The Rise of the New Right - In The Tank #489 - Heartland Daily Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Linnea Lueken (00:37):
All right, we are now live. Sorry, we're a little
bit late. Complicated business.Welcome to the show, everyone.
So politicians like JD Vance, aswell as popular figures on the
right seem to have a new visionfor conservatism and the right
in general that bucks the oldneocon establishment.
But is it really novel? Or is itactually just a return to
tradition? We'll discuss anddebate that and what the right

(00:59):
might look like after Trump.Also, the Supreme Court has
strangely determined that ATFgets to decide if a gun part is
a gun itself and can beregulated like one. And another
thing Republicans have talkedabout for years and years is
finally on the table, defundingPravda.
I mean, NPR and PBS. Sorry, bigbird. You gotta go. Alright. We

(01:24):
are going to talk about all ofthis and more in episode 489 of
the In The Tank podcast.

(02:04):
No. And and that was a veryparticular case. It wasn't clear
if he was radicalized when hegot here or while he was living

JD Vance (02:10):
here. Really care, Margaret. I don't want that
person in my country, and Ithink most Americans agree with
me.

Just love that clip. Alright. Welcome to the In
the Tank podcast. I am LaneaLucan. And today, as usual, we
have Jim Lakeley, vice presidentof the Heartland Institute.
Jim, how are you?

Jim Lakely (02:31):
I am good. I am triggered. The defunding Pravda,
the hearings for NPR and PBS inCongress this week triggered me
as a former journalist myself.And so we could have done the
whole show on that topic. I'mgoing to try to keep it together
so we could hit the main topictoday.
But so happy to be here.

Former and recovering. Right?

Jim Lakely (02:51):
Yeah. That's right.

Alright. We also have Chris Talgo, editorial
director at the HeartlandInstitute and Socialism Research
Fellow. Chris, how are you?

Chris Talgo (02:59):
I'm doing good. Today's opening day for
baseball, so I think it's, know,a rite of passage. Spring is
here, and hopefully, the ChicagoCubs will win the World Series
this year.

You're gonna have some enemies in the comments for
that one. Alright. We also haveSam Karnik, senior fellow and
director of publications for theHeartland Institute. Sam, how's
it going where you are?

Sam Karnick (03:23):
Quite well. Thank you. I hope everything's going
well over in the headquartersthere.

Yeah. Well, I think Chris is the only one
that's at the office today.

Me and Wanda are holding it down.

Jim Lakely (03:38):
Part of the reason we're late is like scramble to
get Chris back on the pod. Hejust disappeared when we were
backstage before the thingstarted. So apparently there was
a power surge or something.Power went out and but got the
computer rebooted and here weare. All right.

Classic Illinois. All right. Before we get
started, as always, everyone, ifyou want to support the show,
you can go toheartland.org/inthetank and
donate there. They won't letanybody give us super chats
anymore because we say thingsthat YouTube doesn't like. Also,
please click the thumbs up tolike this video and remember
that sharing it also helps breakthrough some of that suppression
that YouTube has on us.

(04:13):
And even just leaving a commentalso helps. If you're an audio
listener, you can help us out byleaving a nice review. All
right. So today we are beginningwith our favorite top of the
show segment, which is unhinged.And so may I present for our
viewers deep consideration theilluminating wit of
representative Jasmine Crockett,who has been just so crazy

(04:37):
lately.
People are starting to wonder ifshe's actually right wing
controlled opposition becauseshe is not helping the left
distance themselves from thecrazies at all. She has been
paraded in front of cameras allover the place lately. And she
recently spoke at a human rightscampaign event where she called
the governor Greg Abbott, who isparalyzed from the waist down.

(04:59):
Well, we'll just play the clipand you guys can listen for
yourself if you haven't seen ityet. Because we in these hot ass
Texas streets, honey.
Y'all know we got governor HotWheels down there. Come on now.
And and the only thing hot abouthim is that he is a hot ass

(05:20):
mess, honey. So so yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Well, that's awkward.Okay. Well, it actually it
actually kind of reminds me ofthat one time.
I don't know if you guysremember this. I think I only
remember this because StevenCrowder made a joke about it.

(05:41):
But that time Biden toldMissouri Senator Chuck Graham to
stand up so that people couldsee him in a crowd. He was also
wheelchair bound. But at leastBiden's was like an honest
gaffe.
He apologized like two secondslater and, senator Graham didn't
seem to take it too badly.Crockett's comment, though, I
don't think it's quite the samething, guys.

So Jasmine Crockett has become the, you know, the
the vocal opposition, but it'sbut it's interesting because she
is always, you know, dropping fbombs and, you know, just
saying, like, very crude things.It it her style, her delivery,
it's very juvenile, you know,once again, very crude. But if
you go back and look at the wayshe used to speak, the way that
she used to articulate herself,it was very different. So it

(06:25):
makes me actually believe thatthis is all an act. This is all
an act because guess what?
She's getting tons of airplay.She's all over the, you know, at
CNN and MSNBC and, you know,the, you know, mainstream media.
But I don't think this is whoshe really is. And if you look
back four or five years ago atat how she, you know, spoke and
she it's just completelydifferent. So, you know, she's

(06:47):
she's just acting.

Jim Lakely (06:51):
Yeah. I mean, Jasmine Crockett is, she went to
the most expensive privateschool in Saint Louis as a kid.
There's a video that kinda wentviral over the last week or two
on x of her, being interviewedbefore she had run for congress
or as she was running forcongress, and she, you know,
spoke and acted like a normalhuman adult human being. And,

(07:15):
you know, so this whole ghettogirl thing is a complete act,
and it's, it's really remarkablethat she's getting away with it,
that her own party isn't evenmocking her for, you know, for
this whole this whole charade. Imean, I guess she wants to be
included in the squad orsomething if she's not already
in there.
So, you know, since what CoryBush got got dumped out of

(07:35):
congress, she was one of thecharter members of the socialist
squad in the in the house ofrepresentatives. Maybe,
Jasmine's just trying to takethat spot.

I think it's good that you mentioned the squad
because it appears to me thatCrockett is sort of becoming
the, the one who normalizes theweirdness of the Democrats by,
making these absurd statementsthat will draw attention to her.
And it it makes AOC, forexample, who is going around the

(08:07):
country with Bernie Sanders,look relatively statesman or
stateswoman like in comparison.So this may not be an accident
that, she's getting all thisattention.

Do you think that this is, like, very
intentionally planned out, thisattitude that she has now
because they're trying tocompete with the, like,
Trumpism, you know, the the themomentum that the right has
gained with being a little bitedgier in their public
appearance?

I think I think this is somewhat emblematic of
the media moment that we live inwhere you can just say something
completely outrageous and get asound bite and it can, quote go
viral and you can share it onyour social media, which I'm
sure she is a huge social mediaperson. And when you really

(08:58):
think about it, she doesn't evertalk about policy. She never
talks about things in substance.She always just talks about, you
know, art like the verysuperficial, you know, nature of
of of these things, and shealways attacks people. And it
just goes to show that she's nota serious person.
She's not actually she doesn'tseem to me to be interested in

(09:19):
solving the problems that theAmerican people, you know, are
dealing with, but she's justtrying to get as much attention
as possible. So I think this isall about herself. I think she's
very narcissistic, And I thinkthat this is very, you know,
symbolic of the modern day, youknow, Democrat party where it's
all just trying to, you know,get, you know, get out there

(09:40):
and, you know, say somethingoutrageous and, you know, they
just, you know, just see whathappens.

Absolutely. Thank you. So if we don't have
anything else to comment on thisone, we can move on to our first
topic of today. So this isn'tsomething that the Heartland
Institute covers all that often.So from Fox News here we have
upholds Biden administrationghost gun regulation.

(10:12):
The US Supreme Court onWednesday upheld the Biden
administration's regulation ofso called ghost guns by a seven
to two vote. At issue waswhether the devices meet the
federal definition of a firearmand frame and receiver and
whether the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
or ATF exceeded its authority toregulate and enforce their sale.

(10:33):
Ghost guns are do it yourselffunctional weapons that are
often purchased online andmarketed by some sellers as easy
to assemble. The JusticeDepartment said that more than
19,000 hard to trace ghost gunswere seized by law enforcement
in 2021, a more than tenfoldincrease in just five years.
That was in part driven byrecent technological advances,

(10:54):
many containing polymer basedunassembled firearm components.
And I would add to that thepopularity of like PAD parts
kits and stuff. So I'm going togive our viewers a little show
and tell lesson here in casethey're not aware. So I've been
looking forward to doing this.So I'm going to explain what
exactly this ruling is lookingat and what it's not looking at.

(11:18):
So if we take here, let me justmove this out of the way.
If we take here, this is afirearm, right? It's a pistol.
This is the whole gun, all thecomponents, no magazine in. We
are safe. Trust me, guys.
Don't worry about it. So whenyou take the slide off, what you

(11:39):
have is the frame, you have thetrigger assembly, you have your
hammer assembly. So the frame ofthe pistol is what's considered
a gun by the ATF traditionally.And so that's what needs to be
serialized. For a while, theframe that was incomplete as in

(11:59):
it's not been machined in a waythat would actually allow you to
put the trigger and the slideand everything onto it and make
it work.
So this is one that needed to besanded down, cut a bit, drilled
into whatever in order to makeit functional. That was what's
called an 80% frame, and thatwas not considered a firearm.
That's what they mean whenthey're talking about a ghost

(12:21):
gun. Biden's ATF changed that.So now 80% frames as in a just
the just either the polymer,like the plastic part.
In this case, it's metal. Butjust the frame is considered a
firearm or a gun. So they nowwill require a background check

(12:42):
to buy just the frame, not withthe trigger in it, not with the
hammer assembly in it, just theframe. Gun right advocates argue
that this is silly because it'sarbitrary and an incomplete
frame is obviously not a gun.There is a very funny joke that
runs around on X right now wherepeople just show, like, a block

(13:03):
of aluminum and they say this isan incomplete receiver for an
AR.
Is this a firearm? So it's alittle bit complicated. I have a
good breakdown here by someonein the three d print and second
amendment law space named Ivan,who gives a good summary. This

(13:25):
is on Twitter, if we can pullup, I don't know if we have the
link for that. I posted it inemail earlier.
But otherwise, I'll just readit. This is from a user called
at Navi go boom, who says mysummary on the Vanderstock
ruling, bad things. All in onekits need serial numbers,
background checks, polymer 80friends and frames and things as

(13:47):
easy to complete as them needserial numbers and background
checks. The ATF retains theirnew rule endorsed ability to
come up with arbitrary decisionsabout what is and isn't a
firearm. The good things.
This ruling does not have abearing on your ability to make
guns yourself. You don't need toput serial numbers on your
stuff. And what he means by thatis if you three d print a frame

(14:11):
yourself at home, this rule doesnot apply to that. You don't get
have to go get that serialized.So ghost guns that they claim
they're really worried aboutmeaning like the three d printed
polymer ghost guns are actuallynot banned by this ruling.
AR 1580% kits are also not partof it, at least for now. Flats

(14:32):
blanks tubes forging cetera areall unaffected, and the court
does not endorse the eight hoursin the machine shop test,
instead pointed to one hourunskilled with power tools as
being an example that's clearlyreadily converted. So part of
the issue with this ruling isthat they are claiming that any
gun can be readily or any gunpart that can be readily

(14:56):
converted into a working gunpart all of a sudden falls under
the category of a firearm. Butthey don't really make a solid
definition on what they mean byreadily defining. Okay.
Or readily made. So this stuff,if you're if you are in the
firearm space is not unusual atall. Recently, just a couple

(15:20):
years ago, the ATF sent a verypopular gun YouTuber to jail for
nearly fifty years for sellingmachine guns. When what he was
actually doing was advertisingor promoting a thing called an
auto key card, which is a littlemetal card like a business card
size thing with a picture of apart on it that the ATF alleges

(15:42):
can transform any AR into amachine gun. It doesn't actually
do that.
And the ATF was unable to provethat it could do that, but they
still threw him in jail as wellas the inventors of that gimmick
card, And his lawyers are stillfighting about it. So like I
said, we don't talk about gunstuff a lot here at the
Heartland Institute, Chris, butit is important. So I wanted to

(16:03):
bring it up today. The ATF mightbe one of one of the most
capricious departments ingovernment. Anyone who's ever
thought it was okay to, like,shorten a shotgun barrel found
that out really, really fast.
So can do you think that canBondi's DOJ can actually step in
on these kinds of issues? Or doyou think it's just gonna be
like another Republicanadministration that ignores this

(16:25):
stuff as it's getting eroded?

Well, I really hope they do. And, you know, I'm
confident that they will. And,you know, I've been at Heartland
for seven years now. And, youknow, when I first started here,
we did, you know, a lot on gunsand gun rights because you know,
the Second Amendment is one ofthe most, you know, important
significant rights that we canhave and there's a very good
reason why it was put there. Itwas put there because the

(16:49):
founders knew that if youdisarmed the people or made it,
you know, exceedingly difficultfor them to, you know, to, you
know, get a a gun that, youknow, that was a a threat to
their liberty, a threat to ourliberty, and it is.
And, you know, when you justthink that, you know, past, you
know, thirty, forty years, therehave been so many regulations

(17:12):
upon gun manufacturers and justso many, you know, laws passed
that I think areunconstitutional. Know, it just
this is, I think, you know, justthat that trend moving more in
that direction. But I do think,and we'll talk about this later
with the rise of the new right,that there might be some big,
big pushback to this. And Ireally hope so. And, just what

(17:33):
I've seen so far from, you know,Pam Bondi and, you know, Cash
Patel and all the people whoare, you know, really in charge
of these agencies, I thinkthey're gonna definitely step up
to the plate and do what needsto be done.

Absolutely. Well, and what's interesting right now
is it seems like the space thathas the best, like, lawyers and
the best people who know whatthey're talking about on these
issues aren't necessarily thepeople who are in the
generalized second amendmentadvocacy area, but it's rather
people who are actively involvedwith manufacturing and and,

(18:07):
like, home three d printingcommunities and stuff like that.
They seem to be the ones thatare, like, super on top of
everything that's going on andall the particulars of
regulation that the ATF has beenbasically just harassing people
with for the last couple ofdecades. It's really interesting

to see. And that is such a good point because there
have been so many examples ofthe ATF. And the FBI, I think,
was guilty of doing this manytimes too where they create
crimes. And there have been somany times where they go and
they try to get someone to buy,you know, sawed off shotgun or
to buy, you know, a quoteunquote machine gun. And, you
know, it's almost like they'retrying to create the crime, you

(18:48):
know, in the first place.
And, you know, we've seen thistime and time again, you know,
and it's, you know, I would be Ireally hope and from what I saw
this morning where the, youknow, FBI and some other, you
know, agencies worked with somefederal, I mean, some local and
state agencies in Virginia to goand get the leader of MS
thirteen. That's a big deal. Weshould be going against people

(19:10):
like that, not people who aremanufacturing, quote, ghost
guns. So, I mean, like, that'swhat this should be about. And I
really think that that we'regonna see a re a reorientation
of these agencies is to actuallygoing after real criminals, not
Americans who are abiding by thelaw, but maybe, you know,

(19:31):
running afoul of these, youknow, incredibly complex, you
know, regulations that I thinkare unconstitutional in the
first place.

Absolutely. Sam, what do you what do you have
anything to, pitch in on this?

Yes. I do. The the first thing that the court
should be asking is where in theconstitution, is alcohol or
tobacco or firearms mentionedas, something for congress and
the president to regulate in anyway. It's not there. That is
all, for the states to do.

(20:06):
And so when they and and then,of course, there's the second
amendment on top of that sayingspecifically that they can't
regulate firearms. So whatwhat's interesting, though, to
me beyond that is that the courtover the last three or four
years has been consistentlygoing much more into the

(20:28):
meanings of words. They're veryanalytical about that. And and
the justice that I think is mostintensive about that is
probably, Amy Coney Barrett. AndI think what's going on here is
that in this present case, theuse of language, it has been

(20:51):
pretty kind of sneaky.
Justice Justice Thomas in in hisdissent wrote, congress could
have authorized ATF to regulateany part of a firearm or any
object readily convertible intoone, but it did not. I would
adhere to the words congressenacted. Employing its novel,

(21:13):
quote, artifact noun, quote,methodology, the majority charts
a different course that invitesunforeseeable consequences and
offers no limiting principle.Well, what Thomas is referring
to there is, an artifact noun isis is a noun that refers to
something that is made by humansas opposed to a rock or a, a

(21:35):
lung, for example. So I Isuppose there are artificial
lungs, so I've even made a badexample there.
But the the point is that anartifact noun, the what they've
done is they've said, well, ifit's a piece of a gun, if it's a
kit, then it's a gun. And so theexample, that, some friends of

(21:56):
the court wrote was, if you sendsomebody a kit to make an
omelet, you're sending them anomelet. That's simply not true.
And that's what what Thomas wasreferring to is that they're
using they're using semanticsand clever words to get to
somewhere that they wanna get. Iwould I would suggest that

(22:19):
Barrett is sincere in her,approach here, but I think it is
becoming something of aninfection of the court and it's
going to have some badconsequences as Thomas pointed
out.

Yeah. It gets it gets incredibly crazy and and,
you know, almost to the point ofhumor when you look up, you
know, the, say, the NFA rules ona short barreled rifle versus,
like, what's what you need a taxstamp for, what you don't need a
tax stamp for. It's prettycrazy, actually. And if people

(22:54):
will go and look up some of thecomparison charts that are
floating around out there, someof our European friends probably
don't quite understand thenuances of this debate maybe.
But, you know, you'll look at,like, three firearms that are
functionally the exact samefirearm.
And one of them is you'll getthrown in jail if you own
because it has, like, adifferent kind of stock than

(23:15):
another one. But the actualfunction of the firearm is the
exact same across all theversions. It's just it's nuts.
It's very stupid. It's clearlyjust control tactics.
They're they're nibbling at theedges of the second amendment in
order to try and, you know, getrid of it entirely, I think.

I also just wanted

May mention may I mention that these are things
that should not even be underdiscussion? Congress and the
president have no authority todeal with any of this, and all
of this should be shut down. Thecourt should have shut it down
decades ago, but they choose notto.

Jim Lakely (23:48):
Yeah. Yeah. I'll I'll I'll just add, Lynea. You
must have gotten an a in showand tell in school because that
was a fantastic show and tellwith your with your pistol.

Speaker 6 (23:58):
I love show

Jim Lakely (23:58):
and tell. We're you know, we're having a hard enough
time trying to get this channelremonetized. You just killed
that probably by displaying ascary firearm. And Oh,

Yeah. Yeah. You're right. Oh, yeah. No.
We're never getting monetized.

Jim Lakely (24:15):
Yeah. We're getting remonetized now. So you gotta go
to you gotta go toheartland.org/inthetank to
support this program for sure.That is the best way to do it.

For the for the purpose of for the purpose of
the YouTube moderators, this wasa fake gun, a real fake gun.

Jim Lakely (24:34):
And

it's for educational purposes only.

Jim Lakely (24:38):
Educational purposes only. Yes. Alright. Just

just don't give it to Alec Baldwin. Okay?

Jim Lakely (24:42):
That's right. You got away from Alec Baldwin

for I not get hurt. Third, it's

Jim Lakely (24:47):
like, you know, we live in such a weird time, you
know, and there were there maybethere still are, but it's
certainly not as prevalent as itused to be in the fifties and
sixties where there were gunclubs and shooting clubs in
schools. They had shooting teamsin school. They compete and they
would leave their rifles intheir trucks on school property

(25:10):
and it was fine. It was a totalthing. It just totally normal.
And now we live in a society inwhich the media and our
government especially, they'reexploiting an irrational fear of
firearms that has developed inthe public consciousness to do
what you said, is nibble away atthe second amendment little by

(25:32):
little. And, you know, to havethis happen, you know, right now
as Donald Trump had just takenoffice is a little discouraging.
But I know the case precedes hispresidency, obviously. But here
we are. And that the only twojustices who are not fine with
the continuing nibbling of oursecond amendment rights are the

(25:52):
two we expect it to be, Alitoand Justice Thomas.
So I wish Alito and Thomas thebest of health and a nice long
continuing long career on thesupreme court so that our rights
can be protected.

I I just I just wanna add one thing to that real
quick. Amy Comey Barrett, she'sbeen a big disappointment for
me. Unfortunately, I think thatshe is more concerned with, you
know, cocktail parties inWashington DC and her reputation
and maintaining her like thesefriendships than she is actually
just about doing the rightthing. And it's really sad
because I had high hopes forher, but many

of

the rulings that she's made know, in the past few
years, I'm big time questioning,and I think that she is, you
know, John Roberts two point owhere once they get on the
court, they they, you know,realize, hey. You know what?
We're not always gonna stand onthe side of constitutional
principles. Sometimes we need tokinda bend it because, you know,
we need to make sure that westay in, you know, good the good

(26:50):
graces of, you know, all theseDC elites. So, I mean, I know
that that's a little bitconjecture on my part, but I
just I can't help but wonder ifthat's what's going on here
because she was such aconstitutional, you know,
originalist.
And all of a sudden, she'smaking these, you know, strange,
bizarre rulings where she'stwisting herself into a pretzel.
And I'm just it's very it itit's it's disappointing.

Yeah. I think, unfortunately, some people just
can't stand up to the pressuretoo. Right? Like, it could be
twofold. It's one, wanting toimpress people in DC and two,
you know, being afraid, youknow, oh, well, we've got all
these smart people who aretelling me and and not in, like,
second guessing yourself on someof your positions.
I think that might be going onwith her as well. Sam, I think

(27:37):
you have something you wanna addto that. I can tell.

Oh, well, I was just thinking about it. I think
the alternative explanation isactually very plausible, which
is that this is who she is andthis is who she was from the
start. And this is in fact whoshe what she portrayed herself
as being in her confirmationhearings, which is that she's
very into originalism. But heridea of originalism is a little

(28:01):
bit different from, say,Thomas's and Alito's. Her idea
of originalism really does comefrom Antonin Scalia.
And you remember Scalia, quote,unquote, disappointed the right,
several times, by saying thatthat such and such a a law was
okay to do, even though it itseemed to be go against the,

(28:25):
first, the first or secondamendment, or it seemed to go
against it certainly wentagainst the notion of enumerated
powers. So, she does seem to be,sort of a Scalia two point o. So
we're going to be disappointedat the, outcomes of some of her,
thought down the road. Butoftentimes she's going to be on

(28:49):
the right side of things aswell.

Yep. Alright. We'll move on. I wanted to
mention to the audience in caseyou saw my wincing earlier. I
was putting my fakedemonstration gun back together
and I and it nipped me.
It pinched my fingers. So that'swhy I cringed earlier. Not from
anything our good panelists weresaying.

Jim Lakely (29:11):
See how dangerous they are? Oh my gosh.

Yeah. These we have to ban these things. I
pinched the palm of my hand withit. Okay. So speaking of
taxpayer funded things that wemight want to get rid of from
the center square, we have NPRand PBS defend work as
Republicans consider cuts.
The US House delivering ongovernment efficiency

(29:34):
subcommittee held a hearingWednesday where leaders from the
National Public Radio and PublicBroadcasting Service defended
their work, which is partiallyfederally funded. The hearing
comes as the Department ofGovernment Efficiency has hacked
away at various parts of thefederal government and criticism
of the left leaning nationalcoverage from PBS and NPR, as
well as some of itstransgenderism coverage has

(29:57):
drawn criticism. Catherine Marr,Marr, Mayor?

Jim Lakely (30:02):
Marr. Yeah.

Marr. That's what I thought. Chief Executive
Officer and President of NPR andPaula Kerger, Chief Executive
Officer and President of PBStestified at the hearing. Marr
says she understands theskepticism and that internally
the problem is being takenseriously, but said NPR should
still receive funding because ithas Americans trust since when.

(30:25):
Alright, Jim.
I know you have a lot to sayhere. Is NPR a vital American
institution? Is it the only wayfor, rural Americans to get the
news as Democrats are currentlyclaiming?

Jim Lakely (30:39):
No. All of America is saddled with I should say all
of legacy media. Their job isnot to report news. Their job is
to promote the Democrat Partyand push leftist messaging and
globalist messaging and toSpencer any thoughts or

(31:00):
communications that go counterto that. If there's a Democrat
in office, if Joe Biden ispresident, they are in the
regime protection business.
They are not in the newsbusiness. And of all of the
media, NPR is probably the worstoffender in this. We have
several clips here that Igathered and that it triggered
me while I was doing it. Somaybe we can get some of those

(31:27):
on screen here. So let's pardonme, so I don't know I have what
one, two, three, I have likefive clips.
We could spend the entire showon this. I don't think we
should. But let me let's startwith this one. This is kind of a
wrap up. This is from, Ibelieve, the Washington Free
Beacon.
They did a a quick clip on this,so let's have a watch.

Speaker 6 (31:50):
We are biased. I have never seen any instance of
Never? Of pro political biasdetermining editorial decisions.
No.

Speaker 7 (31:57):
Do you believe that white people inherently feel
superior to other races?

Speaker 6 (32:01):
I do not.

Speaker 7 (32:02):
You don't? You you tweeted something to that
effect. You said, I I grew upfeeling superior. How how white
of me?

Speaker 6 (32:08):
I think I was probably reflecting on what it
was to be to grow up in anenvironment where I had lots of
advantages.

Speaker 7 (32:15):
Do you believe that America believes in black
plunder and white

Speaker 6 (32:18):
democracy? I don't democracy? I don't believe that,
sir.

Speaker 7 (32:22):
You you tweeted that in reference to a book you were
reading at at the time,apparently, the case for
reparations.

Speaker 6 (32:28):
I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.

Speaker 7 (32:30):
Do you think that white people should pay
reparations?

Speaker 6 (32:32):
I I have never said that, sir.

Speaker 7 (32:34):
In January of twenty twenty, you tweeted, yes, the
North. Yes, all of us. Yes,America. Yes, our original
collective sin and unpaid debt.Yes, reparations.
Yes, on this day.

Speaker 6 (32:44):
I think it was just a reference to the idea that we
all owe much to the people whocame before us.

Speaker 7 (32:49):
That that's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted.
NPR also, promoted a book calledIn Defense of Looting. Do you
think that that's an appropriateuse of taxpayer dollars?

Speaker 6 (33:00):
I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't
believe that was at my end of mythat

Speaker 7 (33:04):
you read that book. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (33:08):
So so look. Yeah. Like I said, I pulled a lot of
clips. We probably don't havethe time to go over them. I know
we don't, but I just had to keepgoing because X was just full of
all of these clips.
And, you know, what happened inthat hearing yesterday is is
like if you were to, you know,revisit the Aztec culture,
Quistadors arrived in Mexico. Imean, Catherine Mar was laid out

(33:32):
for slaughter yesterday inoriginal sacrifice to the god of
Doge. And, I must say I'm notdisgusted, at at the at the
spectacle, to be honest, becauseshe was not some innocent, you
know, kidnapped, you know, andsacrificed. She is the head of
NPR. Katherine Maher, beforethis, was the head of Wikipedia

(33:54):
or Wikimedia, the company thatcontrols Wikipedia, and gave
speeches about how she gave TEDTalks, of course, TED Talks.
And with that tone of voice thatis so annoying in a typical TED
talk, like she's talking to 10year olds and she knows best.
And she talked about how, youknow, the pursuit of truth is

(34:17):
actually not a not something weshould be doing at Wikipedia and
Wikipedia. It's not becausethere is really no truth. There
is your truth and yourexperiences and that is better
than actual truth, whichexplains a lot because I tried
for years to get the HeartlandInstitute's Wikipedia page to

(34:38):
not be completely full of lies.I think the only thing they have
correct on our Wikipedia page isour address.
The rest of it pretty much areall lies and I tried to have it
corrected and I was shut down.And, you know, Wikipedia is
great if you wanted to look up,say, the years of the term of

(34:58):
James Madison as president. Butif you wanted to if you want to
do anything on anycontroversial, quote unquote
controversial topic like aconservative organization like
the Heartland Institute,Wikipedia is full of lies. This
this woman is actually theperfect head of NPR because
she's she is a global elitist tothe T. She was what organization

(35:24):
she was she had affiliationswith UNICEF, the Atlantic
Council, the World EconomicForum, the State Department,
Stanford University, the Councilon Foreign Relations.
She grew up in wealth andprivilege. She married into more
wealth and privilege. She iscompletely out of touch with
with the American people. And asin some of the questioning, as

(35:47):
Congressman Jim Jordan pointedout, they did a survey and they
have 87 staffers that doeditorial work at NPR. Eighty
seven out of 87 are allDemocrats And she is sitting up
there getting hammered aboutthis sort of thing, the bias and
frankly the lies and thenarratives that NPR is involved

(36:09):
in.
And she says, no, we are anobjective, unbiased news
organization. Your tax dollarsare paying her salary, your tax
dollars are paying foreverybody's salary over there,
and for NPR to exist. Theyalways say every year, every
time we should start defundingNPR and PBS, they bring out Big

(36:30):
Bird and they bring out Elmo andthey had them crying and like,
oh, your children will will nowcry with Elmo and Big Bird
because Sesame Street is gone.Sesame Street is actually gone.
HBO bought it, and I thinkthey're dumping it now because
they can't make money on iteither.
NPR, if it wants to be Americanpropped up, NPR is free to do
it. Just not we don't have weshouldn't be having to pay for

(36:52):
it. They should be able to findrich globalist Marxist like like
where she came from, and sheknows all these people. They can
fund NPR. And then we weshouldn't be funding it.
That's that's all I have to sayabout that. That's actually not
all I have to say about that,but it's enough for now.

I remember in seventh grade social studies
class, mister Levitsky, shoutout to mister Levitsky. I hope
he's still alive. He was anawesome teacher, really, you
know, got me excited and intopolitics and history and all
this stuff. And he had thisthing where we would watch the
McNell Lair NewsHour, and wewould pick, three current event
topics, and we would just write,like, a couple paragraphs. Never

(37:29):
gonna forget this.
That back then, this wasprobably ninety three, four,
five ish, you know, like thattime frame. It was actually, you
know, pretty down the middle.And now it is completely not
down the middle. It is totallybiased towards the left. We all
know this.
It's just totally obvious, okay.In terms of funding, so NPR I

(37:52):
believe receives 500,000,000 infederal funds per year, but that
is not the extent of federalfunding that they get because
they also receive money frompublic stations that have to
kick back funds to NPR. Sothere's that aspect of it as
well. And they've received tonsand tons of money from, liberal

(38:14):
foundations like Ford Foundationand all these other Rockefeller
Foundation, all these others. Sothey, like these universities,
are just sitting in money, yetthey are just squealing like
pigs about to be slaughteredbecause we're saying, hey, wait
a second, we gotta cut off this500,000,000, you know, direct,
you know, tax, you know, fromtaxpayers right to you.

(38:35):
They can obviously go on withoutthe 500,000,000. They could
probably also go on if they werejust to be completely, you know,
on their own privatized and noteven have to get any sort of,
you know, payments from localbroadcast stations. These things
were, you know, originallyintended to, I guess, be a

(38:55):
competitor to the big three,NBC, ABC, and CBS. NPR, for
example, was founded in 1970.Although if you really look
back, it was chartered duringthe great society of Mdimi
Johnson.
So it was obviously, you know, apoliticized entity I think from
the get go. But you know what?We live in a completely

(39:16):
different media environment.There's streaming services.
There's Sirius radio.
There are so there's, you know,social media, there's YouTube.
There are so many ways forpeople to get the news that
they, you know, want to get. Andit does not need to be a
publicly funded, you know, news,you know, organization. So to me

(39:37):
it's just, it is so obvious thatNPR and PBS are, you know very,
very much as Jim said, you knowjust relaying, you know leftist
talking points. I listen to itevery once in a while, you know,
just to kind of hear whatthey're saying and how they're
framing things.

(39:58):
It's wild, it's, you know, outof this world. So, you know
what, I'm so glad that MarjorieTaylor Greene, Jim Jordan and
these other people really heldtheir feet to the fire. And like
Jim said, I mean, this woman isis just so out of touch, and it
just so she is is so, you know,just it it it makes me sick to
watch her, you know, you know,get in front of congress, and

(40:21):
they're they're literallyshowing her what she said a few
years ago. And then she'ssaying, oh, I've come I I've
evolved I've evolved since that.And, you know, I I don't believe
that anymore.
But you never came out and saidanything against it. The only
time you said anything againstit is when you were, you know,
put on, you know, in front ofcongress and you are made to
respond to it. I would have acompletely different, you know,

(40:45):
opinion of this If she had comeout maybe two years ago and
said, you know what? I wasgetting caught up in the 2020
George Floyd crazy stuff, and Iwent too far, but she never did
that. She's never done that.
And we know, I think, that, youknow, it was a it was a not
genuine, you know, apology. Shenever said, you know what, I

(41:05):
apologize for saying thosethings. It was just very much
more about trying to obfuscate.So I don't know, the American
people I think they see throughthis and I think that this is
the beginning of the end for NPRand PBS. And I I'm very glad.

There never was any

Chris rant.

Go ahead. That was people don't appreciate the
Chris rant enough. Sorry, Sam.What were you saying?

There just never was any justification for public
radio, television, or anythingof the sort. There never was.
You say, well, in the nineteensixties, oh, jeez. There's only
there's only two TV stations inthis city. We need another one.
It's like, woah. What would beso wrong with people reading
books and newspapers inmagazines? Or or we need a we

(41:57):
need a radio station. Why? Thereare tons of radio stations.
They're they're all over theplace. So there never was any
justification even originally.The whole purpose of it was to
create a propta, to create agovernment a government owned
product and government runproduct that would basically,

(42:20):
let's say, send messages to theAmerican people and try to train
them up to think the way thegovernment wants them to. There
was never any excuse for that,and it's it's a ridiculous and
stupid thing. And it's it's aninteresting question.
Why on earth Republicans letthis go on and on and on over
the decades? That they reallybelieved it was a good thing.

(42:43):
Now they have a a president andan administration and a movement
that recognizes that that thisis bogus and rubbish and
horrible and that it has to go.And so it's it's interesting how
political courage tends to comefrom the, getting an advantage
out of taking a particularposition. So now the the doing

(43:07):
the brave thing of, wanting todefund NPR.
You're not you're notnecessarily some sort of, weird
rando like Rand Paul out there,saying, you know, let's get rid
of the Fed. You're you'reactually, heading toward the
mainstream. It it's it's a sillything, and it was it was stupid

(43:27):
from the start. One of theinteresting things I thought of
the hearing was that the Meijerdidn't even start as NPR
president until last year. Soall the things that they were
citing were things that shecould say, well, I didn't have
anything to do with that.
And and so that was, that's aninteresting thing, but they did

(43:50):
kind of hold her feet to thefire saying, well, you're the
boss here. Would you would youcontinue to do that? And I and I
love the fact that she saidthat, I never saw any political
bias here. Right. Because therewere 87 or however many
Democrats working on the staffthere, and and you're on top of
them, above them as the asanother Democrat, so you

(44:13):
probably wouldn't notice anybias.
The whole thing is ridiculous.Get rid of it.

Jim Lakely (44:18):
Yeah. Absolutely. I'll just I'll just add. You
know, as I mentioned, Lynne, I'ma recovering journalist. It's
been, I think, eight years, fourmonths and twelve days since my
last story that I wrote for theLegacy Media.

But I actually

Jim Lakely (44:32):
got an interview to be part of National Public Radio
as a reporter. I when I coveredthe White House, a friend of
mine, I won't mention his name.I don't think he's with NPR
anymore. But, you know, eventhough he worked for NPR and I
worked for the Washington Times,we became friends traveling
around together. And there wasan opening, and I said, you
know, hey.
I'd like to can I get aninterview for that? Or what do

(44:52):
you think? And he said, So hearranged it. And I did a phone
interview. I talked to an editorat NPR for about fifteen
minutes.
I never got a callback, nevergot an audition or anything like
that. But I am certain I wouldhave been the only Republican
working at NPR, and so it wouldhave been eighty six and one if
I was still there because all 87of them that are currently on

(45:14):
staff are all Democrats. Andlook, the the target audience
for for NPR, I don't listen toit much. My wife actually
listens to it once in a while inthe car and reports back on how
kind of annoying it is and justirrelevant really to what's
going on in the world. Thetarget audience for NPR are so

(45:35):
called 'awfuls', affluent whitefemale liberals.
Those AWFLs, those affluentwhite liberal women seem to be
in control of almost so many ofour elite institutions in this
country in government andoutside of government. And if if
Catherine Maher wants to, youknow, start her own YouTube

(45:55):
channel and compete with MeghanMarkle to see who can be the
most annoying, affluent, liberalwoman in America, good for her.
She should go do that. We shouldnot be paying for, the
programming of a very smallsubset of America. All of us
shouldn't be having to pay forthat.
MBR should be able to compete inthe marketplace. If it was

(46:18):
forced to compete in themarketplace, maybe we would have
a return of something, eventhough it was biased, something
like the McNeil Lehrer NewsHourback in the day. In the
eighties, you know, NPR and PBSwere biased to the left. They
were not outright propagandaarms for one party. They don't
have reporters at NPR.

(46:39):
They have narrators. They havepeople who just push the
narrative of the leftistviewpoint on literally every
subject. And as soon you know,we we don't time to play the
clips now. We wanna get to ourmain topic. But, you know, Jim
Jordan had pointed out that theyinterviewed Adam Schiff
something like 25 times aboutRussia, Russia, Russia, and they

(46:59):
never once had a republican,James Comey Comey, is that his
name?
That's not James Comey. That'sthe wrong guy. Comer. That's
him. The congressman on theother side to counter him.
Never. Not once. They didn'tcover the Hunter Biden laptop
story because they said it wasfake news and they weren't going
to waste their time with it. Andof course, that was actually

(47:21):
most significant story of thetwenty twenty presidential
election, and they completelyignored it on purpose. And they
like to think it was justbecause it wasn't real news.
The reason they didn't cover itis because they knew it was real
news, and it would damage JoeBiden, and that's why they
didn't report on it. So good youknow, maybe, Sam, you know this
as well as I do because you're alittle older on your own on the

(47:44):
older side just like me, and soyou know that Republicans have
been talking about defunding NPRand PBS for decades, and it
never happens. We are now in theresults business. That is people
who are watching ourpoliticians, especially on the
right. And we're going to talkabout the new right.
We're in the results businessnow. We're not going to we're

(48:05):
not going to be in the talkingbusiness anymore. And so if the
Republican Party wants to be areal party and exercise the
actual power that the votersgave them, they need to do
something as simple and as smallas this, defund NPR and PBS. You
can put it into a continuingresolution or something or do it
with reconciliation. You can doit.
Do it finally.

Right. This is such a good segue into our main
topic, and it wouldn't be in thetank if we didn't spend an hour
on on the not main topics beforewe get into the main topic. But
guys, we're going go late,probably quite late, because
this is something that we havebeen wanting to cover for a
little bit here. Last week afterthe show was finished, we talked
a little bit about the lastdecade forward in politics and

(48:49):
people in my generation and theway that they're voting and kind
of our version of a newconservative mindset. And as we
were like halfway through thisconversation that we went on for
twenty, thirty minutes after theshow was over, I thought, man, I
wish we were still live becauseit was a really good discussion.

(49:10):
So we decided that we were goingto bring it forward this week.
So people part of what we weretalking about last week was that
people in my generation,probably give or take a decade,
have developed kind of a strongskepticism of a lot of, say,
sacred cows for the conservatismthat we grew up in. It's not

(49:30):
just like a young people have torebel thing. It's a Republicans
and establishment conservatism,as we just talked about on a
couple of the topics for today,where we said we've been talking
about defunding NPR forever, andit's just never happened from
the Republican establishment. Wetalk about getting rid of the

(49:51):
ATF or repealing the NSA, and itnever happens from conservatives
and government.
So they have they have beenfailing us. And so we've looked
around and said, well, whyhaven't things worked out the
way that conservatives and somelibertarians have promised they
would? You know, if only we hadthis kind of globalist economy,
if only we had, you know, a verykind of loosey goosey approach

(50:17):
to government and the, like,social atmosphere of the
country. So why is it then thatpeople my age are feeling so
desolate and reaching forsometimes extreme ideologies
like socialism even? There are alot of interesting thinkers

(50:37):
coming up on the right who aretaking approaches that haven't
really seen the light of publicdiscourse since maybe, like
before World War Two.
So let's let's take this clipfrom JD Vance for an example.
Want to play it. It's one of myfavorite things that he's he
said since he became vicepresident.

JD Vance (50:55):
Challenges that the nations represented here face, I
believe there is nothing moreurgent than mass migration.
Today, almost one in five peopleliving in this country moved
here from abroad. That is, ofcourse, an all time high. It's a
similar number by the way in TheUnited States, also an all time
high. The number of immigrantswho entered the EU from non EU

(51:18):
countries doubled between twentytwenty one and 2022 alone.
And of course, it's gotten muchhigher since. And we know the
situation, it didn't materializein a vacuum. It's the result of
a series of conscious decisionsmade by politicians all over the
continent and others across theworld over the span of a decade.

(51:42):
We saw the horrors wrought bythese decisions yesterday in
this very city. And of course, Ican't bring it up again without
thinking about the terriblevictims who had a beautiful
winter day in Munich ruined.
Our thoughts and prayers arewith them and will remain with
them. But why did this happen inthe first place? It's a terrible

(52:04):
story, but it's one we've heardway too many times in Europe and
unfortunately too many times inThe United States as well. An
asylum seeker, often a young manin his mid 20s already known to
police rams a car into a crowdand shatters a community. How
many times must we suffer theseappalling setbacks before we

(52:26):
change course and take ourshared civilization in a new
direction?

All right. We have one more, I think. I don't
know. That wasn't quite the onethat I was thinking of, but it's
also a good one. Whoops.
We got our we got our clipsshuffled a little bit here. Do
we have the other one?

Jim Lakely (52:47):
I'm sorry about that. No, that was the link I
went to.

Tim, we've lost your sound now.

Jim Lakely (52:53):
You've lost my sound? Oh my. You can't hear me?

I can hear you.

Uh-oh. Okay.

So here, can I can I just go with this for a
second? So I think what what thenew ride the rise of the new
ride is about is about

I can't hear anyone now. Maybe it's me.

Oh, no. Oh, no. Is

Major technical issue as soon as we get to the
main topic, that's classic.Thumbs up if you

want you to comment about this. Okay. So that's why
this is. So what I think the newright is doing is actually
making it easier for youngpeople to, to to prosper in this
country. So I think for thepast, you know, thirty, forty,
fifty years, whether it's theseoutrageous, you know, cost of
college, you know, young people,they just cannot get a leg up.

(53:47):
And what J. D. Vance and DonaldTrump have been saying is that
this populist movement is aboutmaking your life better. It's
about, you know, going it'sreally about making sure that
they have opportunities and notglobalization and not, you know,
taking all these jobs and goingoverseas and and all this stupid

(54:11):
stuff that we've seen happen fordecades, and it has not made
people in my age group andyounger better off. I mean, a
lot of them are graduating withtens and tens, if not hundreds
of thousands of dollars in debt,then they can't get a good job,
then they can't buy a car.
Of course, they can't buy ahome. So they they can't do
things. They aren't gettingmarried, they aren't starting

(54:32):
families. It is just sodifficult for people, I'd say,
under 30 years old to really geta start in this new economy. And
then we when we think back tothe way that it was, and back in
the old days, and I don't meanlike the old old days, but
maybe, you know, fifties,sixties, those those years, if
you went to college or yougraduated from high school and

(54:52):
you got a job, you couldactually provide for your
family, you could buy a nicehome, you could afford things,
you could afford vacations, allthose things.
They were they were affordable.They're not affordable anymore.
And that's I think what this isreally about. And it there are
so many reasons why this is notaffordable anymore. A lot of
it's, you know, the the crazygovernment spending, the stupid

(55:14):
regulations.
But really what this is about isthe American people saying we've
had enough of this. We want theability to really do to just do
what we can do, and that's whatthis is, you know, really trying
to make sure that they have theopportunity to do.

There are a lot of elements to this. There are a
lot of elements to this, and Ithink one of the biggest is
technological change. The the alot of the objections to what
American society has turned intohave to do with the impositions

(55:54):
of government on the people. Andthe the people have been
basically stuck dealing justaccepting whatever the
government does. So when whenthey say, okay.
We're going to we're we're goingto have a, 30,000 page, trade
deal that will be we'll call itfree trade. Okay? 30,000 pages

(56:18):
to define free trade. Right? Sowe're gonna have 60,000 page
free trade deal, and then,everything will be nice because
everybody in The United Stateswill just be a lawyer or a, I
don't know, a movie actor or arock star.
And no one will have to buildanything because they'll build
it all in Mexico and China andAfrica and India. And you'll

(56:43):
just just chill and and dowhatever you want. Have a good
time. And we'll have universalbasic income and so forth. What
we have here is is a a mixtureof what's called neoliberalism,
which is the sort of aperverted, globalized version of

(57:04):
free markets, which makes localmarkets unfree.
So what you have here is but butit's all essentially, what's
gone wrong here is is thegovernment. The government has
imposed a vision of what peopleare like, that we are, what was
that phrase cogs in a globalmachine? That's accurate. That

(57:26):
people are interchangeable,they're fungible. You can use
them for anything you want.
And then when they're no longerof any value to you, you could
discard them and let them die offentanyl poisoning or any number
of infectious diseases that theymay acquire because of horrible

(57:49):
living conditions and so forth.So what has happened is that
bigness has become the the wayof life is in the West. Big
corporations, big government.Remember, though, that
corporations are not a a thingthat would occur in a free
market. Limited liability wouldnot occur.

(58:11):
Corporations are made bygovernment. They are they are,
licensed by the government, Andthe idea was was, well, we'll
get greater investment if wetake away the risk of, of losing
your money if you invest in acorporation, if you buy stock.
But what that means then is thatmakes corp corporations less

(58:34):
responsible. So when youcomplain about corporate
irresponsibility, the leftcomplains about that a lot, but
it was government that createdthat. So all of these problems
ultimately come down togovernment.
And what the new right hasobserved is that these problems
that are being created, thepeople who said that they were

(58:57):
going to solve those problems,the Republicans, have never done
it. They just have dropped theball. And Trump, for his, to to
to his great credit in in 2016,made it very clear that the
Republicans were responsible forgoing along with all this. And

(59:19):
so that created a the ah. Itcreated the the permission for
this new movement to arise, andtechnology, especially
communications technology, madeit possible for it to spread
very rapidly.
So what we have come we've cometo the point now where the the

(59:41):
things that government has donefor multiple decades now, all
the things that we talk aboutweek after week, for starters,
the things that government hasdone for multiple decades have
infected the people. They have,undermined enterprise, personal
responsibility, individualstrengths, and they've taken

(01:00:03):
that away from people. And thethe new right has recognized
that the, frankly, the nationalreview type of right went along
with this, and they wereactually critical to it being
sustained over the decades. Andthey've said enough. We're not

(01:00:23):
going down that path anymore.
And I think it's great becausethey're actually going back to
the pre World War two. The thewhole, impression, is of a small
government, local control, proliberty, self reliance, sound

(01:00:44):
money, traditional values, and,yes, Christian orientation that
the right had before, World Wartwo and the rise of, the the
conservative movement in thenineteen fifties, which was
especially, policed by nationalreview for multiple decades

(01:01:06):
thereafter. Well, that's theSorry. Go ahead.

Linnea Lueken (01:01:09):
I was gonna say, yes. And I'd like you to expand
on that history, Sam, because Iknow you've spent a lot of time
engaging with that. And that'ssomething that what I guess you
could call like the dissident.Right? Which would include like
our McIntyre, Kurt Yervin and abunch of other folks on that
kind of side of what I wouldput.

(01:01:31):
I want to be clear on what wemean by the new right in that we
don't really have a clear likethere's no specific definition
for the new right. But whatwe're using this term to mean
and you can see from ourthumbnail, like there's a huge
range of personalities in thatthumbnail. And there's even

(01:01:51):
maybe not even ones that I wouldagree with or that make up the
coalition that I would leantowards, but are nonetheless,
you know, being influential insome way or another. But like,
it's a it's a totally differentcoalition than what we had

(01:02:11):
during the Bush years, you know,and we have I think we might
have found the correct clip forVance. But the he's he's gonna
articulate some ideas in thisclip that I hope that we can
play.
Jim, yes or no?

JD Vance (01:02:27):
Nations represented here face. I believe there is
nothing more urgent than massmigration.

Nope. You played the same old one. The short one.

Jim Lakely (01:02:37):
It's the clip it's the clip you gave me. I'm sorry.

Chris Talgo (01:02:40):
Linea, but, you know, it's not those people that
are determining this. It's thepolicies that they're espousing.
And, Sam, real quick on the onthe corporation thing. I am not,
you know, in the business ofdefending corporations, but I
think that what led them to dowhat they've done and, you know,
go overseas and outsourcing andall this stuff was government

(01:03:02):
policies. Right.
So if we reverse thosegovernment policies and and and
and incentivize corporations tocome back to The United States,
that will be a boon to theAmerican economy and the
American people. And we'reseeing that. We're seeing Donald
Trump say, hey, you know,Hyundai, come build a steel
plant here in Louisiana. We willmake it affordable for you to do

(01:03:23):
that. And we're seeing thesecorporations respond to that.
I also think that a big part ofthis is the the crazy wars that
both parties have been fightingfor twenty plus years and the
fact that the American peopleare really sick and tired of
that. And we saw the Republicansreally get jump on board on that
after 09/11, and I I was totallyfor the invasion of Afghanistan.

(01:03:48):
But then that led to theinvasion of Iraq, which at
first, according to the media,it was it was necessary to do,
but then we found out, no, itwasn't. And there have been so
many other instances withUkraine, you know, on and on and
on of The United States spendingour taxpayers' money on these
foreign wars that the Americanpeople don't even want anymore.

(01:04:09):
And Liz Cheney and AdamKinzinger and all those
Republicans, they've been bootedfrom the party because the party
no longer represents that.
I think that's another hugeportion of this. So there's the
economic thing. There's the theinternational, relations thing,
but there's also the culturalthing. And finally finally, this
this new new right, JD Vance,Donald Trump, you know, there's

(01:04:32):
so many others that we can thatwe can name. What are they
doing?
They're saying, you know what?There's two genders. Sorry,
everybody. We know you don'twanna hear this, you know,
leftist, but there are twogenders, and we are gonna make
sure that that we do that. Whatare they doing on climate?
They're saying this wholeclimate change is BS. I saw so
many Republicans from George W.Bush to Liz Cheney on and on and

(01:04:55):
on who was who were totally onboard with the climate scam.
Donald Trump came out of nowhereand said, no. That is that is
complete BS.
We need energy dominance. J. D.Vance is doing the same thing. I
think those are the big issuesthat the people are saying, yes.
Finally, someone is speaking onbehalf of it. Call it populism.
Call it whatever you want. Butit's really just common sense

(01:05:18):
America First policies. For somany decades now, The United
States has been part of we'vebeen told that we need to be
part of this global this thisglobal economy, and we're global
citizens.
We're not. The world is made upof countries. Donald Trump is
putting America First, and he'ssaying, I'm gonna do things that
are in the best interest of theAmerican people and especially

(01:05:41):
younger American people.Education, school choice, I
mean, on and on and on. That isI think why so many people,
especially young people, arejumping on board this, quote,
new right.
Because what they've said is wereject the uniparty. We reject
the GOP of Ritt Romney and andthe Bushes. And, you know, what

(01:06:06):
happened in 2015 and 2016 whenDonald Trump came down that
escalator and took on all thosepeople, including Jeb Bush, and
just threw them to the side andsaid, you know what? No. No.
This is not what the Americanpeople want anymore. It took so
many years for the MitchMcConnells and the John Thunes
to on and on and on to finallysay, you know what? We gotta

(01:06:27):
probably go in in this guy'sdirection. It didn't happen
overnight, but it took almost adecade. And I think that we
might see a similar thing happenon the side of the democrats
because I think that the thestatus quo of the democrat party
is done.
I hope that they don't go downthe squad crazy left road

(01:06:48):
because I feel that that wouldonly be 20% of the American
people who really want that. Andwe do wanna have a two party
system. We wanna have commonsense Kennedy esque Democrats
who are for America First, whoare for low taxes and and, you
know, pro business, pro economicgrowth, that's what we want. And
we wanna have two parties thatare competing and have very good

(01:07:09):
ideas about the future. There'salso a lot of stuff that's
coming down the pike that isgonna that is gonna really
revolutionize our society, ourworld, our economy, and all
sorts of things.
AI, quantum computing, giantdata centers. The GOP is jumping
on board that and saying, we arethe ones who are gonna take us
into this new golden age. Youcan't do that without, fossil

(01:07:32):
fuels. You can't do that withoutThe United States becoming, you
know, an industrial powerhouseagain. That's what I think this
is about, and that's why so manypeople, especially young people,
are responding to that.
Because you know what? Thebottom line is it's common
sense.

Sam Karnick (01:07:45):
Yeah. Chris, you brought it and you brought up an
important point, which is thatthe the the right has always
been anti war. And and and andwar a war footing always
strengthens government and makesgovernment bigger and bigger.
Leading up to World War two, theright was against getting
involved in the war untilsomehow we we failed to notice

(01:08:08):
that the Japanese were about tobomb Pearl Harbor. And so what
happened there was that thenright after the war, we go right
into a cold war.
And who was the strongestsupporter who were the strongest
supporters of that cold war? Thethe the the left and the
Kennedys and and the like, thethe slightly left of center, not

(01:08:31):
anything like what they aretoday. They supported the Cold
War. But the conservatives, theRepublicans, they supported the
Cold War too. This was the thethe national review, William f
Buckley movement that that theanticommunist movement that that
posited that we need to fight aa quiet world war behind the

(01:08:56):
scenes in order to keep theSoviet Union from doing what?
The Soviet Union was weak andpathetic, and they were they
were they were doing very evilthings, But we could we could
have stopped them one by oneinstead of just participating in
wars all around the world,including Korea, Vietnam, places

(01:09:18):
like that. This was the rightthat managed to push all this
into the into the forefront andput the nation on a a permanent
war footing. So the the issueyou bring up is is really
important, which is that theright has always been anti war
because we're against biggovernment.

Yeah. You know, The United the right is supposed to
be anti war but strong onnational defense. And Right. I
just feel that in the past fewdecades, in particular since
September 11, the right hasabandoned those principles. And
we, not we, because I do not Ido not agree with this, but many
many influential leaders on theright were saying, no, we need

(01:10:02):
the patriarch.
You know, don't worry about yourliberty. It's all about your
security. And I think that aftertwenty years of that, people are
saying, you know what? Wedisagree with this. We don't
want this.
We have wasted trillions andtrillions of dollars, and it
didn't really actually make usany safer. And the world is
still a very volatile place.It's always gonna be a volatile

(01:10:24):
place, but America should useits resources mostly to make
sure that Americans areprotected. Protecting the
border, you know, law and order,all this kind of stuff. That's
what Trump is bringing back tothe table, And it has
unfortunately been ignored, Ithink, for far too long.

Well, the the kind of, I guess, the kind of
national review Republican, orthe national review conservative
that we have been kind ofalluding to here is like pretty
allergic to the kind of commentsthat have been being made. I
hate to use the wordrevolutionary, but that is kind

(01:11:01):
of how it feels breakdown of theGOP and everything. We're not
going to go back to it. So ifpeople have an attachment to the
Bush years and stuff, then oreven frankly, to parts of the
Reagan years. Sorry, but we'renot going back to that.
There is only moving forward onthese subjects. I want to so

(01:11:25):
apparently Slack or not SlackStreamYard hates it when Twitter
has two video clips embedded inthe same tweet. And so it kept
going to the longer one. So I'mjust gonna read the quote from
Vance that I like. So what hesaid was contrary to what you
might hear a couple mountainsover in Davos, the citizens of
all of our nations don'tgenerally think of themselves as

(01:11:47):
educated animals or asinterchangeable cogs of a global
economy.
And it's hardly surprising thatthey don't want to be shuffled
about or relentlessly ignored bytheir leaders. And I think that
that's something that ties inboth to the economic issue and
also to the, you know, the theglobal war issue. You know, the
The United States wanted to bean empire without actually

(01:12:10):
taking on the responsibilitiesof being an empire is what it
feels like. And they were theretoo many European and too and
too much of The United Stateshas been willing to just throw
young men to the meat grinderfor decades for what what
result? I mean, what tangibleresults?

(01:12:30):
Basically nothing. Right?

Ukraine.

Yeah. And and it's it's given us nothing. It's
given us a lot of headstones.It's forwarded, you know, the
military industrial complex. Iactually have heard arguments
from old, like GOP types that weactually should be okay with

(01:12:57):
this stuff because it's good forour economy to be continuously
sending weapons to Ukraine, tobe continuously.
No, I don't care if it is if itif it is good for our economy in
terms of numbers on a chart orsomething, then maybe we need to
rethink how much deference we'regiving. You know, line goes up

(01:13:18):
on a chart because it's notworking for our souls in this
regard.

It's not increasing Americans living standards, and
that's what this is all about.Donald Trump wants to increase
Americans living standards byhaving a sound currency, by
increasing manufacturing basehere in America. Just simple
things that have been that havebeen overlooked for so long.
That's what this is about. Andthe status quo, the the Mitt

(01:13:43):
Romney's of the world, theydon't want that.
And, you know, another part ofthis, I think, in the the quote
new right is the fact that thenew right fights. Mitt Romney,
George H. W. Bush, George W.Bush, John McCain even, all
these people, they didn't fight.
They almost were were justwilling to just give in on
anything because, you know, themedia would scream, and Donald

(01:14:06):
Trump has taken all that andjust reshuffled the deck. And
it's all about fighting forwhat's right. And that has been
a huge, I think, benefit to theto the new right, and that's why
so many people are excited forthis.

Remember that, in the nineties, we did have a
movement that was, pretty muchnew right. What the current new
right is was was alreadyhappening then. You had, Ross
Perot and then especially PatBuchanan. And what happened with
Pat Buchanan was veryinteresting is the National
Review had a big issue thereand, with multiple, multiple

(01:14:41):
authors, many, many authors allsaying Pat Buchanan is anti
Semitic. Now what on earth?
It's a ludicrous claim. But whatPat Buchanan was was very much
pro American, and Buchanan'smain point was that regular
people, people who want to workor do work, do not benefit as

(01:15:07):
much from their efforts as theyused to. That's simple. That's a
simple story. And guess what?
It was right. It was true. Hewas right. And so National
Review, for some reason, wasterrified of this person and
cast him out just the way they'dcast out the John Birch Society.
And they they cast out everybodythat they they they that they

(01:15:30):
feel is going to make PBSstations, say, mean things about
Republicans.
Well, if Republicans are justthe tail being wagged by the
Democrats, what good are they?Well, the answer is they're no
good. And that's there you go.And that's what's and that's
what's happening. Yes.

(01:15:50):
They they tried to to read Trumpout of the movement. But the
reason that that was was wrongand stupid was because everybody
then said, well, if he's not themovement, then I don't care
about you. I don't care what youhave to say about him because
I'm hearing good stuff from him.I'm hearing that he cares about

(01:16:12):
me. You don't seem to.
Yep. And that's that is the keything that the the the the true
right of this country has beenthere all along, but it's been
suppressed by, frankly, EastCoast Liberals who go under the
the the aegis of conservatismand, infected the Republican

(01:16:36):
party. And many of them, ofcourse, a vast number of them
were originally not justliberals, but leftists or
Marxists. And National Reviewwas itself started by a a whole
lot of Marxists. So none of thisshould surprise us.
But what what if if there'sanything that should surprise

(01:16:56):
us, it's that we finally gotthrough it. It's over.

That Yeah.

People look at that and they go, oh, down with
Trump. It's like, well, downwith you.

Yeah. Let let let me weigh in here a little bit. I'm
I'm looking. I'm the one whopulled up the cover against
Trump, the editors, and then allof these other people, you know,
against Trump in the cover ofNational Review, probably the
most notorious cover story andcover they've ever had. I'm
looking at the names here.
You probably can't read them onthe screen. They're very small.
But Glenn Beck, Brent Bozell,Ben Dominick, who's a friend of

(01:17:31):
ours, Eric Erickson, Steven F.Hayward, Bill Crystal, Yuval
Levin, Dana Lash. We haveMichael Medved, Ed Meese against
Trump.
Who else? Cal Thomas, ThomasSowell, Katie Pavlich. Those are
some of the names against Trump.At least half of the people on
that list would not considerthemselves against Trump. In

(01:17:54):
fact, there are some of DonaldTrump and his policies biggest
cheerleaders in the media today.
And so when you look at this, soI find that pretty interesting.
When you look at this thumbnailthat the great Donald Kendall
made for us on our podcasttoday, look at the look at the
people put in black and whiteand X ed out, you know, George
W. Bush, George Will, JonahGoldberg, William F. Buckley,

(01:18:16):
that's Jennifer Rubin and BillCrystal. They are now all in the
they make a living.
Well, the writers on that listdo that are still alive make a
living being anti Trump. And itis a very small it's a very
small cadre of people. You getto go work at the bulwark or
somewhere else and they've lostthese these used to be some of
the most influential people onthe right for for normies to get

(01:18:41):
into and to understandconservatism. George Will was a
hero of mine. I met him.
He gave a talk when I lived inFredericksburg, Virginia. I was
nervous going up to meet him. Iadmired him so much. He was the
best reason to watch this weekwith David Brinkley. He was just
fantastic and brilliant, youknow, and William F.
Buckley with his firing lineshow and Jonah Goldberg, you
know, it breaks my heart.Liberal liberal fascism was one

(01:19:03):
of the best, you know, popularbooks on conservatism and
exposing the hard left that hasbeen written in the last twenty
years. And he's gone completelyanti Trump. And it's it's made
him in my mind and it's tragic.It's tragic.
You know, I can't read himanymore. And you look at the
people that we have on the topof the thumbnail that are in
color. You have RFK Jr, you haveTulsi Gabbard, you have Matt

(01:19:27):
Walsh, who's with The DailyWire, you have J. D. Vance, of
course, and even Megan Kelly,who, you know, had it in her to
to take Trump down.
And she campaigned for him forthe first time ever. She
campaigned for a presidentialcandidate this last election,
and she is a full throated Trumpsupporter. And what I think I
mentioned this on this podcastquite a bit. The rise and

(01:19:50):
success of Trump broke thebrains of a lot of people. It
broke the brains of Hollywood,and it broke the brains of what
we now call the old right, theirrelevant right that's way far
back in the rearview mirror.
And it's it's also broken theleft. You know, the fact that
RFK Jr, who was a Democrat, hisentire life, I mean, he's

(01:20:12):
Democrat royalty. And now he ispart of the MAGA movement and
Trump's administration. Thereason why there is the rise of
a new right with a much biggertent, the big tent that they
used to talk about on the GOP inthe eighties and in the
nineties, this tent is biggerthan it's ever been and it keeps
growing. And the other side ofthat coin, the other reason why

(01:20:32):
there is a new right is becauseof how radical the Democratic
Party has gone to the left.
One person we do not have onthis thumbnail is Elon Musk.
Elon Musk was a Democrat hisentire life, And then he saw
that Twitter had banned theBabylon Bee because they called

(01:20:53):
Rachel Levine the man of theyear. And that pissed him off.
And he said, we should have freespeech. You should be able to
actually make fun of people.
And that was look, look what itstarted. You know, that old meme
of like, you know, the littletiny domino and then it goes to
the big domino, you know, andthe first domino is X bands, the
Babylon Bee, and then the bigdomino is, you know, Elon Musk

(01:21:14):
is tearing the government apart.So, you know, if it wasn't for
the left going completely nutsand Chris, you pointed you
touched on this when you talkedabout the cultural issues that
the left has dominated, youknow, pushing the idea of 57
genders. Facebook had that intheir in their thing. You know,
all this the DEI, the ESG, theradical climate environmentalism

(01:21:34):
stuff, all of that has pushedpeople who just can't remain in
a movement that believes inthese sorts of crazy, un
American, uneconomic andpunishing things.
And so that's why Tulsi Gabbardis now part of the new right.
That's why RFK Jr. Is now partof the new right, because they
believe in free speech. They maynot believe in super limited

(01:21:56):
government, but they do believein free speech and they believe
that America is a good countryand a great country and needs to
recover its sense of self again,that it's been being patriotic
is not a bad thing. But that iswhat the left and the Democrat
party have basically taughtgenerations of kids through our
public schools.
And so the rise of the new rightis still going on and I think

(01:22:19):
it's going to continue to gethigher as the people here in
black and white will be left,know, they said in the Reagan
years on the dustbin of history.

And I think it's worthwhile to note, too, that
there are a lot of you know,it's not like we have to only
look to, you know, the past,although, people of my
generation, it's interesting inthe circles that I've drifted in
and out of on the right on theonline right and maybe the very

(01:22:47):
online. It's a lot of us whogrew up reading Thomas Sowell
and who grew up reading Hayekand everything. And so we're all
very well versed in kind of thefundamental kind of libert
conservatarian or libertarianminded side of the of the

(01:23:08):
conservative kind of ecosystem.And now what people my age are
reading is like Chesterton andHeller Belloc and stuff. It's
very interesting.
And I think, Sam, I wanted tohear your take on this. The the
shift in like a renewed interestin much older thinkers in

(01:23:33):
American conservative thoughtand British conservative
thought, I suppose, well.European thought is really,
really interesting because likewe kind of alluded to at the the
start of the show, you know, thepart of the new right that's
forming as part of that big tentis kind of just like the much

(01:23:54):
older right. And I think thatthe big tent thing that we have
right now is probably somethingof a transitional stage. I don't
think it's I don't think it'sgoing to stay a big tent
forever.
I don't think that this is wherethe line is gonna be drawn, you
know, twenty years from now. ButI think that it's an important

(01:24:15):
kind of dissolving of the originlike, the the last thirty,
forty, fifty years of DemocratRepublican, you know,
borderlines. Sam, what what'syour take on that?

Well, you're right. The in particular, the the new
right is still figuring thingsout. And that's why it's it's
interesting to have that that,montage there with with the or
collage, I should say, with the,pictures of Kennedy and Gabbard.
It's it's true that that the theright is is still figuring it

(01:24:50):
out. But I think the theoutlines and the principles and
the ideas are are pretty set,and they are the the pre World
War two right.
As you pointed out, the people,who have a sort of a freedom
oriented, small governmentmindset, who like the idea of

(01:25:14):
being able to figure out theirlives for themselves and not
have a giant government, basedsomehow in Brussels telling
telling people in Ohio what todo. And and then, and then not
cleaning it up when when theydrop poison on the ground there.

(01:25:36):
I think that that people look atthat and they go, well,
obviously, this system doesn'twork. Where can I find thinkers
who look at things the way I do?And so what happens is you've
got a very much of anintellectual ferment on the
right that is not occurring onthe left.

(01:25:59):
So there's a great bubbling upof of thoughts and ideas and
discussions. There's a lot of,contention and even some anger
that goes, that goes with it.But what's really going on there
is people are exploring things.They're exploring new ideas
because they know that the onesthat we've been living under for
decades don't work. They'reinhumane and inhuman.

(01:26:23):
And so as as, people startdiscussing these issues,
somebody says, well, you know,the GK Chesterton actually had
this idea called distributism. Idon't know if it would work
nowadays. And it it it's a anodd idealistic thing. But what
distributism was all about wasthat common people should have a

(01:26:46):
certain amount of economicindependence. That's really all
it is.
And you you you hear you heard,Ross Perot say that. You heard
Pat Buchanan say that. You heardRon Paul say that. And then you
heard Donald Trump say that. Andso people are are looking back

(01:27:07):
to these pre World War twopeople on the right, I don't
call them conservatives.
Conservative right now is you'reconserving the welfare state and
sexual revolution and all kindsof other things. So, and the
administrative state, I don'tthink that that's anything,
really to be admired. That's myopinion on it. But the so the

(01:27:32):
the entire right was horriblyinfected, I believe, by the the
the the the fusionist nationalreview point of view. And there
was much good to be found infusionism, but ultimately, it it
was a big government program.
It was a liberal program. That'swhy if I if I had to to name

(01:27:57):
what that old right was, whichis not the old right, the old
right is pre World War two. If Ihad to name it, I'd call it the
left right because it really wasa leftist right. And it was
almost like a mock right. Maybewe should call it that, the mock
right.
Because, when when when you whenyou read that national review
issue that that Jim put up onthe screen there, it is really,

(01:28:20):
it is really appalling that,wait a minute. This isn't what
America is about. The real theright has always wanted to go
back to the foundations of whatAmerica is all about. And so in
order to do that, you have to dowhat I think it was CS Lewis who
said this, who's another onewho's getting a good deal of

(01:28:42):
admiration nowadays and welldeserved. But Lewis said when
when you're on the wrong track,what you have to do is you have
to just go back until you reachthe fork where you went wrong
and then go down the other path.
And that's what we've that'swhat the right is doing, in my
view. So they're they're goingback they're going way back past

(01:29:02):
the National Review and and, thenineteen sixties and Barry
Goldwater. So they've gone back.Obviously, George W. Bush is
going way back past that.
And and then they go, well,Barry Goldwater, yeah, he was
okay. But, you know, look whathappened since. And then they go
back, well, National Review.Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. The anticommunism didkinda lead to some of the things

(01:29:22):
that we're looking at today. Sothey go back, and and it's only
before World War two that youthat you can start to see a
right that looks like the peoplethat love America and want to
want this place to be what thefounders of the nation intended
when they when they built it. SoI think that that's that's the

(01:29:45):
key, and that's why people aregoing back to these thinkers.

I gotcha. I think I what what strikes me real Chris.
What strikes me when you youlook at the list of the people
on the cover of the NationalReview against Trump and the
purpose of that issue and from apublication as important to the
conservative movement asNational Review, they were
staking out a claim thatconservatism is incompatible

(01:30:08):
with a Trump presidency. Right.And they said, stand with us.
You know, their their famous,motto is standing athwart
history yelling stop. They werestanding athwart a Trump
presidency yelling stop and alot of people that were standing
with him have left. And I thinkwhat's really when you talk
about the old right and the newright is that that was a bad

(01:30:30):
bet. And what we've actuallyseen, the reason why some very
principled people like StephenF. Hayward and Ben Domenech and
others have embraced Trump andTrumpism and his two terms as
president is because it's aconservatism that actually gets
results.
It's a foreign policy that isnot expansionist. And like you

(01:30:51):
said, know, the neocons and allthat kind of stuff. So it was a
more reasonable pro Americanforeign policy, not just in
wars, but in trade and indiplomacy and everything else.
It was an American first energyand economic policy. And those
were things that I thought I wasalways I was always for it.
I thought that's whatconservatism was always for. And

(01:31:11):
instead, the National Reviewtypes, I hate to say it like
that, but, you know, thosepeople, they put their standard
down and it's getting verylonely there and they've lost a
lot of their influence. And Ithink it's a tribute to those
who once were on that cover havedecided to go with their
principles. And that is in thedirection that they are in now.

I still think The United States is primarily a
center right nation. I thinkthat the polling shows that. And
I think when you look back tolet's go to 2012, for example.
So 2012, Obama was not pollingvery well. The economy was still
pretty bad.
The American people were werenot happy with the way the
course of the country was going,but we put up Mitt Romney. And

(01:31:53):
Mitt Romney was the left light.Okay? He was not espousing
conservative libertarianprinciples in a, you know,
fighter esque manner. And Ithink that what has happened is
Donald Trump has taken thatmantle, and he has run with it.
And what the people have seenis, you know what, when a guy

(01:32:14):
comes into office, says he'sgonna do these things and just
does them, that's what we want,that's what we like. It's his
policies, but it's also the factthat The United States, we were
told in 2012, we were told in'28 also, 2016 and '2, that the
GOP was on the verge ofextinction and that Hispanics
would never vote for the GOP andthat black people would never

(01:32:35):
vote for the GOP and youngpeople would never ever vote for
the GOP. And what we saw happenin 2016 was Donald Trump made a
little bit of inroads with someof those groups, and then they
went back to 2020 and voted forJoe Biden. And then they had to
they had to live through fouryears of torture, a terrible
economy, terrible foreignpolicy, just terrible cultural

(01:32:57):
policies, just across the board,terribleness. And I think that
was a giant wake up call.
And what we saw in twenty twentyfour election was a lot of
Hispanic people saying, you knowwhat, this whole illegal
immigration thing, we're overit, we're done with it. We want
the guy who's gonna come hereand crack down on that. Young
people saying, you know what,we're actually gonna vote for

(01:33:17):
the guy who's actually gonnaprotect, you know women in men's
sports, Okay? All those kind ofthings I think is what really
led to the rise of the quote newright. And as long as
Republicans stay true to thatmessage because it's resonating
and it's gonna resonate with theHeartland people for, I think,
decades to come, I think thatthey can have a hold on power

(01:33:37):
for a very long time.
And if they go back to the oldway and say, woah, we gotta go
back to the more like left lightstuff, more spending, more
foreign wars, more climatechange BS that the American
people are gonna say, man, youyou guys, you know, you you had
it right for a little bit, andnow you went right back to the
to the bad stuff. So I thinkit's a very pivotal point. I

(01:34:01):
hope that, JD Vance or whomeverbecomes the republican candidate
in 2028, that they take thisAmerica First mag agenda,
whatever you wanna call it, andjust run with it. Because I
think if they do, that they willbe in a position of power for a
very long time to come. And thatis a good thing because the
policies that they are puttinginto place are great for the

(01:34:22):
American people.
And the policies that theDemocrats have been putting in
place for a very long time havebeen very bad for the American
people. This is not aboutpolitics. It's about policy. And
like Jim said, it's all aboutthe policy outcomes. It's not
about the intentions of those.
Obamacare was intended to lowerhealth care cost, the great and,
you know, do all these things.They didn't pan out. Donald

(01:34:44):
Trump's policies pan out, andwe're gonna see that in the over
the next four years. And I thinkthat the American people are
finally realizing it, that wedon't have to live in this
global, you know, environment.We can live in an American first
environment, and it's gonna bebetter for us.
And that's what this is allabout.

I've long been writing that governments that
that excuse me. Republicansshould act like Democrats in how
they approach their jobs. Theyshouldn't vote like Democrats.
They shouldn't legislate likeDemocrats, but they should act
like Democrats. The the the,answer there is just win, baby.
Don't worry about, don't don'tworry about what what the

(01:35:23):
Atlantic thinks of you. The heckwith that.

Yeah.

I mean, it's it's like I I I I I'm gravitating
toward that phrase, the Machright, because it it it never
was right. It never was theAmerican right. And so if you if
you're chasing a dream of ofuniversalism, which is the same
thing that the left is chasing,you're not gonna win on that

(01:35:48):
issue because they'll do itbetter than you. We saw it under
Joe Biden. He was the best atdoing that.
It and we've all seen theresults. And and so now but what
was great about it, and, Chris,you brought this up, is that we
had to go through four years ofmisery, and we all knew that was
coming, that it was going to bemiserable. But what really

(01:36:11):
happened there was that themisery created a whole bunch of
eighty twenty issues, where 80%of the people are on one side
and 20% are on the other side.And the Democrats and the mock
right, the Lincoln project and,all those, goofy people, the
bulwark, they're all on the 20side. And here we all are on the

(01:36:35):
80% side saying, well, you know,this is a transgender thing.
I mean, come on. These guys arebeating up girls. That's there's
something wrong with that. Youknow? And so it's it's simple
common sense, but it took acertain amount of of of courage
on Donald Trump's part.
Or I would call it, I wouldsuggest that he's probably on
the the other side of theAristotelian mean, which is

(01:36:58):
reckless, and that I think weneeded that. In 2016, we needed
somebody who just said, I don'tcare. I don't care. I'm not
gonna win anyway. So I'm justgoing to tell the truth and and,
create this, discussion.
And in in instead, he gotelected. So I I think that
that's that's really where we'reat. We we have a a different

(01:37:21):
kind of mindset out there nowavailable to us. It's not
finished by any means. It'sgonna take a while, but it's a
pro American mindset and it'svery foundations.
And that in my view is a goodthing. And like Jim said, it's
what I've always been for.

Yeah. I think just to kind of wrap things up a
little bit here, but, you know,someone recently said on X and I
can't remember who it was. Itwas probably Lomas or Chris
Ruffo or someone like that. Andthey said or maybe it was
McIntyre. I'm not sure.
But they said that the theperson who wants to win will

(01:38:02):
always beat the person who wantsto be left alone, which is
something that like my heartbecause I always grew up, you
know, I was that conservatarianwho said, I just want to be left
alone. I don't want to, youknow, inflict anything on
anybody else. You know, my mylifestyle is my lifestyle or
whatever. But, man, have thelast couple of decades shown

(01:38:23):
that that is kind of a atoothless commentary to make,
you know, I just wanna be leftalone. Well, that's all fine and
good, but the other side wantsto defeat you and crush you
under their boot.
So it's time to You

be standing at at you have to be standing at your
gate with a the plastic gun.

Yeah. Have

to win.

You know? And and and people dang it. People want
a country. They want a goodcountry. And like Vance
articulated so well over therein Europe, People don't want to
just be another widget in theglobal economy that gets tossed
out and borders don't matter.
Your culture doesn't matter. Youknow, we're all part of a global

(01:39:10):
culture that is just kind oflike a gray mush that all blends
together. No, darn it. Peoplewant a country. People want
people have loyalties that arestronger than just, you know,
the GDP.
All right. So and I think that'ssome of what Trump has really
touched on very well. And sojust to close us out, I want us

(01:39:33):
to go around because I know thatSam is always reading stuff. I
know Chris is always readingstuff. And I know that Jim is as
well.
Two books in the last couple ofyears that have, like,
influenced your thinking on theright here. For me, I think I
would probably go with OrinMcIntyre's Total State, which

(01:39:56):
was very, very good. Also a bookby a professor, Reisard
Lagutko's The Demon inDemocracy, which is about how
liberal democracies can kind ofslide into totalitarianism on
accident or on purpose directed.So those are my two. Sam, what

(01:40:16):
you got?

I'm going to go with War and Peace by Leo
Tolstoy first, which is setduring the Napoleonic era. And
it it the central premise of thebook is that the the whole,
great men of history notion isis false, which is that, social
forces and stupidity and,circumstances, make history.

(01:40:43):
And, I I think he he makes agreat point there, which is
this, that being free to liveyour own life is the one thing
that people really want, and allthe rest of it is a bunch of
rubbish. So I I let me just gowith that one. And and, if you

(01:41:03):
have time to read a 1,600 pagebook, you will profit greatly
from it.

All right, Jim?

Would also The Total State by RM McIntyre is
mandatory reading, think. It'shighly recommended. And also his
YouTube channel, you shouldcheck out all the stuff that RM
McIntyre does. He has veryinteresting conversations with
just himself and with you andwith other guests as well, so I
would highly recommend checkinghim out, making him a regular

(01:41:32):
part of your consumption. Andalso, on a little bit lighter
note, I suppose, The AntiCommunist Manifesto by Jesse
Kelly.
Not exactly a huge intellectual.The guy's a former RV salesman
and marine who has made himselfquite a career in media these
days. But what I like about themessaging of that is the anti

(01:41:59):
communist manifesto. Is one ofthe few people, RM McIntyre is
another one, who will call themodern left what it is and that
we do have communists andcommunists in our government and
in our culture that are tryingto control, trying to take over
the world. Communist dream didnot die in 1989 when the Berlin
Wall came down or when theSoviet Union dissolved in 1991.

(01:42:20):
The dream is still alive for theglobal left, and that's a pretty
clear eyed view of it.

Alright. Chris?

I'm gonna go with America's Wise Man, Victor David
Hanson. His book called TheDying Citizen was just amazing.
It really encapsulatedeverything that we've just
talked about. But I'm also gonnago with another book and it's
conveniently located rightbehind me. And it's called The
Great Reset.
And as you can see, it's withGlenn Beck, Justin Haskins, and

(01:42:51):
Donald Kendall. Justin Haskinsand Donald Kendall work here at
the Arlen Institute. And GlennBeck, although he was on that
cover, apparently, he isdefinitely pro Trump, pro MAGA,
pro this whole new right thing.And this really, I think,
summarizes and explains theglobalist agenda. It's called

(01:43:13):
Glenn Beck with Justin Haskins,Joe Biden, and the rise of
twentieth century fascism, thegreat reset.
This is a couple of years old,but it's still extremely timely.
I highly recommend it. And, Ithink that, Glenn Beck has had a
change of heart, and I'm veryglad that he has.

Alright. Well, I'm gonna cut us off right
there. That's all the time wehave. We went way over, but I
think it was worth it. We'll seein the comments that people are
mad that we went for two hoursalmost, but I personally, I
could have gone on for anotherprobably hour on this topic,
gotten a little bit morespecific, but, unfortunately, we
are a bit time limited by ourschedule.
So thank you everybody fortuning in. We are live every

(01:43:55):
single week at on Thursdays atnoon central on Rumble, Twitter,
YouTube, Facebook, wherever. Foraudio listeners, please rate us
well on whatever service you'reusing. Leave a review. Thank you
so much to our usual panelists.
You guys, Jim, anything to plug?

Oh, you can follow me on x at Jay Lakeley. Follow
the Heartland Institute on x atHeartland Inst, and always visit

heartland.org. Alright. Chris?

Yeah. Heartland.org. We've got some,
policy papers coming out. Once akind of CSDDD. Go read it.
You'll learn all about it. Wegot a tax cuts paper coming out.
And Sam Karnik just wrote anawesome paper about the economy
and tax rates and the iron cladlaw of revenue. Highly, highly
recommended, especially with allthis reconciliation stuff going

(01:44:40):
on right now.

You have stolen Sam's pitch. Sam, what do you
have to pitch?

Oh, that was very nice, and I really appreciate
compliments, Chris. And I Iagree with you a %. People
should read it. Also check outmy Substack, s t karnik at
Substack.com.

Alrighty. Thanks again, everybody. We will see
you again next week. Goodbye.

All Episodes

The Rise of the New Right - In The Tank #489

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rise of the New Right - In The Tank #489