposals
that he, you know, is tied to. I feel like
Trump doesn't like that, and they didn't like having to
defend someone else's ideas in that way, which makes sense
to me. The way you responded to it is perfectly normal.
In a normal campaign, you'd say, listen, I'm open to
a lot of these ideas, some of them I don't love.
You know, anyone can send me ideas. But because the
media was demagoguing this thing so badly, they were put
on the defensive and having to defend some of the
stuff in there that they had triangulated on or moderated
on for the general and that put them in a
bad spot, and they said, listen, we're just going to
have to attack it now because there's really no other
way around this. I mean, that's what I think happened
behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: So based on my calls already, and I did get
calls from people, let's say, close to the campaign, that's
not the case.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: They're pointing a finger at someone else. But I want
to kind of continue my calls with people. There were
a lot of people, by the way, a lot of
people who sent me notes thanking me for critiquing this.
So here's the first paragraph. President Trump's campaign has been
very clear for over a year year that Project twenty
twenty five had nothing to do with the campaign, did
not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated
with the campaign or the president in any way. That's fine.
I mean, it's stupid, meaning so defensive, and when you're defensive,
it's lame and it's not trumpy. Second paragraph, second parag
that's what you sent me, and that's what I posted.
The second paragraph is so much worse, So I wish
I would have posted that picture as well, says reports
of Project twenty twenty five's demise would be greatly welcomed
and should serve as notice to anyone or any group
trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign.
It will not end well for you. Chris los Avita
and Susie Wiles and Chris los Avita, It's like, Okay,
here's what I want to say about the Trump that
I sort of grew to love. The Trump I grew
to love was someone who when the media lied about
his people, he punched them in the face. Not agreed
with them, I don't like. I mean, agreeing with them
is what Mitt Romney does. Agreeing with them is what
John McCain did. Agreeing with them is what every disappointing
Republican of my life did. Fighting them is what Trump did.
And that's what I loved because I always felt like
when he was fighting them, he was fighting for my people.
And this is not fighting for my people, this is
agreeing with left wing media.
Speaker 1: And then.
Speaker 2: I also think just this basic thing which I admire
on the left is that they don't shoot their base.
There's just no reason to demoralize people. So when I
tweeted a critique of what they're doing, which was for me.
I just I don't think they need to embrace Project
twenty twenty five. In my ideal world, they would embrace
a rigorous way of rescuing our federal government from its
unconstitutional current state. Okay, that's my perfect world. I am
not naive. I do not expect the Trump campaign to
do that, Okay, but they could just shut up. They
could just shut up or like not give fuel to
the enemies of the people who vote for them. And
they're also just spreading lies and disinformation about how this
is a group of people who are trying to sabotage Trump.
Dear listener, as a person in Washington, d C. Let
me assure you that the people who come up with
that kind of talking point are the ones who are,
like historically, have not been very helpful to the former
and most likely future president.
Speaker 1: I am not going to pretend I speak for the people,
for the average man, for the forgotten man. I will
say I think this is very insider DC in the
sense that I don't think it's going to matter very
much and for the campaign, I just I don't think
anyone cares about Project twenty twenty five except people are
going to vote for Biden already and like to be
paranoid about the world. I get that some people. I
think if they w if Trump wins, everyone's going to
forget that's ever happened. Half the people who wrote that
Project twenty twenty five book or whatever it's called, are
going to be in the administration anyway. Everything will be forgotten.
Speaker 2: No, I agree with almost all of that. I just
think demoralizing your base is an unforced error. I began
by saying, I think Chris los Avina and Susie Wiles
have run an excellent campaign, and I believe that it's
it's been tight. It's been a tight ship. It's good.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, we're gonna revisit these topics I think
meant for many weeks. And let's one last thing I
wanted to talk about. You wanted to talk about was
Israel's amazing assassination of the I would call him the
political head of hamas in uh Tanye. I don't know
exactly how to pronounce it, but he was killed in Tehran,
which is amazing. I mean, you're talking, you know, yesterday
he was celebrating with all the terrorist leaders, hugging them.
He felt so safe, and Israel blew him up. This
comes a day after they killed one of the leaders
of his Bala, which recently murdered twelve Israeli Drew Drew's
children in a soccer field, and I say, if you
don't want to be blown up, don't kill children, don't
rape women, don't kidnap them, and you're going to be
completely safe.
Speaker 2: But I want to till twelve hundred. Like music goers
and other Israelis.
Speaker 1: Right, this Israel has been mosad and Israel's capability of
getting it these people has been overrated for many, many years. Yeah,
in the seventies and the sixties, even the fifties, they
were really, uh, you know, inventive in the ways they
hunted down their enemies and did all kinds of cool stuff.
Everyone remembers and Tebbi and how they rescued those hostages.
But it hasn't been the same for a long time. So,
but it looks like they've ramped up that project and
they too.
Speaker 2: Seems like they did pretty well yesterday.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so they're doing well now. And a lot of
of course the usual people are like, this just escalates things.
Oh yeah, this escalates things. Killing a Hamas leader who
were a Hisbola leader by the way, who was on
the US Most Wanted list for participating in the Bay
Root bombing in the eighties that killed like two hundred
and fifty Americans.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I actually do worry about escalation because escalation
is bad. What annoys me is that all the media
reports were saying that this taking out of this guy
worried everybody about how the conflict would broaden. Nobody had
such worry about October seventh, you know, nobody. They moved
on from it so quickly.
Speaker 1: Remember, Ron launched like a thousand missiles at Israel, and
Israel basically didn't even do anything in return. How about that?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: And I do pray for peace in this region, and
I do want diplomatic efforts to succeed, and I do
worry about escalation. That's a very bad region of the
world for things to escalate.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is the way to do it.
This is what Donald Trump did when he killed Solomani
and Iran threw some missiles at nothing to show that
they weren't going to be pushovers. But they were very quiet.
Speaker 2: After, right, right, And I feel like knowing that Israel
has this capability of taking out this guy in this
small building he was in, has got to put a
lot of fear in the hearts of these Iranian leaders
about what Israel could do to them if they escalate.
Speaker 1: You completely. You nailed it. There is about to say.
What Iran sees now is holy crap. They can get
to us whenever they wanted to, and most could have
killed Iranian leaders whenever they want. They have taken out
many scientists who are working on the nuclear project. They
I don't know if you remember, they stole all the
plans for their nuclear their nuclear plans. I forgot what
year that was. So Israel is in Iran and they
can do stuff, but they don't. But I think the
Iranian leaders are like, this is pretty dangerous for us
to keep. Hopefully they'll see that, but who knows. Anyway,
I think it's a win for the good guys.
Speaker 2: There was just one thing that I had meant to
talk about in the campaign thing, which is also that
Biden rolled out an attack on the Supreme Court, Oh
my gosh, ruling on things differently than he would like.
And I saw this video of these three members of
Congress who are Venezuelan, the Expatsorena, and they were saying,
how this is what Maduro did when he took power.
He did not like that the Supreme Court was enforcing
rule of law, and so he just attacked the Supreme Court.
We have one functioning institution in this country, and it's
the Supreme Court, and the Left is working so hard
to destroy it, and we should be moving in the
opposite direction, like shoring up all the other institutions, rather
than attacking this one. But I also saw a poll
showing that they like to say, oh, nobody trusts the
Supreme Court. Everybody is down on it. But the poll
show it's basically only low information Democrat voters who are
just consuming Democrat media who have lost confidence in the
Supreme Court. And how could they not, you know, if
they're only listening to MSNBC and you're being given propaganda
designed to make you be open to destroying the court,
you know, and you're kind of like the soccer who
falls for that. I'm not shocked by the numbers, but
it's really important for Americans, you know. Regardless. I don't.
I certainly do not like and have been quite vocal,
do not like all the decisions that came out of
the Court this year or any other year. But having
an independent judiciary is really important. And Democrats open attempt
to destroy the Court simply because it is ruling in
favor of rule of law and against some of these
like hair brained schemes from the Biden administration is deeply alarming.
Speaker 1: I can't believe i'merus forgot to talk about this because
it is for me the most I think the most
important issue right now in my political thinking. That what
they're doing is a million times worse than January sixth
in the sense of corroding rule of law. It is
not even in the same vicinity. Every two big dictator
on Earth does this to their court. It's one of
the first things they do, as you mentioned, and also
the polling. Let's not forget so both Harris, Kamala Harris
and Joe Biden said the reason they're doing is this
is that there's a crisis and confidence in the Court,
which incidentally, I'm not going to go through it all
they created over decades of misinformation and disinformation. Congress, who
is now dictated, is supposedly going to dictate the Ethics
Code to the Supreme Court has a nine percent favorability
rating in the Gallup poll. The Supreme Court's at thirty
and by the way, it's up the last two years.
The presidency is less, you know, els is less. Public schools, unions,
big business, basically every institution other than the military and
the cops have a lower it's not a favorability ready
to go, oh do trust them? A trust rating? Okay,
So now we're going to have people with far less ratings.
Can you imagine Joe Biden, whose whole family has been
enriched by favor trading and cashing in on their name,
telling the Supreme Court how to act ethically, or Dick
Durbin who made money in the stock market, and all
these people get rich in the Senate and they're going
to tell the Supreme Court. But they got to dictate
the Supreme courts ethics policies.
Speaker 2: Did you see what Leonard Leo said?
Speaker 1: That was an amazing letter.
Speaker 2: If Democrats truly want to do this, then let's make
it government wide. And of course Congress would never accept these, They.
Speaker 1: Would never live by these ethics, the ethics codes they
want to put on the which already follows the Judicial
Ethics Code. All of the supposed you know, ethics problems
of Clarence Thomas and so on. They're just completely concocted
by pro public who gets paid by these giant dark money,
you know, leftist organizations who want to destroy the judiciary.
It is so enraging that the people who say they
want to save democracy are just destroying the only institution
left in Washington who upholds the Constitution in any real
or effective way. So anyway, I yeah, I wrote a
very long piece of people interested. It's at the federalist
Democrats promise to save democracy by destroying the Supreme Court.
I go through those pull numbers and so on. Okay,
thank you for bringing that up. I'm going to blame
you for throwing me off my game at the beginning.
Speaker 2: I really did mess that up. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: But can we talk about culture now. Of course you
watched anything, I think you should go. I was telling
you before. I find myself watching the same things over
and over again in my life. So I consciously say
to myself, man, I got to watch something new, because
what am I going to talk to Molly about on
the podcast?
Speaker 1: So I went in, I watched. I didn't know until
recently there were two Ghostbuster sequels made in the last
few years. One was called Ghostbusters Afterlife and the other
was called something Else Stupid about I.
Speaker 2: I watched one of those. I watched one where it
was like the kids, Yeah, it was pretty good.
Speaker 1: That one, Yes, it was good. They weren't bad. I
was surprised. They were well done. Paul Rudd's in it
like offers all comic relief, the little marshmallow men and stuff,
and there's a lot of what are they called East
Easter eggs, you know, the old movie in there. I
liked it. I actually thought it was more kid friendly
than the original movie.
Speaker 2: You know it was that would not be hard to achieve.
Speaker 1: It was delightful. So I watched those. There's two of them.
I thought the first one was a lot better than
the second one, but both were fine, And then I
rewatched I think that but I never talked about it
was Venom with Tom Hardy. Have you ever seen it.
It's one of these movies that I went. I go
to what's it called Rotten Tomatoes to see what the
ratings are. It's one of those movies where like the
critics give it a two and like people give it
a hundred. You know what I mean, Like the people
will watch it. It is so funny and so it's
so bad that it's really good and funny, and I
enjoyed it. I was watching Venom because there's a sequel
out and I want to see that. Anyway. Those are
the two movies three movies that I watched.
Speaker 2: So I've been really busy, so I have not been
able to watch anything. But I did remember that I
forgot to say something the previous week, which was that
I saw a movie called Last Stop in Yuma or
something like that.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It small film about a bank heist. Well, it's not
about the bank heist, but it's sort of about a
diner where people who committed a bank heist arrive at
the diner and there are other people at the diner.
It was well done in terms of if I were
making a movie and I wanted to hire a director
or cinematographer, I would hire the people who did it.
But I found the movie itself to be unduly realistic, nihilistic,
and I did not like that about it interesting.
Speaker 1: So it's not a recommend or is it worth watching.
Speaker 2: I use the information I provided to whether you would.
Speaker 1: I'm going to watch it. I'm going to watch it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to watch Do you remember when I tried
to get you to watch that Triangle of Sadness?
Speaker 1: Almost?
Speaker 2: And I think I was explicit It is not a recommend.
I just want other people to go through what I
went through so that I can talk to them about it.
Speaker 1: Every time I put it up and I'm like, should
I watch this, I'm like, God, this looks so depressing.
I really want to do this, Okay, and I haven't,
but I will. It's on my list. It will be done.
Speaker 2: But I do have exciting news. I finished the Bible.
Speaker 1: Is that it you're done, you don't have to read
it anymore.
Speaker 2: I almost immediately started over again because I loved the
experience much. And this had all happened partly as a
result of me being scared to read Revelation. And I'd
always joked that Revelation was a place that I wanted.
It was a place I wanted to go when I
was older, like China like, I don't want to do
it now. I just want to do it when I'm older.
But I am getting older, and so I was ready
to do it, but I wanted to read everything prior
to that, and it was it was worth it. I
still don't totally understand it, so I would like to
read everything again. I spent way too long doing this.
I could have done this, I would say, in at
least half the time, if not a third of the time.
And I don't know why it took me so long.
I just almost intentionally slowed down once I hit the
New Testament because I was enjoying it so much or
something and wanted to process everything. But I cannot recommend
enough reading the Bible start to finish. It has been
the greatest gift for me in this last year, in
three or four months.
Speaker 1: It's just so, that's how long it took. A year
and three.
Speaker 2: I think I started last April and I finished yesterday
on the plane.
Speaker 1: Do you think reading it again will be a different experience?
Did you see it in a whole new light?
Speaker 2: I do. What I like is now I kind of
understand what I'm dealing with start to finish, and so
I had so many blind spots that I wanted I
just wasn't.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I like to read books over and over anyway, but
this one, definitely, I just feel like I'll just keep
reading over and over and over again. I was wondering
I had I had in my mind, should I just
do the New Testament again? Or should I do the
Psalms and proverbs.
Speaker 1: I think you got to start at the beginning because
you have to watch the original or listen read the
original to understand the sequel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but now I've done it all and I can
kind of like whenever anyway, I'm really.
Speaker 1: You know that the Old test and it's a different experience.
I assume a lot of war and sober and intrigue
and adult tree and so forth. It is.
Speaker 2: I think I said this earlier, but when you start
the Gospel of Matthew, after reading that entire history, it
just hits so differently when you see Matthew laying out
the genealogy of how Jesus is the promised Savior. And
then also I learned so much even in the New
Testament about I guess I sort of thought when Jesus
came it was immediately for all people, as opposed to
a ministry to the Jews. And seeing how it expanded
beyond the Jews in a dramatic fashion that was also
very interesting, seeing how the early Church was dealing with
different problems was very interesting to me. Oh, reading Revelation.
I was at the cave in Patmos where John received
the revelation, So that was kind of cool when reading
it because he even talks about like hearing a voice behind
him and turning around and you know then I'm like,
God was there.
Speaker 1: It was great anyway, it looks like you're about to
say something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that was also interesting to me. The
difference between you what do you call like Judaism of today's,
like rabbinical Judaism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was basically there was a reformation after the Temple.
Speaker 2: I feel like this is not the way to end
a podcast, but I just want to say reading the
Old Testament, seeing Jesus being the perfect fulfillment of all
these prophecies and then seeing him be rejected by certain
people as the promised Savior, and then seeing rabbinical Judaism
kind of start up a couple hundred years later with
this new sort of approach.
Speaker 1: Like it was.
Speaker 2: It was interesting. And also like if you study like
Eastern Orthodoxy, which I think has a closer tie to
ancient Judaism than maybe some Western Christians do, it just
was very I want to read more about how rabbinical
Judaism started, what it emphasizes, because it's clearly very different.
There's such like a continuity from Genesis to Revelation, and
then you have this like separate thing with Do you
have any books to recommend for me?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I think I recommended the Paul Johnson's
History of the Jews as a kind of book for
people who aren't Jewish maybe to read to understand that that.
But I do believe rabbinic Judaism has its roots, you know.
I mean you had the Sadducees and Pharisees already at
their you know, fighting about what, yes, you know what
Judaism men, how to how to practice. But also, and
obviously I'm not a rabbi, I'm just talking about what
I know. You know, once the Jewish Jewish communities were
moved from Israel, which happened even before Jesus's time, you know,
they had to have something they can take with them,
you know, and that's that that necessitated something different than
the than the you know, then going to the temple,
going to the Temple and all that. So again, I
think his book is amazing. I'm not saying that it's
you know, uh branded kosher by all rabbis. But I
do think he gives a great kind of He was
a religious man, I think he was Catholic, but he
gives a very secular historical overview of Judaism and I
think it's excellent. So and this look on Christianity is
excellent too, history of Christianity. All right, ending on a
light note again, So it was nice seeing you, Molly,
and I hope everyone will join us. Oh and if
you want to reach us, please do so at radio
at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 3: We hope it.
Speaker 1: Until then, Belows of Freedom Walk, Why am