Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone, sho a new episode You're wrong with
Molly Him and Wyn David Parsani. Just as a reminder,
if you'd like to email the show, please do so
at radio at the Federalists dot com. We like to
hear from you. Second Assassination Attempt a podcast for us
this year, Molly and I.
Speaker 2: Hope it is the last of those for the year.
Is even as we might have understood that people who
want Donald Trump dead would keep trying to kill him,
it's still a horrifying thing to be going through the
second one of these. You can be very thankful that
Trump survived this, and yeah, I mean we should not.
Speaker 1: This is not some you know, there are stories sometimes
where there's some threat and the guys just wandering around
or somewhere. No, this sy had a GoPro camera, he
was set up. If the Secret Service hadn't gotten shot
so off, he probably would have killed Donald Trump. I mean,
this is a serious attempt, and I guess we should
be thankful that the Secret Services marginally has performed marginally
better than last time. Though I don't know why you
don't hit a guy like that from where they were,
but anyway, we'll learn well. That would be yes.
Speaker 2: I am very thankful that the Secret Service located this
person before he got any shots off on Donald Trump.
I'm not thrilled. So I don't know if you saw
the press conference where all the law enforcement officials were
bragging about how awesome they are, and I was thinking,
I'm not sure if I want you guys to be
patting yourselves on the back. That this guy was just
camped out there for what was it, eight to twelve hours,
that he was just one hole away from where Trump
was golfing, so within minutes of hitting Trump, that nobody
had done any surveillance, you know, like even drone surveillance
or something of the area to make sure that there
was no threat. Like I'm not, I'm not the most
impressed I've ever been. And then also they shot at
him but they didn't hit him, which is not fully
confidence inspiring. And he was only really nabbed because of
a civilian noticing something was wrong when he jumped into
the car or something about the way. I don't know
exactly what the circumstances were, but it was the civilian
who notified the police about his getaway.
Speaker 1: I think she followed him and yeah, got what the
guy's name is, Ryan, Right, it doesn't rouse something, It
doesn't really matter. He was a politically motivated person. I listen. Obviously,
anyone who's trying to assassinate the president most of the
time they're a little off their rocker. But it is
clear that he was motivated by political concerns, especially on
the Ukrainian War, Ukraine and Russian War, and a big
fan of Ukraine. I think he went over there.
Speaker 2: You know, David, I have to correct you. Actually, the
media say that his politics is uncertain, and I trust
them on that. So where are you getting this idea
as motivation?
Speaker 1: I was probably misled by the fact that in his
tweets he used literally language that Kamala Harris and Joe
Biden use about this vote being a vote to save democracy.
I would say that also, the fact that he tried
to kill the Republican candidate probably means that he was
political books.
Speaker 2: Do you think the Biden Harris bumper sticker on his
vehicle tells us anything?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's amazing how when that crazy person went after
Paul Pelosi, you know, who had no political like there
was no evidence that he was driven by any kind
of Republican rhetoric or anything. It immediately everyone who's a
Republican or conservative has to take responsibility for him, apologize
for it, toned down the rhetoric. When you have a
guy who has a bumper sticker of the presidential candidate,
it is it. We just do.
Speaker 2: I agree with you. Donald Trump is an existential threat.
You're right, we have to end everything. Now. That might
be an indication of his politics. So the and how
he viewed the rhetoric that Democrats and the media are
using against him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, yeah, we can talk about that in
a second. Eight Okay, So clearly he was driven by
concerns political concerns. He may have been motivated by Democrats,
I think, you know, and they're over the top rhetoric.
He was a little bit nuts. I think he's spent
many years being you know, he was arrested and I
think in two thousand and four or two, I forget
what it was for weapons charge. The way the media
reacted to this was unprecedented. I mean they literally didn't
even bother like last time, giving it maybe a day
or two of coverage in the normal way you would
cover an assassination. Assassination attempt, immediately went and went on
a blaming victims spree. My favorite headline, I just want
to start this part of the conversation. I want to
read it to us from Jonathan Allen. I believe that's NBC.
Trump dispenses with Unity, blames Democrat after apparent second assassination attempt,
The Hill gop seeds after second apparent assassination attempt on Trump.
Speaker 2: How I don't know, In contrast to the Hill, which
danced a little jig and said better luck next time.
I mean, I don't even understand the headline.
Speaker 1: So this was this was There were a slew of
similar headlines, a slew of similar takes.
Speaker 2: The entire media complex have been blaming Donald Trump for
his own shooting, his own assassination attempts, and they've been
doing it in many ways. They've also been downplaying this.
I mean, coming this close to an assassination is a
massive issue, and most of the media have not treated
it as such. I mean, even this is interesting to me.
People who aren't deeply tuned into like Twitter or or
doing too much news watching, they might not even know
that there was a second assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: It was treated like a story about a bill being
voted down. You know, it was treated just like something
that is the norm. We're normalizing this as if it's
not that big a deal.
Speaker 2: They clearly understand that Democrat attempts on Trump's life help
the Republican candidate, and so they're just not trying to
show any pictures of him surviving attempts or including the
very iconic like one of those history great histories, great
photos pictures of him with the bloodied ear rising and
encouraging everybody to fight forward. The propaganda press is really
dangerous right now.
Speaker 1: If you really believe that Donald Trump is the next Hitler,
and by the way, that's exactly what a lot of
people in the left say. It's not hyperbole for me
to say that's what they're saying. Then why wouldn't you
want him assassinated? If I thought Hitler was going to
come into power, I would want to assassinate that person myself, right,
So I yeah, we have to.
Speaker 2: Separate having normal differences where you think one direction of
the country is better than another one might be a
very serious problem with the very specific rhetoric that has
been used. I coined it assassination prep last November or December,
I noticed that there were a lot of people that
had somehow like it seemed the impossible. They had amped
up their anti Trump rhetoric from the previous cycle, and
it was pretty bad the previous two cycles. But you
started seeing these magazine covers portraying Donald Trump as Hitler
or to just you know, against state the obvious. We
have games in this country, or discussions like, oh, would
you go back in time and kill baby Hitler because
it's such a it's such a well understood thing that
Hitler is someone you would kill if you had the chance,
or that's what you know, so many people think is
a morally appropriate thing. So doing that type of rhetoric
as The Atlantic and other major media have with like
tons of big names on the on the cover saying
Trump is Hitler, existential threat, destroys the country. If he's elected,
someone brave has to stop him. You know, this is
assassination prep rhetoric. And I'm not saying that people aren't
still responsible for their own decisions. I read the Atlantic
telling me to kill you know, people, and I don't
do it because I am smarter than the Atlantic, So
I'm not blamed. But there are these unstable or less
stable people. And I think this attempted assassin who is
just arrested is a really good example of one sort
of highly functioning, incompetent, but also seems a little off
right the exact type of person who would respond to
that kind of rhetoric by I don't know, trying to
kill the president on the golf course. Just because it
might be protected speech or is protected speech, does not
mean that you should do it. There's a responsible way
to discuss political differences, even ones that you view as
like very fundamental to the future of the republic.
Speaker 1: I agree, I think we should take a step back
at least I want to take a step back and
say I am usually I don't like when people try
to chill speech, even if it's over the top speech.
And I don't think that just because you're saying stupid
things or over the top things, that you are now
responsible for every nut who picks up a gun, as
you just said. But here's the thing. Jonathan Shate wrote
a piece about how we shouldn't they democrats shouldn't have
to stop saying the truth in his mind that Donald
Trump is an authoritarian, and that's fine. I don't think
they should have to stop saying it if that's what
they believe. But they soft pedal. What is an effort
not just to depict Donald Trump as the next Hitler,
which I think is a lie, but they lie about
the things he says to depict him as Hitler, meaning
they say he is saying. They say Donald Trump is
saying there's going to be a blood bath after the election.
That is a lie. He was talking, you know, in
the way he speaks about the auto industry. They say
that he said that both sides of the you know,
that the Nazis were good people in Charlottesville. That's a lie.
So what they're doing is not just saying that Donald
Trump is a threat. They lie about the things he
does and says and wants to do to make him
sound more like Hitler, which is, you know, just a
blatant lie. Because I think they do they do have
some responsibility in that way. I think Kamala Kamala Harris
is I struggle to say her first name, got to try.
Kamala Harris is an authoritarian and no one I don't
care if someone picks up a gun tomorrow. I think
that that's true. I don't think anyone should get violent,
but she is an authoritarian and I should be allowed
to say that. And Jonathan ja should be allowed to
say what he wants, but he has some responsibility. He
spent years. He wrote a gi long, ginormous piece saying
that the president of the United States was a foreign
asset who had been sent to undermine and destroy our country.
That is not normal rhetoric. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? And the best way to discuss political differences is
with full throated you know, have these really vociferous debates
based on what you think about the various policy approaches,
and then also have free and fair and trustworthy elections
so that when people vote on these things, they can
understand that there was a winner or a loser and
move on. And that issue too. All of these things
are enabled or harmed by a free and functioning press,
or a press that's operating the way it should be.
So if it's not operating the way it should be,
it's going to harm that civil discourse. And if it
is operating well, it can help people come to better
decisions in a self governing republic, which is what we're
supposed to be. And so the corporate media being instead
of helping helping people have good discussions about the best
way forward or what to do with the country. They
are embracing totalitarian impulses as well, and it is causing great,
great harm to the country. And it's very frustrating because
they're just getting worse every single day. They get worse
and worse, and I honestly don't know what to do.
Although I'm happy that many Americans seem to understand the
threat they.
Speaker 3: Pose, we have a huge hole in our nation's roof.
The Watch Dot 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. There should
be only one priority for our lawmakers. America is spending
three billion dollars a day in paying off our own interests.
You only need to be voting for candidates who can
address this problem. Whether it's happening in DC or Donald
Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: The day I don't want to get off track too much,
but the day of the assassination attempt. The New York
Times ran a long piece about how John Roberts of
the Supreme Court, the institutionalist who is the most milk toast, solomonic,
you know, person on the court, basically was in the
bag for Donald Trump that he had somehow uh you know,
planned out a way to help January sixth rioters get
off the hook, right like, because of course that's what
John Roberts is doing, like a whole long piece that
is part of the crusade to destroy the Supreme Court,
the single and only bulwark against leftist basically authoritarianism now
and upholding the Constitution occasionally, and they want to destroy it.
And then they have the gall the next day to start,
you know, to talk about how Donald Trump's had fought
for his own assassination attempt because he's some kind of
crazed authoritarian. I don't like everything someone wrote a letter.
You know, why do I have to always say this?
So I say it because I want people to understand
the context of where I'm coming from. I think even
people who don't like Donald Trump should understand that this
is not that we're going in a very dangerous direction
in this country.
Speaker 2: I'd love to pause since you mentioned it this letter,
do you mind if I read it?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Okay, So we get this letter from a listener Harsani.
Speaker 1: When I read it, I knew you are going to
read it on it.
Speaker 2: It came in like moments before we take So the
first thing that this writer notes is the similarities between
the Democrat Party and Ingsak from nineteen eighty four. And
so the writer points out hatred of Donald Trump is
similar to hatred of Manuel Goldstein the enemy of the State,
with daily hate sessions moderated by the propaganda organs of
the party. And there's also the inherent anti semitism of
the Democrat Party and Ingsak. Her version of language due
to wokeism is similar to that under news speak, rejection
of objective scientific reality and accusations of thought crimes. We
could go on, but I wonder if Democrats read this
Orwellian scribbling as a blueprint instead of as a warning.
Maybe we should put a little mustache and Kamala and
see if she could be big sister. On an unrelated topic,
Arsani continually notes that he doesn't like Donald Trump in
his remarks on the podcast, but I think that is
entirely irrelevant to the learned to discussion of our fraught
political environment. Do you make this statement so that we
will reward you with gold stars for your virtue? I
think it is safe to say that anyone who thinks
they should be president of the US is an unmitigated
narcissist and is inherently unlikable. Having a personal animus against
Trump makes no sense unless he stole your car, your dog,
or your girl. You already kind of gave your response
to that, but I do want to say that someone
said that to me early on in the Trump presidency.
They asked me, why must you do this ritual malediction
before you say, oh, by the way, this Trump policy
is great, or if these people attacking Trump are wrong?
And the viewer in that case, it was a Fox
News viewer just encouraged me to not do ritual malediction.
And I was very chastened by that because I realized
I was doing it to get little gold stars from
the bad people in DC so that they would understand
I'm not like all those voters out there. I'm better
than that, you know, and started to make me feel
ill if I did it. So I pretty much reserve
my maledictions for when they are totally necessary. I don't
actually think you're that or I think it's different for you,
which is, you genuinely hate Donald Trump, and so for
you to not say it, you're not doing it for
gold stars. You're doing because you just actually hate the guy, right,
You so dislike him and what he stands for that
I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't like populists, and I don't like populism and
people who engage in that kind of stuff I don't like.
And I've never liked Donald Trump. I would say I
have any personal animis. I actually think he's probably one
of the funniest president or the funniest president maybe we've
ever had. I think he's I think people take his
the way he speaks very literally. And I know this
is a cliche, but it's I will say this about
the gold star thing. When you write a column where
you're like, Donald Trump is wrong, but I'm going to
defend him on the on whatever you know, way I do.
You hit from both sides, you don't get gold stars.
Everyone hates you, then you know what I mean, And I.
Speaker 2: Don't think I think everyone knows. The safe thing to
say is that you hate Donald Trump, and then if
you weren't to say it, it would actually be very difficult.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I don't think I do that write.
I write tons of columns where I don't say I
don't defending what Trump does, and I don't say I
don't like him. But I do think it's important to mention,
as I said before, because I think it gives it
context where you're saying, not everything in the world should
be about your like or dislike of Donald Trump, and
that is the biggest problem we have in politics. I
wrote about the Roberts piece in The Times, and I
noted that everything they taught, the whole entire piece, which
was three thousand, five hundred words long, not once did
they say, oh, are the merits of this case good? No,
they only talk about how it affects or doesn't affect
Donald Trump, which is an completely corrosive way to look
at American politics. And I think too many people on
both sides actually do that. So I don't know. That's
why I think I mention it. I don't like the
navel gazing talking about myself, but I really don't care
about gold stars, to be honest with you, and I
think you know that unless they're coming from you, unless
they're a Molly gold Star.
Speaker 2: I haven't read the New York Times piece. I've been traveling,
and it's definitely on my list of things to read.
But everything I read about it made it seem like
John Roberts was so much better than his critics have asserted.
I have very mixed feelings on him. I know it's
very popular to dislike him on the right, but I
think that partially he is exactly who he said he
would be when he was nominated, and it is a
very moderate institutionalist and the idea that doing moderate institutionalism
in the face of hubristic zealotry from the left, like,
for instance, not just the effort to remove Donald Trump
from the ballot, which is just insane. It was so
insane that Katanji Brown Jackson voted it down. I mean,
that's crazy. And then also all of these efforts to
imprison their political opponent, Donald Trump that was destabilizing to
the republic. That John Roberts would act in a way
to make sure that the Court wasn't also participating in
an effort to destroy the Republic is the most John
Roberts thing in the world, and it kind of gives
the case for John Roberts. So a lot of people
don't like how he handled Obamacare. I'm one of them.
But his case is that he's trying to preserve a
moderate way forward where Congress handles its own problems and
the Court doesn't get involved. Likewise, the Court doesn't get
involved in determining you know, who's on the ballot or
you know, this is just again very this is consistency
from John.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. His his belief, I believe, is that he
doesn't think the court. He believes voters should be making
a lot of the choices that courts make for them.
So he wants to limp. Since you brought it up,
if I can, I wrote a piece about this, the
Roberts the Roberts piece, The headline was how Roberts shaped
Trump's Supreme Court winning streak, which intimates that he helped them.
That a three momentous and that's a quote case is
that they spoke about one of them, that where Roberts
rigged the court for Donald Trump. One of them was
a nine zero decision, as you say, stopping Colorado from
throwing a candidate off the the the ballot, which he didn't.
You know, if the Supreme Court can't get involved in
that case, I don't think it needs to exist anymore.
The other one was the Fisher versus us where they
where they were using the kind of white cos Oxley
to prosecute January sixth writers, even Katanji Brown Jackson kind
of wrote, ah, you know, concurring opinion. That wasn't completely
you know that she thought it was, you know, somewhat abusive.
And what was the other case? The other case was
the uh yeah, the immunity case, where where he actually
according to these leaks and by the way, whoever's leaking
stuff from the Supreme Court is trying to destroy that institution.
They're not going to be able to have on his
discussions anymore if everything is every memo is lead. But anyway,
the immunity case, the concern you know, so called conservative
justices wanted to delay it until the after the election,
and he said, no, how is he in the bag
for Donald Trump? He did, you know, and obviously the
way people I don't love that decision. I'm not a
court expert, but a legal expert, but it's well within
the tradition of how Americans deal with presidential immunity. It's
not some crazy decision that makes Donald Trump a dictator.
That's just nonsense anyway. So they're destroying the court, destroying
the constitution, and at the same time yelling about democracy
all the time. It's just completely it's just a complete lie.
If we can change topics, I think I think we've
exhausted that one.
Speaker 2: I'd like to talk about Operation hot Pocket.
Speaker 1: So I like that so incredible targeted operation that I
think is I would say the most impressive Israeli operations.
It's the start of the nineteen sixty seven war. It's preemptive.
But maybe ever you know where Israel blew up around
three thousand or more pagers and that were in the
pockets or in the hands of Hisabella operatives and workers.
In fact, I saw a story today. I'm not sure
this has been verified, but in Syria another few hundred
blew up as well, in the pockets of some other folks.
It reminds me of Mosad in the seventies and all
the like inventive things they used to do to protect themselves.
I will just quickly say, anyone who's out there saying
this is a Israelis are acting indiscriminately or terroristic. They
prove that they do not care about human rights of Palestinians.
They do not care about those bombings. They just hate
and want Israel to lose. Because this kind of operation
goes after the people who planned, for instance, the murder
of twelve Drew's children on a soccer field in northern Israel,
who who launched thousands of missiles into Israel. And I
don't know, I was just made me proud of Israel,
and I was excited about it, and I think it
shows a lot of ingenuity and smart in that country.
I don't know, how do you feel about it as
a It's not a you know, it's just a person
who is not a Jew. He's not a Jew.
Speaker 2: I actually saw this great tweet yesterday that was like,
can I talk about the cunning craftiness of Jews but
mean it in a totally awesome way. I'm just like,
first off, from a military sense or intel sense, it's
just an amazing operation, and I think it's so interesting.
I don't know if we'll learn how they did it
or not. I know that the sort of official story
or what the first takeaway was was that Israel had
figured out how to hack into these pagers to make
the battery explode. I saw a tech and war analyst saying, yeah,
that's what they were going to say. But actually these
would have been intercepted to have little bomb like capabilities
in them and then activated.
Speaker 1: Because the battery when it blows up, will first go
be in flames. And from the video you can see
that that's not what happened. There was someone put explosives
into the pagers, that it.
Speaker 2: Was simultaneous that it was geo fenced, or how would
say geolocated in such particular area southern Lebanon, you say Syria,
you know a few other little places, but not you know,
if you were a Hesbola fighter who was in Dearborn, Michigan,
for instance. It doesn't seem like the pager went off there,
just how it all worked out to be done and
so massively, And even that the Hasbola people had bragged
that to get around Israel they were using pages instead
of traditional communications, which means they can't use the traditional communications,
and now they can't use pagers either, and it's going
to be more assault for them to get their work
done trying to destroy Israel.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a psychological aspect to this as well. Where
Israel can get to you wherever you are in your
pant pocket, they could blow something up, is probably going
to lower conscriptions to Hesbola.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's the aspect that this, you know, I know,
I think I'd read nine people were killed, is that right?
Speaker 1: I think it's up to like fourteen or fifteen now.
Speaker 2: Okay, but thousands of pagers went off. So this was
designed less for killing all of the terrorists who are
trying to kill Israel and more about disrupting their communications
the manner in which, you know, just because of where
men tend to hold their pagers. That is such an
interesting psychological thing going on.
Speaker 1: Is it called Operation below the Belt or something? I think?
Speaker 2: Was it?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I think so love it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So seeing all these men with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all these cowards who want who try to kill
children and civilians, having dealing with that, it was was fine.
Speaker 2: And the memes that were a result were also quite enjoyable.
Speaker 1: I think everyone did a good job yesterday.
Speaker 2: It was like one of those days we just like
to enjoy the Internet. I saw some common Israel critics
just being very angry at this operation and saying that
it was designed to harm civilians. And I think by
the definition, I'm not saying that civilians couldn't be injured
or weren't injured in this. There were, I'm sure, and
there was even Wasn't there a report of a young girl, yeah,
being killed or.
Speaker 1: Something, But we don't know that that's true, but it
could possibly be true, right.
Speaker 2: But that's another thing I liked about it. It wasn't like,
let's bomb the entire civilian population of southern Lebanon. It
was let's take out the guys who are carrying has
Bola pagers. It's very targeted, very specific to the bad guys,
and I like that too, And it's just it's just
so impressive.
Speaker 1: There's another aspect to this. It also mapped out exactly
where the people are, where they go, where their offices are,
where they're you know you, Israel probably could see exactly
where all of these things blew up. So it gives
them tons of intel about Isabella, which is a serious
armed force with hundreds of thousands of missiles. They're an
Iranian proxy. It is this is not this is much
more well, is much more dangerous than Hamas is for Israel.
So yeah, it was it was an incredible operation. Everyone
assumes that Israel got into the supply chain and put
these explosives into the into the pagers. A Taiwani, a
Taiwan company makes these pages. They lease out their designs
to other companies. Apparently the company that made these were
in Hungary. I wouldn't be surprised, and it's just me
theorizing that the company itself was an Israeli made plant
who made the pagers, Like we shouldn't. They've done this
kind of thing before where they where they provide things like,
you know, to the Iranian nuclear program that they actually
build or program. So we don't know. I'm sure they're
not gonna They're not gonna tell us exactly what happened,
but worth keeping an eye on. Can we talk about
one more topic that is I think important. Great are
friends at Pro Publica, which I would say maybe are
the most dishonest journalistic outfit in America, I would you know,
other than maybe you know some conspiracy sites or whatever,
even though I don't think they're much better. In fact,
I think they're worse because their reach is far far larger.
They are kind of this tool of the left affront.
If you will that right. Story is usually their biggest
stories are smearing Supreme Court justices they don't like with nonsense.
They I've called a Potempkin journalism. What they do is
they build this huge, long story with pictures. Sometimes they'll
have graphs, a lot of very you know, journalistic rhetoric
that sounds like they're doing work, But really what they're
doing is they're repackaging, laundering the APO research, i'd call it,
or lies of the Democratic Party. So their latest piece
was this was this long piece about a woman. I
forget her name, I'm sorry. I think it was Amber Thurman,
a Georgia woman who died while she sat at a
hospital for twenty hours waiting for a procedure to help
her because she had taken abortion pills. And I don't
know how this works, and I don't want to get graphic,
but basically there was a infection because the fetus had
not been expelled, I believe, and doctors didn't go in. Now,
Kamala Harris has been now all over the news saying
that this shows that the Georgia law abortion law kills women.
But I read through the story and what I did
was it was very long. I took out all the
parts that were actually about Amber Thurman. I took them
out and I put them in a document so I
could read the story without the hundreds of thousands of
words that had nothing to do with it. That was
just you know, smearing and scare mongering. And there is
not a single sentence in there that proves that make
that a poll that backs that contention at all. It wasn't.
I read it. And in the fifty seventh paragraph, Molly,
the fifty seventh paragraph of the story, it says these words.
It is not clear from the records available why doctors
waited to provide a DNC, which completely undermines the headline,
the contention of the story, all of it. By the way,
even if doctors had said that they didn't do it
because of the Georgia abortion law, it would have been
a complete lie on their part. It is clearing the bill.
To save a mother's life, you can do whatever procedure
you need. More Over, the abortion had already been done.
There was nothing, There was no reason for them not
to do it unless they were complete idiots. And that's
on them, it's not on the law anyway. That's my spiel.
Speaker 2: So I'm so glad you explained that Pro Publica it's
basically Democrat party journalism. It's funded by Democrat donors and billionaires,
and they are they have massive resources. So you know,
if you're targeting a Supreme Court justice, you get dozens
of reporters put on them to call every neighbor, to
cause problems, to make people feel unsafe in their homes.
You know, you can. You just get a ton of
resources to make life a living hell for conservatives or
Republicans are just non non leftists, non Democrats, and all
of their journalism is focused on harming the right and
helping the left. They do information operations. And one of
the issues with Dobbs, the decision by Justice Alito the
Court handed down a couple of years ago, is that
gives to the American people the right to set abortion
laws in their own states or in whatever jurisdiction. And
the Democrats don't like that. They want abortion on demand
through all nine months of pregnancy, and they don't want
to have to talk about it, and on their behalf,
they have a corporate media that helps them not talk
about it. So if you were to say that's what
we really want, you know, because most people are setting
pretty understandable abortion protections. So the situation is that very
few people in the country are either truly pro life
or truly pro abortion. Most people think that there should
be at least some protection for unborn children at some
point in a pregnancy. That's not what democrats want. And
so to say, Okay, we want to be able to
kill this baby as it's exiting the birth canal just
because the mother wants to isn't as politically friendly as claiming, oh,
these pro life laws that people have passed, they're killing women.
What particularly, and that's a lie. It is an absolute lie.
In all fifty states, if a mother's life is in
danger from an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage, or even
from an abortion, they can get the care that they
need to. What's particularly insidious about this is that the
corporate media and other Democrats have been running a propaganda
campaign against women, claiming that abortion pills are safe and
that only bad people wouldn't want women to be able
to take abortion pills to end their children's lives.
Speaker 1: And quickly just say one thing. The headline of this
piece should have been woman dies after complications of an
abortion pill that's the actual story of this pro public apiece.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it should be. We at Pro Publica lied to you,
where liars. We told you the abortion pill was safe,
and it's not actually safe. What happened is exactly what
pro lifers have been saying happens with the abortion pill,
and why your plans for completely unregulated abortion pill abortions
aren't so great for women. That's what the headline should be.
Speaker 1: Well that she goes into a paragraph after a paragraph
about how it's completely safe to take the abortion pill,
when the whole story is about a woman who dies
because she took the abortion pill, and then she says
only five people, five women, have died from it. Well
that's five more than have died from a single pro
life law that's been passed anywhere in America. And yet
that's not the story, right.
Speaker 2: It does seem this woman did not receive good care.
But the number one takeaway should be for women. If
you're thinking about ending your baby's life with an abortion pill,
be aware that that is not risk free for you.
Either it'll kill the baby true, it'll also possibly kill
or harm you. That's something that women should know when
they are thinking about whether to end their unborn children's lives.
You know, in my view, shouldn't shouldn't commit violence in
the womb anyway, but if you're going to do it,
you should know that there are these health risks. This
is going to be a massive information op. Kamala Harris
has just said, you know, we're going to we're going
to make this our story. And the idea that Pro Publica,
with all of its resources, couldn't find a better example.
Although there's their their general path is to take one
shady story and follow it up with another shady story.
Speaker 1: What they're going to do, so, yeah, just be prepared.
Speaker 2: That's going to happen.
Speaker 1: The second one is coming today, I think. Actually yeah, yeah, So.
Speaker 2: That you're like, oh, this isn't true, okay, and here's
why this one isn't true, And it takes a while
to kind of figure out why they're lying or exactly
how they're lying.
Speaker 1: But people also, I'm sorry, I keep interrupting. I'm sorry,
but I'm just saying that the Pro Publica does this
a lot and a lot of times they will take
stories that even you know so just quickly want to
I'm sure view listeners know this, but journalists actually don't
go out and report stories anymore. They sit at their
desk at the New York Times. Someone calls them with
the story. They decide whether to launder it or not.
So the activist group will work its way down. It'll
start at the Times, at the Post, and when it
gets the very bottom of the list, it's pro public on.
Pro publica will put anything out. What happens then, however,
is that the New York Times will secondhand report the story.
Do you know what I'm saying? So they you know?
So that's the little game they play. Now. I don't
know if you you know. Going back to the debate,
when Kamala Harris was asked about abortion and she didn't answer.
She probably said she was had grown up in the
middle class or something when they asked her about it,
and Donald Trump had to ask her, what protection do
you support if Annie? He had to ask it because
the ABC moderators were, of course terrible, and she went on.
She gave some kind of words out, but within it
she said she wanted to bring back the protections of Roe.
It's a complete lie a because Roe offers zero enforceable protections.
We know that. We know that by reading the Atlantic
story on Warren Hearn, who has been killing completely healthy,
viable babies for decades when ROE was in forced. But
that's also a lie because Democrats forget what the name
of the stupid bill was. I think Women's Protection Act
or something went way beyond codifying Roe. It allowed for
abortions on demand all the way until crowning and after.
What Donald Trump said about executing baby was probably slightly
over the top. It's more, I believe, like negligent homicide.
But that is a completely legal thing to do in
stayed after state. And yet the entire media claim that
he had lied. He hadn't lied. Maybe he overstated it
a bit, but in my view, that's an execution in
its own way, and it's just way Donald Trump talks anyway, ranting.
Speaker 2: No, it's bad. And this type of disinformation, willful, malicious
disinformation being spread by corporate media and other top democrats
is very dangerous.
Speaker 1: To the public. When's the last time you ever had
a debate with someone on the left about the actual
morality or science of an abortion. I have no one
will engage me in that. Ever, it's constantly this this
bs disinformation or oh roh already protected viable baby or
whatever it is. They can never have a debate about
the morality of it anymore. They just don't. They just
accuse you of being a misogynist or whatever. I get
called a crazy I get called a like a theocrat
all the time, and you know it's just a.
Speaker 2: Even Arsani noted theocrat.
Speaker 1: So it's impossible to have a debate with them because
it's just constantly these accusations that get away with because
the media won't have the debate either.
Speaker 2: So can I just say really quickly too, Apart from
the politics, which are so so important, I really want
people to think about what they're doing in their own
lives to create and nurture a culture of life and
make sure that you're not doing anything that can lead
to violence in the womb or lead women to want
to commit violence in the womb. It's very bad for
humanity obviously, it's you know, it's killing. It's not good.
But it's not good for the parents either, Like I was,
it's just regardless of what the law says, work to
protect women and children and family units, and you know
what that means, you know, having proper relations at the
proper times and in the proper ways and being giving
to your sexual partner, ideally in marriage.
Speaker 1: I mean, when I read that David Grolls story, that
David Girls story, and if you saw.
Speaker 2: That, oh my husband just told me about that. Yeah,
I was like, can you explain it? You should explain.
Speaker 1: Yes. So, David Groll is the uh is the leader
of the Foo Fighter is a very you know, famous
rock band. He used to be in Nirvana, a very
famous rock band. And he's been married for a while. Actually,
I think it's something like twenty years. He has a
bunch of kids, like three or four kids, I'm not sure.
And he announced that he a that he had straight
from his marriage, and that a woman had given birth
to a child, and that he was going to help
raise that child and try to be a dad to
them while trying to make it up to his family. Now, obviously,
cheating on your wife is a terrible thing to do.
It's terrible for your family and all that. But I
was happy. I mean, I thought it was a good
How many times do women like that maybe just go
and get an abortion or pay you know, or a
rock star. And I don't know what happened behind the scenes,
but I was happy. That. You know, I think it's
if that happened, it's terrible, but we do need to
compound one tragedy with another one that is even worse.
So I was hating that this child.
Speaker 2: Was born and I was thinking about this. It's he
got caught basically doing something a lot of people do,
which is straying on their marriage. And so the problem
is not that a child was conceived or born. But
that's kind of what I'm just talking about. You know,
we have these The guy who's heading up the anti
toxic masculinity program for Kamala Harris is Doug em Hooff,
who impregnated his children's teacher also, so I think she
was a She was kind of a part time nanny
for them as well. And then we we are you know,
the reports that the baby was ex was killed because
because of this situation, this was extra marital.
Speaker 1: Oh really, that is very well.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know, you know, she obviously signed
an NDA, so you will never totally know. But that's
exactly the type of thing I'm saying. So don't make
innocent children suffer because you have you have messed up,
But also live your life in a way that doesn't
lead to stuff like that. I'm sorry I sound so preachy,
but I'm just saying like, it's like, it's so much
more important than what the law says, is that we
support men and women informing healthy family units and sustaining them.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how many times I've gotten emails
or tweets or people tell me like, it's bad politics.
You know your position is just bad politics. Well I don't.
First of all, I don't care. But be if if
it's bad politics to say that you shouldn't just dispense
with completely healthy, viable babies, then what what are we
even doing here? Doesn't you know what I'm saying? Like,
what is the point? I don't I care more about
that than I do? Uh? What the tax? You know,
the top marginal tax rate is, which I do care about,
But you know what I mean, who cares about that?
Should making good politics, make good arguments. But they're so
scared of this issue. Oh man, the row being overturned
is the worst thing that ever happened to most of
these Republicans. They just did it was so easy for them,
and now they actually have to talk about policy and
they hate it. Yep, all right, let's talk about culture. Okay,
I have a little I have three things here. Do
you want to go first? Though? Do you have anything
on going on?
Speaker 2: Oh? I have been traveling since our last podcast. More.
Speaker 1: I love that you were surprised by this. You're like, oh,
we're talking about this. We do now?
Speaker 2: You were going to go first?
Speaker 1: I can for you.
Speaker 2: I Mark and I were space looking out at the
Sun Valley Policy Institute in Sun Valley, Idaho. And Mark
had been there a bunch as a kid, and I'd
been there a few years ago also to speak to
the Sun Valley Policy Institute. But we got to go
together this time, and it was so wonderful. We were
staying in a beautiful home north of Sun Valley. I
got to see a beautiful redtail hawk. The nature was
just amazing. And Mark and I celebrated our eighteenth wedding
anniversary while we were there, and we went fly fishing
at my request.
Speaker 1: Amazing.
Speaker 2: And have you done fly fishing? I'm sure you have.
Speaker 1: I like fishing, but I actually I've never done fly fishing.
Speaker 2: Okay, so I grew up fishing with flies, but the
regular Roden rail it's been casting, and I've done a
fair bit of deep sea fishing. But I'd always wanted
to fly fish and I never had, And so we
went on Silver Creek, which is one of the world's
best places to do this, and we did that. I
think you call it float fishing. You wear a large
inner tube and waiters and you're just in the river
for hours, and it was so awesome, Like I just
couldn't believe this was my life. It was so great
to see nature this way. It was just gorgeous. There
were hardly any other people out there. And where can
I caught five fish?
Speaker 1: Nice? What kind of fish do to catch? There?
Speaker 2: Rainbow and brown? And we each caught at least one
rainbow and brown nice and of them, two of them
were sizable, three were definitely not sizable. It's all catch
and release. But it was so fun and I want
to do it again. Felt great. I was cold in
my body in ways that I hadn't realized were possible
once I got it, Like you don't get wet, but
it's like a it's like a dampness cold. And it
was pretty warm out So.
Speaker 1: Anyway, I love Idaho. It was out there. I spoke
out there, but I'm not sure. I think there's another
thing tank maybe, but anyway, Yeah, it's gorgeous. That's great.
I'm jealous love phishing. Did you watch anything or on
the plane? Nothing?
Speaker 2: I did read. David Brock has a new book out
called Stench or something. It's about how all of these
non left wingers on the Supreme Court are destroying the court.
And it was really unimpressive. There was nothing in there
that hadn't already been like said and debunked years ago
David Brock.
Speaker 1: I watched a couple of things. I watched a documentary
on David Chase, the person who the showrunner for the
Sopranos and person who came up with the story parter,
and it's I thought it was super interesting. He's an
interesting guy. He's this older guy. He's very cranky, but
like very straightforward him, very honest and just talked about
his own life and how it resembled the show. So
I that's a recommend for me. Did you see the
email I got where a person went a teed off
on me for paragraph after paragraph I recommended Wolverine.
Speaker 2: Wait, I'm so sorry, I have to do it now.
Speaker 1: That's all right, So I just want to before you
read this preface all this by saying I told everyone
that it was not a work of art, that it
wasn't Lawrence of Arabia or anything, and that it was
just a goofy thing, and if you didn't really know
all the inside jokes about Marvel, that you probably wouldn't
enjoy it. I mean, I think that I put that
warning up.
Speaker 2: Okay, I have just watched Deadpool and Wolverine at the
recommendation of David Harsani like a mother, I use his
full name to let him know he's in trouble. This
movie was the most boring, worthless nonsense I've seen in years,
at least when I end up watching other terrible Marvel movies,
they can get so bad they're entertaining to make fun of.
Why did I have to sit through Wolverine moping about
his past repeatedly? It goes on and on. Poin is
that all that supposed love letter nonsense was a farce
and borderline insulting to the actors and fans of these characters.
I'm sure now nobody is going to be talking about
or remembering anything to do with this film. I hated
this movie, and I now understand why Molly's husband. Mark
will not take recommendations from David. David, please, I beg
you stop being taken in by obvious bad movies. Watch
Triangle of Sadness. Molly loves that movie. Sorry we should.
I loved that, even remembering that I had been asking
people to watch it so I could discuss. I just
wanted to discuss the movie with people, and nobody watched
it for me.
Speaker 1: It's funny that I have. I always I see that
Triangle of Sadness on my list. I forget what, and
I'm always like, I should watch this, and I'm like,
it's called the Triangle of Sadness.
Speaker 2: There's probably never a good time to watch it. It
is so weird. Will Oh I did start watching during
my rowing that Anatomy of a Fall.
Speaker 1: Have you seen that anatomy? Oh? No, I won't watch.
That's the guy who went up there during the Academy Awards,
the Oscars and gave some like anti Israel speech.
Speaker 2: Problem, wasn't that the guy who did like who ironically
enough or oddly enough, had done the movie about the
German prison guards.
Speaker 1: Oh that's not this, that's not this. I don't know.
I might be confused. I'm sorry if I I mean, do.
Speaker 2: We really need to hear him down? I feel like
all of Hollywood is probably full of all.
Speaker 1: Right, Anatomy of the Fall? What's that about?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm only just starting it, but it had gotten
a lot of really good reviews in the I think
that lead actress had been nominated for her part. And
it just begins with a husband ending up dead and
we're now at the police inquisition level. But it's French,
and I think they're in Germany.
Speaker 1: No, right, sounds like something i'd watch.
Speaker 2: It was not a very movie set up, but I
just I don't know what's going on yet.
Speaker 1: Someone was murdered, so it's gonna be a mystery. I
speaking of mysteries, I finally watched that Glass Onion movie,
the second one with like Edward. Yeah, I did not
love it. I didn't hate it. That was okay exactly.
But the thing is the Daniel Craig character. I mean,
these are just basically Agatha Christie movies and novels, the
same setup. The thing is like they he's the most
interesting character and they barely spend time with him. You know,
It's like Hercule Piro is, Like it's funny to watch him,
observe put it together. They don't do that anyway, so
that I think was the flaw on that I saw.
There's a third one coming out soon. And then lastly,
my wife and I went to Richmond, Virginia to go
to the Van Go Immersion show. I don't know if
you've heard of this. It was a complete ripoff in
my opinion, and no one should go see it. It's
a non recommend from me. It's just they basically project
project some Vango stuff up on a wall and put
like his biography that they took from Wikipedia up on
the wall for you to read. And you know, it's
like fifty bucks to go. Maybe if you have kids
and you want to introduce them to art, they maybe
it's okay. But as if you're an adult who has
any who's been to a real museum, I think you
would find this really or okay, good to know and uninspiring.
And that's it for me. Hopefully next week there won't
be any assassination attempt to talk about, but until then,
be lovers of freedom and anxious for the frame