October 8, 2025 • 56 mins
Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they discuss what Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones' fantasies about murder say about left-wing violence, analyze U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent Senate hearing, and revisit the implications of Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. Mollie and David also share their culture reviews of Superman, Rome, and the Fly on the Wall with Dana Carvey and David Spade podcast.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly having Away, editor in chief of The Federalist
and David Harsani, a senior writer at The Washington Examiner.
Just as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
you can do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
We'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Mother. You're back from your travels. It's been weeks. It
seems like since you've been home.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I've been traveling for like a month I've been I
have not been home much at all. Thankfully, my family
was able to be with me at a wedding two
weekends ago in Nashville, so it hasn't all been without them.
But yeah, since we when we taped last week, I
was in Hillsdale, Michigan. I came home, headed down to
(00:58):
Tampa for memoir, then came back and flew to Phoenix
to host The Charlie Kirk Show, and got back last night.
So glad to be.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Here this week. Let's start with the topic of left
wing violence, which seems to be a running theme for
a while now. I mean, I think it actually goes
back to the sixties, but you know, in modern times
and let's talk about a Virginia Attorney general candidate j Jones,
who's a Democrat. I think he's been up in the polls,
(01:31):
but I think it was I think it was a
National Review that broke the story of his texts with
someone where in essence, not in essence literally, he said
that he'd like to shoot this Republican I think he's
a House member in Virginia, delegate or I'm not sure
what he is, but in the head twice two bullets.
(01:52):
Then he says that his children deserve to be dead.
I think two children, correct.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Yes, So he said, if you had two bullets and
three people in front of you, the Republican political opponent,
Poulpot and Hitler, he would put two bullets in the
head of the Republican Speaker of the House every time.
And he says this to someone who says, you know,
you shouldn't be speaking this way, and he's like, no,
(02:17):
let me explain what I'm saying here, and he digs
down deeper into it, and she, I think she was like,
this is really horrible what you're saying, and he's like, no,
it's not. I have a clear philosophy here, and it's
to murder my political opponents. I mean, he had multiple
opportunities to back away or say oh, that was the
heat of the moment, and then he actually calls her
(02:39):
up and tells her more about this philosophy of his
about killing people, saying that he thinks that that political
opponent's wife I think, or he should be forced to
watch the death of his own children, because then maybe
he'll start following left wing politics, because only the death
of your children that you have to sit there and
(03:00):
watch would make you turn away from Republican politics. I mean,
it's just it's a lot.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Basically, the dude had a bunch of opportunities to walk
it back and say, listen, just saying theoretically, if people
saw their own children dying, they would understand how democrats
are good for society or whatever. But he didn't do that. Obviously,
something wrong with him. I think it speaks to kind
of the way some or many, or I don't know
(03:30):
how many people on the left think about their politics.
It's sort of a life and death issue, you know,
as their religion. Almost this barely got any coverage on
any major news network. I think one of them spoke
about it for sixty three seconds total. The others did
not even mention it. You remember, like, if this was,
(03:54):
first of all, this was Republican, it would be massive,
you know, it would be just huge news. You remember
Todd Aiken was that his you remember, Yeah, And he
said something I don't even remember exactly what he said
that was a major national scandal.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
He said something wrong. I mean, he's what Toddyikin said
was he was being asked about his pro life position.
And there's a thing that happens in the media and
among other Democrats where they say, okay, so you think
that you shouldn't kill a human. I'm getting that, But
what if the human is the product of a rape?
And so it's this like gotcha thing. It's true that
(04:29):
not very many children are conceived by rape, but some are.
I happen to know some who are. And what Toadyikin
had said was that legitimate rape, meaning like I think
what he meant there was like not date rape or
actually I had no idea what he meant there. I
don't know, but it was wrong. He was like, legitimate
(04:51):
rape doesn't usually result in conception of babies. He was wrong,
and it was this politically stupid thing to say, but
it It became the most important nationwide story for weeks
in order to harm the Republicans during the midterm elections,
to take him down. Every single Republican was badgered. Do
(05:11):
you agree with this? What do you think about it?
You know, like you certainly don't think that babies shouldn't
be killed, do you?
Speaker 4 (05:16):
You know?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I mean it just was like a major Democrat propaganda effort,
laundered of course through their propaganda arm, the corporate media.
And you're right when Jay Jones, who's running to be
Attorney general, top law enforcement officer in my commonwealth, says this,
I mean, this is like a big position in a
(05:37):
year where there aren't very many races. Nobody mentions it.
I was reading through the transcripts of the Sunday shows
because I like to do that to see how left
wing media operate. And first of all, it was whatever
Kristen Welker hosts. I always, they're all like so interchangeable.
I forget which one which network is, Which is she NBC?
(05:57):
I don't know, And she has on like two two
left wing journalists near its tand in and then a
never like an anti Trump Republican Mark Short, so that's
like the panel, she does not mention a word of this.
She just basically runs pro Obamacare propaganda throughout the thing
and then mark short mentions like isn't aside Jay Jones
(06:24):
And that's how it got mentioned? And she says, Yesnir,
why don't you talk about it? This could become a
big story. It was like, was not going to become
a big story when you're suppressing it and censoring it
from your show.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Right, it's a local crime story, Molly, just an aside
on Aiken and that whole thing. Like I remember now
writing a column about how Republicans who are pro life
for some reason have never learned how to actually talk
about the more delicate issues regarding that. So if you
ask someone about rape, which is always the big gatchu,
(06:57):
you know, and you might say, you know, it's tragedy
and horrible, but we can't compound one tragedy with the next,
or something like that, and this dummy says, oh, legitimate
rape doesn't Like It's almost like they need to be
sent to some kind of training to give answers that
make that. You know, it's a tough issue that makes
some sort of sense to people.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
I would like to do an aside here. I don't
know if you've seen the viral three minute clip of
a thirty minute video that Katie Porter had with a
California journalist.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Psycho.
Speaker 5 (07:32):
Well.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
I think Katie Porter has a well established reputation is
being kind of crazy, right, like she'd think she dumped
alleged to have dumped boiling mashed potatoes on her husband's
head or ex husband. Staff said, she's a little what
any But in this interview, it's a very gentle like
(07:52):
such a gentle interview, the kind that a Republican would
literally never get. She's asked about how she might try
to reach out to the forty percent of Californians who
voted for Trump, and she's like, why would I need to?
Like why would I need to do that to win?
But the question was really more about like how, like
how would you or just kind of like a discussion
(08:14):
about it. And she starts saying she just doesn't feel
like it's a friendly interview and she doesn't want to
have a friendly and unfriendly discussion and how she doesn't
want this on tape. I was thinking she really thought
that she could say all these things on camera and
that there would be no downside to it, whereas a
(08:35):
Republican political candidate goes into every single interview knowing that
he's headed into war. Actually, speaking of stupid politicians, they
don't usually realize they're headed into war, and that's why
they get royaled so much. But they've never thought this
is going to be a friendly interview. You know, they
remember thought this person, this person has my best interest
at heart. Katie Porter clearly thought that she could just
(08:57):
negotiate with the left winger or with the journalist, because
so many journalists do that. Do you know what I mean? Like,
you don't have that attitude of entitlement to having a
friendlier interview if you haven't spent your whole life having
friendly interviews.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, of course their expectation is that the that the
journalist is going to help them and andb in some
softballs for them to to hit home runs with or whatever.
Maybe we can do another quick aside here and talk
about how it's not exactly an interview, but talk about
Pam Bondi. Is that too weird to segue here? But
talk about Pam Bondi being in front of the Senate yesterday,
(09:33):
I think for five hours or something I only saw highlights,
but they were fantastic. I'm not a huge Pam Bondi fan,
I have to be honest, but I liked her aggressive
attitude and calling like no matter what the senator asked them,
she would she would like hone in on on the
thing that they did, like shutting down the government with
Adam Schiff, like you know, his dishonesty. So I like.
(09:55):
I like that because I find congressional hearings incredibly boring.
Usually I hate the arrogance of senators and how they
talk to the people's show up. This isn't a dictatorship,
you know. They drag CEOs down and burrate them and
don't let them answer questions or even you know, even
even administration members. So I don't know if you saw that,
but it was it was quite quite fun for me
(10:17):
to watch, at least the highlights for it.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I mean, so I haven't seen it yet. I was
on a cross country flight and then just we're taping
this in the morning, so I haven't gotten caught up
on everything from yesterday yet. But I do feel that
something like that is okay because Congress is broken, and
so to pretend that a congressional oversight hearing is trying
(10:44):
to find out facts in a legitimate way, is not.
I don't know how to quite explain what I'm saying. Sorry,
it's too early and I haven't had enough coffee. But
whatever Congress used to be, it's completely broken now. And
these hearings are all about getting clips so that you
can look great for rating a witness and then or
you can send it out to your donor pool so
(11:06):
that they will give you more money. And so I
don't feel you need to be overly deferential. But having
said that, Congress is the article one branch and if
they are looking for information, people should give it, right, Yeah,
they should.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
I mean I didn't love all her answers on, for instance, Holman,
this claim that he was bribed, you know, I don't
you know with fifty thousand dollars. I don't know if
any of that's true, Probably not. But she wouldn't answer
that if she had a tape of this happening with
the FBI, which she release it, and stuff like that.
So I found her circumventing that kind of oversight and
(11:46):
quite annoying, you know, But you're right, it's all grand standing,
or most of it is just grand standing and sound bites.
There are a few Senators John Kennedy from Louisiana, who
I I think he's one of my favorite senators in
a way as far as his grant standing, because he
does go after every I feel like he takes his
job as a senator more seriously than most people.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
I do too.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Actually, I've testified in front of him, and I definitely
picked up that feeling. This reminds me that after I
testified for the second time, so I've testified in front
of a House committee and a Senate subcommittee, and after
I testified the second time, someone I was testifying with
had noted that I hadn't done the normal like pleasantries
when you begin your testimony. And I go back and
(12:29):
I look and actually this is true. Most people say, oh,
your honor, your most honorable people, thank you so much
for allowing me a peasant to speak before your august body,
and thank you so much. And I just kind of
started off with, like, I'm Molly Hemingham, editor in chief
with the Federalist. Here's what we're going through with censorship
or you know, whatever whatever the thing was, because I
(12:51):
do think it's very American to not bow down before
a president or a senator or a member of Congress.
The whole point is that they're supposed to be just people.
I mean, we honor them as elected officials, but you
don't need to over you don't need to guild the
lily there.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Oh my god, and I agree completely. I hate that.
Uh back to.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
We changed, yeah, really quickly, since we're talking about this.
We are taping this ahead of Sean Davis, CEO and
co founder of the Federalists, testifying before the Senate Commerce
Committee today with a bunch of other people on censorship.
And I think a lot of our listeners know that
the Federalist has been in just an epic and existential
(13:35):
battle against censorship, some of which happened from the federal government,
which is, you know, all all of the social media
left wing social media suppression of conservative speech and debate
has been awful to go through. It is unconstitutional when
it's funded or supported or marketed by our federal government.
And so we are in uh we're in talks with
(13:59):
the State Department, who we sued over their role in
the censorship. Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted in our
pages that we were censored for our speech, constitutionally protected speech,
and it's just been a horrible thing and very difficult
to go through, and it kind of was infuriating after
(14:20):
this Jimmy Kimmel's stuff happened. Jimmy Kimmel's on public publicly
regulated airwaves. I'm not even saying. We talked about this already.
You don't have to agree with the rules that are
in place for those publicly regulated airwaves, but the idea
that it's the worst thing in the world if the
laws in the laws regulating those airwaves are actually enforced.
(14:42):
We are the Federalist is not on public anything, and
we should not be censored in any way. And that
we've had to endure so much of it because of
how effective we are has been just been a lot
to deal with. So I'm really glad he'll be testifying
and I can't wait to hear how it goes.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Yeah, maybe we'll talk about that next week. Just quickly,
getting back to j Jones for one moment. There's a
story of his texts which are sick. There's the story
of the lack of coverage in the media's attempts to
(15:20):
silly cover up what is a scandal. Then there We
should also note that not a single as of this taping,
I believe that there is not a single Virginia, not
a single Democrat. I mean in Virginia, who has you know,
rescinded their support for him. There were some perfunctory comments
(15:43):
about how it wasn't very nice, but yet you know
he's the right man? Is he the right man? I
will never understand this sort of thing where I don't
know exactly what technically what they would have to go through,
but is this the only man who can run for
this position in all of Virginia? Is this the man
you want representing Virginia? This will never this scandal will
(16:05):
never leave. This isn't just some He didn't misspeak. He
didn't you know, get angry and say something to someone
that he regretted. Even his apology blamed it, called the
National Review Trump controlled media, like they think they can
(16:25):
just make everything about Donald Trump. His apology was terrible.
And yet I also live in Virginia. The you know
Democrats are right behind him. No one is going to leave.
So what does that say about our politics that we
can't even come together and say a guy who wants
to see his opponent's children dead is not the sort
(16:47):
of person we should have in government. I just feel
like parties are so scared to give an inch that
they're willing to just have no principles at all. I
don't know.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
So I saw my husband noted that Tim Kaine is
standing fully behind am I getting his name right as
Jay Jones.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Right, yeah, J Jones. I always have to look, okay.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Fully behind him. But do you remember when there was
that guy running for governor of Virginia in twenty twelve,
let's say, or something like that, twenty thirteen maybe, and
he had said he'd referred to his tracker kaka yeah,
and it became the Washington Post led a campaign to
get him destroyed and he lost the race. Tim Kaine
(17:34):
was said saying that word, which I don't even think
like was a word that meant anything to anybody, was
grounds for not being governor. But doing what Jay Jones
has done, calling for the assassination of his political opponents
and the murder of their children, is no big deal. Oh,
(17:54):
in which we already explained he defended over and over again,
But that's not all about him. Top law enforcement officer,
he'd berated, and I think osted got someone ousted from
a career law enforcement job for giving twenty five dollars
to the completely exonerated Kyle Rittenhouse Legal fund al Rittenhouse
was involved in trying to call the riots in Kenosha.
(18:19):
He recently was ticketed going one hundred and seventeen miles
per hour on a highway. And oh yeah, I mean,
I'm sad to say not always adhering to all of
our traffic laws. And I'm like, I don't think I've
ever gone that fast. I mean, I know I've never
(18:40):
gotten that fast, like in a car.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
I would love to go that fast.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
And I'm like, wow, that's fast.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
He got away, Yeah, and he got away with it
on sixty four, which is which is a busy highway.
And he got away with it at some community service
I think is allen.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
He did his two years of community service or his
pack his own pack in violation of what the order
of the court was. So this is going to be
our top law enforcement officer. And for perspective, everybody should
know that we are in a great historical aberration in
Virginia where we have a Republican governor, Republican lieutenant governor,
and Republican attorney general. That guy, Jason Maires, our Republican
(19:20):
attorney general, who I think has done a pretty good
job and is well liked, is running for reelection against
this guy. But because of the year being what it is,
it's a midterm ish election in a heavily blue state
that has just gotten doged in everything, people are expecting
just an absolute route by the Democrats in many ways,
(19:41):
and so this isn't just a guy running for age.
He's a guy expected to win as ag And I'm
sure the Democrats looked at that and said, if we
do the if we do the honorable thing of speaking
against political violence in a meaningful way here, we could
lose this race. And we don't want to lose it.
But I'm sitting here thinking, like having an age in
(20:02):
office who wants me and my children dead is legitimately
terrifying to me.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Who breaks the law and gets away with it, I mean,
this is like the last kind of This is just
not a person that should be in that position.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
He also said that if there were fewer what did
you say something about how like police are responsible for
most killings or something in there, Oh.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Or the excuse for him is that
these are private conversations, but I'm sorry, private conversations tell
us a lot about what kind of person you really are.
The other day, someone was asking me some stuff about
something that was controversial out there about other people, and
asked me if I wanted to be off the record, like,
why would I be off the record? You know, why
(20:47):
do you why? I'm just going to tell you what
I think about this stuff, And private conversations say a
lot about people. I know that I've met politicians who
seem to me who I thought were normal in their
public persona, but I met them in real life and
they were either very dumb or they were they seemed
like not very nice people. And that happens a lot.
(21:10):
So it's completely fair game. It's journalism to get your
hands on these texts, to share them with people. It's
not you know, it's not some text that that that
you know, undermines his private life in some way. If
he hasn't done anything wrong. This is clearly matters. It's
about politics, and he, you know, any decent person would
step down by the way, you know, it's on him.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
So did you see that there was I think it
was the is it Newport News or something? Like that.
There was some Democrat committee, a local Democrat committee, that
put out a letter saying, we need to vote for
the guy who wants to kill his political opponents for
the sake of democracy, and also said who among us
has not done something like this? So let he who
(21:54):
is without send cast the first stone. And I'm like,
I've literally I can easily say I have literally never
wished death upon my political opponents and the murder of
their children. I can easily say that.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Yeah. Also, we're not sending him to prison. He's just
not going to be ag if he doesn't run. You
know what I'm saying. He's a lawyer. He's going to
make money in the private sector. He doesn't have a
god given right to be in government. Is he a lawyer?
Speaker 3 (22:24):
Who he knows he is. But he claimed he had
extensive trial experience for in order to win this race,
and that turns out not to have been true. Shocking
that a guy like this would lie.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
But yes, you know, he's probably going to win. Abigail
Spamberger is running for governor. She's probably gonna win. That
woman doesn't have to answer a single question about her past.
No one will ask her. She won't answer questions about
her support, for instance, allowing men in young you know,
(22:56):
in school bathrooms for instance, she simply will not answer
any question about it. So that's how it goes.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Should property taxes just come to an end? The watchdod
on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris
helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and
how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Truly, owning your own home shouldn't be a piggybank for
government to extract revenue. Property taxes will forever make you
not an owner, just nothing more than a surf on
the lord's manner. Whether it's happening in DC or down
on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Be informed.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
Check out the watchdd on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
All right, well, there's one more thing I wanted to
just say about this open support for violence, because I
was saying, I think one of the reasons why people
the Democrat Party is standing so firmly behind this guy
who wants everyone dead is that they more or less
agreement with him that certain political opponents should be killed,
and they keep on saying it so publicly. We're seeing
(24:08):
open support on the left for violence publicly, and some
people were really prescient about this when they started noticing
it with well, I mean, you could say it's been
going on for many years, but the Luigi Mangione killing
of a healthcare executive, there was open celebration on the
left of this open and some people were noting, like,
(24:30):
this is a very bad sign for the country going forward.
We of course saw the tens of thousands, if not
hundreds of thousands or more, people celebrating the assassination of
Charlie Kirk. I myself witnessed this on my own Facebook pages.
You saw people doing it on Twitter and Blue Sky
and New York Times, you know how they responded to it.
(24:54):
And we also saw today is October eighth, that we're
taping this. In October seventh was the two year anniversary
of the horrific attack on Israeli citizens that took place
and was tele you know, was shown on social media,
which I can never get out of my head what
that was like. And last night in New York City
(25:16):
there was a parade with a big Palestinian flag to celebrate,
to celebrate what happened there, the murder of what twelve
hundred Jews, and it's just like they're openly being the
way they're being, and a lot of people on the
ride are like, I wonder what's going on. It's like, well,
they're telling it us, so we shouldn't ignore it, you know.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Yeah, I mean, let's talk about October seventh, just for
a minute, if we could. Obviously, the day it happened,
within while Israel was still fighting off remnants of the
Palestinians that had invaded it, and before they had even
identified the number of dead, there was a there were
(26:02):
there was a march in Harvard, there was a protest
in Times Square on the eighth with you know, genocidal
signs like from the river scene so far celebrating it.
So that's not This has been going on. And the
thing is that that kind of view has been popularized
(26:22):
since over the last two years hasn't receded. It's been popularized,
and frankly it is on the left, but it's on
the right to some extent as well. I wouldn't say
to the same degree, of course, But you know, I
wrote a column about this, and just on October seventh,
I think there are two legacies of that event. The
first legacy is that Israel is now more secure than
(26:44):
ever despite what people, you know, ceasefire, now Palestine free Palestine,
people might think Israel has secured itself in a much
more peaceful position. It's decimated hum Us, it's decimated has Bullah,
It's precipitated the fall of Asad in Syria. It's really
(27:04):
embarrassed Iran with the help of the United States. It
set back that nuclear program. Those are all you know,
it's killed the Houti leaders, you know, like it's done
a lot to cement itself. It's a nuclear power there. Yesterday,
did some research. I was kind of surprised because Israel
was once a socialist country and its economy was terrible
(27:27):
until the nineties and now as a higher GDP per
capita than Britain or Canada or France or any of
this country's while it's a small country, while it's being attacked,
you know, by the world in some sense. But the
other legacy of it is that it just unleashed this
anti semitism around the world that we haven't seen. A
lot of ancient tropes are just like reconfigured because Israel's
(27:51):
a democracy. It has to do whatever it needs to
do to survive and to keep its citizens safe. We
would demand the same thing of our government, and that's
sometimes not going to be popular around the world. But
in the end, Benjamin Ettaya, who has to decimate Hamas
or the next day if he doesn't do that, if
he lets it survive as a fighting force, the next day,
his government will fall and that will be it. A
(28:13):
new government will come in that will do it, and
that's that, and we'll see what happens once this is over.
I think hopefully this piece plan works. I'm skeptical that's
going to work exactly right, but at least maybe we're
in the right direction. And maybe once this recedes, the
left will move on to its new you know, it's
next George Floyd or whatever, and things will change. But
(28:35):
we'll see anyway. That's my long monologue on October seven.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So, first of ample, I'm just to say that I
couldn't believe it had only been two years, because it
just seems like the longest two years. You know how
as you age time moves more quickly, But there's something
about the two years since then that have been so
full of things happening that it seems like it's been
a really long period of time, and I just can't.
(29:01):
I just want to say again, I was in Grand
Rapids on the morning of October seventh and woke up
and just saw my social media feed flooding with images
that I really wish I had never seen, because I
find it very difficult to watch things like that. And
(29:22):
it was horrifying, I mean just absolutely horrifying. And I
know that people who support Hamas or the Palestinian cause
would say that every single Israeli is a fighter in
their conflict, ye a colonizer and so forth of them,
(29:42):
but I think we forget this was an attack on
a music festival, like young beautiful people at a music
festival and other surrounding areas, and the argument that these
left wing Israelis were part of their battle is just
I find it hard to take seriously. Now I do.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Well.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
I actually got a very very upset letter from last
week because I don't oppose Israel on this battle. I
genuinely hate the conflict that's happening there, the war that's
happening there, I hate it. I hate all the death.
I don't think anyone can look at what's happening there
and not just feel horrific about everything that has happened
(30:32):
in the last two years. I mean on everything, Like
I don't mean by that that you know, when Israel
did their Operation Pager attack that yes that did cause
that was a violent attack, but it was really well
executed and really impressive from a military strategy point. But
just the loss of life, the death the innocent civilians
(30:54):
who are killed along with it, and you know, in
the Palestinian areas, it's really bad because the whole strategy
that Hamas and other Palestinian political organizations have employed is
to very deliberately embed their military with their civilian population,
which makes the whole idea is, well, if we put this,
(31:14):
we put these missiles in this school classroom, then they
can't hit the rest of the school because they can't
hit us there because the rest of the school we
actually have students coming in here. Or if we put
our operating you know, our head officials below a hospital,
they can't attack the hospital, even though that's where a
(31:35):
military strike would naturally go. Like, it's the whole philosophy
of it, and it really works well. People are like,
how dare you try to get these people below this
hospital or at this school. But nevertheless, if you were
born and raised in Gaza, you don't have that much
of a say in how these things go, and you
don't have that much opportunity to get out also, and
(31:58):
also nobody's taking you from a neighboring area. But I
do think that you should distinguish between people who openly
celebrate the slaughter of Jews wherever they may be, and
people who disagree with Israel's approach to this war, or
who disagree with the alliance that the United States has
(32:20):
with Israel, or who have just gotten fed up with
the political leadership of Israel, or you know what I mean.
There's a difference there, and if you conflate those two,
it's a really good way to make problems worse, I
think for Israel.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Huh, Well, this was the largest massacre of Jews since
the Holocaust, right, But in the long arc of history,
if you read a book of world history and Jews,
you're going to see a lot of massacres like this
going on, not to this scale because people couldn't do it.
The only thing that's changed is that there's no longer
cheap Jewish blood. Jews get to fight back, and that's
(32:57):
what bothers a lot of people. And I'm sorry if
a thousand, two hundred Americans were killed, and if we
scale it up, that's nine to eleven.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
We don't let people just get away with it. You
don't let that force exist afterwards. And Israel doesn't have
to allow that to happen. And people are mad about it,
and Israel loses support, So be it. You got to
do it, You got to do I don't think that
we should be in conflict with the Israeli government. I
think they're the ones fighting for Western values against Islamism.
I think we should be on their side. If people
(33:26):
are against that, they should make that argument, not some
dumb argument about APAK and Fifth columnists and all this stuff.
APEC spends five hundred times less than Katar influencing America
and American institutions. It's a weak organization. When they talk
about APAC like it has this control over people, it's
one of the weakest milk toast organizations ever. They try
to appease everyone. You know, we went off in a
(33:50):
different direction, if you know, if we want to talk
about that more, that's fine, but.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Well, I think it's I think it's important, and I
am worried about some of like I've just like popping
into my feet. I saw a bunch of young college
boys talking about a around a table, and I was like,
oh my gosh, this is interesting stuff that you're seeing.
But to your point about Jews fighting back, I can't
(34:16):
remember who it was. It was a clip I saw
on I think CNBC or MSNBC of a guy just saying,
look at how many people died in Pearl Harbor. Look
at how many people died at nine to eleven, And
so what nine to eleven was more than three thousand people.
We went to major war over that, and relative to
a tiny country like Israel, that was a fraction of
(34:37):
the people that they lost.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
Right, think about we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.
Hawaii wasn't even a state, right We fire bomb Dresden,
We fire bomb Tokyo to beat the enemy so that
we would no longer have to fight war. Why should
Israel when another entity starts a war? Why should Israel
lose its soldiers left and right to try to save
the people who hate them. They're the only people on
(35:00):
earth we have to feed their enemy, you know, like
it is insane. And the faster, I'm sorry, the quicker
this war would have been done if the Biden administration
would have allowed it to happen. The quicker it was over,
the more lives would have been saved in Gaza. But
they didn't let Israel do what they had to do,
and then they had to deal with Habala, which was
(35:20):
flying rockets. Let me just tell you Hasbalah in Lebanon
fired a rocket that killed twelve Drew's children. It was
a remote control rocket. They did it on purpose, right.
Iran fired missiles at Israel first, like it's in a
three four front war and we're busy here talking about
Apak and Palestinian states and all kinds of nonsense. It's
(35:44):
just cheap virtue signaling for people. Cheap virtue signal. Yeah,
I do think that.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
It is a I say this as someone who very
much supports Israel, and I'm getting the nasty emails as
a result of it. But it's also true that a
lot of Americans see their political leaders seem to care
more about Israel than people in their own country, and
they've gotten that feeling built up over a long period
of time.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
And maybe the person who cares more about Israel than
their own country.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
So what I've heard from people when they're complaining about
it or when I'm fighting with them about it, is like,
you know, Mike Johnson runs for speakers saying that they're
going to decrease foreign aid and ends up saying that
God talked to him in a skiff to increase foreign
aid to Ukraine and Israel, you know, And he where's
Mike Johnson during many of the congressional breaks in Israel?
(36:38):
And people are like, well, we've got floods and chaos
and bad things happening in cities here. We would like
him more touring our country than touring another country.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
I am.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
I think there's a difference between that and saying I
would like to see people in this country dead in
that country. There's a difference to be able to distinguish
between those arguments.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
And but but that's not the art that is fair,
you say, because if you think that's how the world works,
that if we give Israel three billion dollars a year
that they spend on military equipment, that that's the same
you know, that that's caring about Israel. Like I never
understood this, I could care about more than one thing.
I care about America first, I care about Israel second,
(37:22):
and then everyone else is whatever, thousands of numbers down
on my list. You know what I'm saying. I care
about Israel because I'm Jewish. I care about Israel because
I think it stands up for the West and I
think it's a great ally. But my thing is, where
is your anger over Egyptian aid? They get, they get mine.
Where's your anger over all the other aid we give
to everyone we give.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
Though, David, is that you're allowed to say that you
don't like the aid going to other countries. But then
the moment you say you don't like the aid going
to Israel, that's when people are like, oh wait, you
can't say that, you know. And that's there's a distinction
in the.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
Response, Molly, you can't say that. Literally. Everyone says that.
The New York Times says.
Speaker 3 (37:59):
That, literally, you can't say it. I'm saying that when
you say it, people will accuse you of anti Semitism.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
If you are obsessed with one country, if you are
obsessed with an organization here, that American organization with American
money that advocates for foreign policy that we have foreign policy,
and you treat people who are pro Israel's fifth columnists
like Tucker Carlson, Candae Owens, Mad Gates whoever. Then yeah,
(38:29):
I'm pretty suspicious about your motivations for sure, and I'm
allowed to do that. Let me tell you another thing.
I've spent twenty years writing columns defending people from the
smear of anti Semitism. People can go back and read them.
You know, someone says something about Soros, and right away
they're anti Semitics. Someone says this, everyone's super sensitive. I
(38:51):
am not being super sensitive about these people. They are on.
They are trying to put a wedge between evangelicals and
Jews and Israel, to put a wedge between I think
they're spreading anti Semitism and the people they put on.
The way they talk. I don't know if they're being
paid or not. I don't buy Qatar or whatever. People
say to me, that's irrelevant, because you speak, your words matter.
(39:16):
I think it's a problem. I'm not saying it's the
same thing, but it's pretty connected. I mean, gosh, the
guy who has that show the Young Turks, right, I mean,
he's an anti semi and he's on Tucker and they're
just laughing it up. By the way, the Young Turks,
where the people who commit his show is named after
the people committed genocide against Armenians. No one cares about that,
(39:38):
but whatever. So I'm all over the place. Now you've
got me all spun out.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
That was a good loop back, because what we're talking
about is this open embrace of violence on the left.
And you know, like you just say, with the Young Turks, gee,
I wonder why they named their show that way. I
think they're telling us exactly why they named the show
that way, right. I don't know these people, and I
haven't talked to them personally, but I think we should
(40:03):
take it seriously. And I am also. I mean, that's
what I was trying to distinguish between people who are
sick of Israel or don't want us stab in alliance
with them, and people who actually honestly want Jews dead.
I think those people marching on Fifth Avenue or wherever
they were in New York they want Jews dead. I
think America or Israel they just want them dead.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
I agree. I don't think everyone's the same. I think
Candice Owens wants Jews dead. That's what I think. Now
I can't prove that this is just my feeling and
you don't like it. I get it, But the I
don't know what this is not Molly saying that, This
is me saying that. But the thing is this, it's
not a real debate over a foreign policy. Now, I
(40:46):
get it. There are a lot of isolationist types and
I mean full blown isolationist types who don't like our
relationship with Israel. Chucker Carlson says, for instance, that we
went to war in Iraq on Israel's behalf. Now that's
a lie. Ariel Sharon told Bush not to invade, and
Iraq Iran is the number one enemy of Israel. But
(41:07):
they just completely gloss over nine eleven. I mean, Tucker
just had a show about how all these conspiracies about
nine eleven. The bottom has fallen out because the government
lied to us about stuff, the FBI lies to us
about stuff. There's law era about Donald Trump, and now
we have to go back to JFK and talk about
how most sod killed him, like people have lost their minds.
(41:31):
And it leads to this one place conspiracies about Jewish people.
I'm sorry, it just does every time. These are just
tropes that are refashioned for the modern times over Zionism
and so forth. That's just what I think. I feel
it every day. I'm telling you, I get one hundred
anti Semitic messages a day, if not much much more,
(41:51):
you know, And it's I don't know if it's organic,
I don't know, but it is very worrisome I think
for people. But the thing is, I don't want to
be I'm not a victim safe here. I love America,
and Israel doesn't want to be a victim anymore. And
that's the difference between Jews then before Israel and after Israel.
And I'm sorry people don't like it. I don't know
if they have a good maybe ay any better pr
(42:11):
maybe they don't. I just don't really even care. I'm sorry,
all right, thank you for letting me event there probably
gonna get in trouble for that. Whatever, whatever, what do
we even talking about it?
Speaker 4 (42:22):
You can?
Speaker 3 (42:22):
I just say one more thing on the left wing
violence situation. So last week this judge in DC gave
a crazy slap on the wrist to the man who
tried to kill Justice Kavanaugh and his family using a
map that the left had provided and to go to
to go outside his house, I mean, he was outside
(42:44):
his house, and this left wing judge gave him a
slap on the wrist and said it was like so
great that everything had happened because this man now claims
to be a woman, and that and that his family
was now accepting him as a woman, so that was
a good outcome from this assassination attempt. And then also
the judge said that because Trump might not let this
(43:10):
man get taxpayer funded surgery and hormones to pretend to
be a woman, that she was going to give him
a light sentence. And historically speaking, you know, there are
debates about how much deterrence works in sentencing, but historically speaking,
people who try to assassinate judges get crazy high sentences
(43:32):
because our whole rule of law system only works delicately
when judges are free to rule without political pressure or
threats of assassination. And so by giving him only eight years,
which is what he asked for, and not the thirty
years that the Department of Justice asked for, it's a
total green light to these other assassins. To know that
(43:55):
if you try to kill a conservative justice, you could
be out of prison in a shorter time period than
the people who participated in the deal in the January
sixth riots were sentenced to And sure enough, we had
another situation happen outside the Red Mass on Sunday. So
(44:15):
the Red Mass is the term given to a special
mass for federal judges and Supreme Court justices ahead of
their term, so their term starts in October each year,
and historically speaking, quite a few justices have attended. They
knew that there were security threats, so they did not
attend this one. But a man was arrested with you like,
(44:40):
a very lengthy screed against conservatives, pro lifers, the Roman
Catholic Church, Jews, and maybe there was another group in there.
And he had literally two hundred explosive devices and had
traveled I think from California. So it's just breaking out
into the open and it's a major issue, and unfortunately
(45:04):
the country is not uniting against left wing terrorism. You
have a political party more or less standing with the
people who are committing the left wing terrorism.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
Yeah, I mean, even if you know sentencing wasn't you know,
long sentences weren't a deterrence. I want to punish people
who try to kill Supreme Court justices. It's a punishment.
And yeah, left wing violence. I mean they have given
the green light to this kind of stuff with their
(45:36):
listen since the sixties, I'm sorry, since the early twentieth century,
most political violence, explicitly political violence has been left wing people.
Get can give me any kind of chart they want
from the ADL. It doesn't mean anything to me. The communists,
the anarchists. A communist kill JFK, an anarchist left winger
(45:57):
killed McKinley, Like it goes back, a Palestinian killed RFK.
I'm not saying it's like we've said, it's not a monopoly,
but it's clear that the left wing is more comfortable
with violence, and TIFA is more comfortable with violence. It's
named after Stalinist group. I mean, why are we even pretending?
Here's my question to you, though, what do we do?
What can you do about this? Is it a cultural answer?
(46:21):
Is there some kind of government answer? People keep saying
do something about it to the government, But I don't
know what you can really do preemptively to stop people
from engaging this in this kind of violence, other than
kind of zeroing in on antifunds and so forth.
Speaker 3 (46:36):
I was just thinking about this on the plane ride
home last night. It is absolutely true that you must
use the power of the state to crack down on
left wing terrorism. There terror networks should be investigated their
financial streams like all of that, and they should be
charged and prosecuted for the terrorism that they're doing or
plotting or you know, all of it. But it's also
(46:58):
true that that will not restore the country tree to
where it needs to be. I mean, the beauty of
where we are, of who we are as a people,
is that we were founded with an understanding that humans
are sinful and that we need to have checks on
our own sinful behavior, that we you know, that we
(47:19):
need to have, that we need to believe in higher
things and show love to one another. I mean, there
were all these things that were present at our founding
that we have systematically eradicated a love of our country
and our founding as we throughout the you know, the
stains of bad things we did, we throughout all the
good stuff as well. And so if we if we
(47:42):
don't understand the greater importance of religion to politics, we
will never be restored as a country. And so I
pray more for that that people will return to God, repent, believe,
love one another more than I pray for justice for
(48:02):
left wing terrorism, but I pray for both, you know,
both things I hope happened.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
It's it's a scary time in that way, and it
really shouldn't be this way because things we are not
suffering in the way a lot of people have suffered
in the past. You know, there's no big economic collapse
or anything. We shouldn't be this angry with each other.
It should be we should be able to work this out.
Sense so puerile. But anyway, I don't even know what
(48:30):
we were going to talk about next month.
Speaker 3 (48:33):
Maybe we should just move to culture now.
Speaker 2 (48:34):
Yeah, you got me. You're anting on something.
Speaker 3 (48:36):
I wanted you to talk about it, but instead I'll
just direct people to read your excellent piece on Obamacare.
One of the nice things about us not being young
whipper snapper journalists is that we have memories that extend
beyond the last ten years, and having been in the
trenches of covering Obamacare, David wrote an excellent piece on
(49:00):
you know what's happening there? With all the lies that
we were told about it and how they have borne out.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
I appreciate that. I think it's important to remember that.
Did you see the Washington Post editorial that said, yes,
a wildcare has never been affordable?
Speaker 3 (49:15):
Turned out it was wrongly named. Oh really, it's known.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Yeah, just a quick note on it. This shutdown is
over the extension of sunsetting subsidies of Obamacare that were
past during COVID. I just want to reiterate this that
were sold as temporary to help people get over that economy,
the marketplace that Obama promised us was going to be
vibrant and competitive and bring back lower prices. Now, citizens
(49:43):
pay ninety percent of the premiums for people involved in
that marketplace. So when they say people are losing their insurance,
they mean that tax payers will only pay eighty percent
of those premiums. Listen, you want to expand the welfare state,
I would do it like this is everyone's like, why
don't you have a plan? But I do expand welfare
to whatever you think is right and let everyone do
(50:04):
whatever they want. Open up the markets, let people find
the insurance they want, let them buy the things they want.
We don't have a plan for supermarkets. We don't have
a plan for auto insurance and national plan. My voice
is a higher octave because you've gotten the all spun
out of that stuff, you know what I'm saying? And
then I get all worked up. So let's talk about culture.
Speaker 4 (50:25):
Right?
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Should I start? Do you want to start?
Speaker 4 (50:32):
Go?
Speaker 3 (50:33):
Actually, I have a story that I meant to tell
last week. Yeah, I forgot, So I told you. I
was at that wedding in Nashville and the mother of
the groom comes up to me and she was like, oh,
I have to tell you. She said, I sometimes have
trouble sleeping, and I'll listen to podcasts as I'm going
to sleep, and you and David both have nice low voices.
(50:55):
She actually said that. And so if she just finds
it soothing to listen to us, and then if she
falls asleep, she'll just like go back and listen to
it when she's awake.
Speaker 2 (51:06):
We help people fall asleep. It's nice.
Speaker 3 (51:08):
It's like she's like, so, I'm at church and the
row in front of her stands up to go get communion,
and she realizes she's about to go up to get
communion as well, and all of a sudden, our voices
start coming out of her purse, and she's got her
phone and She's like trying to figure out how to
(51:30):
stop it, but it just keeps going and she's like
freaking out about it. And then she wakes up and
realizes that the church scene was all happening in a
dream and a nightmare. She emphasized this was a nightmare.
It was horrib like she was so mortified by it.
So I just like that people are using us in
(51:51):
their dreams slash night.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
We've infiltrated their dreams. Incredible. Uh Okay. I watched the
movie souit Superman The New Superman. Did you go see that?
Speaker 4 (52:03):
No?
Speaker 2 (52:04):
No, I heard good things from a lot of people.
I thought it was just immense garbage, just really terrible.
I don't know why people like it. I'm not trying
to be contrariant here. I just do not get it.
It like it has a very immature, kind of, you know,
goofy component, which I didn't mind so much, but then
(52:26):
it has like a serious component. It just seemed really
out of like both seemed out of sync. I just,
you know, I didn't like it. It just I don't know.
I just thought it was a kind of a mess,
an expensive looking mess play Superman Guy's name is David
corn Sweat. I've never heard of him. He's fine, Like,
(52:48):
you know, he's fine. He's he looks like Superman. And
it kind of plays on the on the tropes of
superhero tropes, like putting on your glasses and no one
recognizes you. It's Clark Kennon Superman like. It plays on
that stuff, and that's fine, but just overall, the story
was so ridiculous. It seemed almost like a movie that
was setting up a bunch of other superheroes to have
(53:09):
their own movies and all this suff I am not
a Superman fan in general as far as comic books go.
I never have been, because I think he has just
way too many powers, does that make sense. I like
Batman because he is a person who did it himself.
He invents the stuff, you know whatever. Superman can't really
ever be beat, so I've always found it kind of boring.
(53:30):
Though I did like the Christopher Reeve movie Reeve movies
growing up. I don't know, Yeah, they were nice, they
were fun, but anyway, so that's my review of that.
The second thing I had was I watched an old show.
It's twenty years old. I've seen it before. It's an
HBO show called Rome. Have you ever watched this?
Speaker 5 (53:48):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (53:48):
What is that about? Is it about Rome?
Speaker 2 (53:50):
Yeah, it's about Julius Caesar traversing the Rubicon and coming
back to Rome and all of that. I think it's
one of my favorite shows. I mean, it's got to
be up there. It's one of my favorite shows. Ever,
it is not for the kids. It is not for
the kids. I like it a lot. And if people
can get over some of the sexual and content I think,
(54:12):
which I I just I don't know why it's in
there to such an extent. It kind of it's whatever.
But if you can get over that, it's a good show.
John Milius is the creator. Yeah, he's the creator of it.
Who's you know read Dawn and Conan the Barbarian and
so on. Anyway, that's what I have.
Speaker 3 (54:31):
Okay, I am racking my brain, and I'm pretty sure
that since we last talked, I have not seen anything
cultural or listened to anything Like. I listened to podcasts
on my flights. Those are good. I'm I have like
a weird variety. I like to listen to issues, et cetera.
(54:53):
I also like to listen to the Dana Carvey, David
Spade comedy podcast.
Speaker 2 (54:57):
I've not heard that one.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
It's pretty funny and they're enjoyable. They actually cracked me
up because they were going to talk about the Jimmy
Kimmel situation. They were like, don't worry, we're going to
talk about the Jimmy Kimmel situation. Then when they talked
about it, I think they devoted all of like forty
five seconds to it, and they were like, yeah, so
he's a friend, and I guess it all got resolved.
So anyway, I was on a plane this week and
I was like, Okay, you talked about.
Speaker 2 (55:20):
It, but I'm a Dana Carvey fan. He's funny.
Speaker 3 (55:26):
Yeah, me too. I mentioned that I went out to
Phoenix to host the Charlie Kirk Show with Andrew Colevett
and Blake Knaff and Sean Davis, and that was a
lot of fun. It was really cool to be out
there and just also talk to people who loved and
knew Charlie. So it's kind of part of the recovery,
(55:48):
the grieving period, but it was fun to be on there,
and it's just also fun to have a totally different audience,
which in the case of the Charlie Kirks show seems
to be very young people and not so young people.
Speaker 2 (56:02):
No middle aged people, just the young people and old people.
I wonder what our audience is, Probably young, young, middle class, and.
Speaker 3 (56:10):
I think they're all very handsome and beautiful, smart.
Speaker 2 (56:14):
Well smart, smart for sure. Smart. Accept the angry emailers
towards me. There, that is bright, that's great. If you'd
like to email the show, please do so at radio
at the Federalist dot com. We'll be back next week.
I hope you will be too. Until then, be lovers
of freedom and anxious for the fray
Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly having Away, editor in chief of The Federalist
and David Harsani, a senior writer at The Washington Examiner.
Just as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
you can do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
We'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Mother. You're back from your travels. It's been weeks. It
seems like since you've been home.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
I've been traveling for like a month I've been I
have not been home much at all. Thankfully, my family
was able to be with me at a wedding two
weekends ago in Nashville, so it hasn't all been without them.
But yeah, since we when we taped last week, I
was in Hillsdale, Michigan. I came home, headed down to
(00:58):
Tampa for memoir, then came back and flew to Phoenix
to host The Charlie Kirk Show, and got back last night.
So glad to be.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Here this week. Let's start with the topic of left
wing violence, which seems to be a running theme for
a while now. I mean, I think it actually goes
back to the sixties, but you know, in modern times
and let's talk about a Virginia Attorney general candidate j Jones,
who's a Democrat. I think he's been up in the polls,
(01:31):
but I think it was I think it was a
National Review that broke the story of his texts with
someone where in essence, not in essence literally, he said
that he'd like to shoot this Republican I think he's
a House member in Virginia, delegate or I'm not sure
what he is, but in the head twice two bullets.
(01:52):
Then he says that his children deserve to be dead.
I think two children, correct.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Yes, So he said, if you had two bullets and
three people in front of you, the Republican political opponent,
Poulpot and Hitler, he would put two bullets in the
head of the Republican Speaker of the House every time.
And he says this to someone who says, you know,
you shouldn't be speaking this way, and he's like, no,
(02:17):
let me explain what I'm saying here, and he digs
down deeper into it, and she, I think she was like,
this is really horrible what you're saying, and he's like, no,
it's not. I have a clear philosophy here, and it's
to murder my political opponents. I mean, he had multiple
opportunities to back away or say oh, that was the
heat of the moment, and then he actually calls her
(02:39):
up and tells her more about this philosophy of his
about killing people, saying that he thinks that that political
opponent's wife I think, or he should be forced to
watch the death of his own children, because then maybe
he'll start following left wing politics, because only the death
of your children that you have to sit there and
(03:00):
watch would make you turn away from Republican politics. I mean,
it's just it's a lot.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Basically, the dude had a bunch of opportunities to walk
it back and say, listen, just saying theoretically, if people
saw their own children dying, they would understand how democrats
are good for society or whatever. But he didn't do that. Obviously,
something wrong with him. I think it speaks to kind
of the way some or many, or I don't know
(03:30):
how many people on the left think about their politics.
It's sort of a life and death issue, you know,
as their religion. Almost this barely got any coverage on
any major news network. I think one of them spoke
about it for sixty three seconds total. The others did
not even mention it. You remember, like, if this was,
(03:54):
first of all, this was Republican, it would be massive,
you know, it would be just huge news. You remember
Todd Aiken was that his you remember, Yeah, And he
said something I don't even remember exactly what he said
that was a major national scandal.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
He said something wrong. I mean, he's what Toddyikin said
was he was being asked about his pro life position.
And there's a thing that happens in the media and
among other Democrats where they say, okay, so you think
that you shouldn't kill a human. I'm getting that, But
what if the human is the product of a rape?
And so it's this like gotcha thing. It's true that
(04:29):
not very many children are conceived by rape, but some are.
I happen to know some who are. And what Toadyikin
had said was that legitimate rape, meaning like I think
what he meant there was like not date rape or
actually I had no idea what he meant there. I
don't know, but it was wrong. He was like, legitimate
(04:51):
rape doesn't usually result in conception of babies. He was wrong,
and it was this politically stupid thing to say, but
it It became the most important nationwide story for weeks
in order to harm the Republicans during the midterm elections,
to take him down. Every single Republican was badgered. Do
(05:11):
you agree with this? What do you think about it?
You know, like you certainly don't think that babies shouldn't
be killed, do you?
Speaker 4 (05:16):
You know?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
I mean it just was like a major Democrat propaganda effort,
laundered of course through their propaganda arm, the corporate media.
And you're right when Jay Jones, who's running to be
Attorney general, top law enforcement officer in my commonwealth, says this,
I mean, this is like a big position in a
(05:37):
year where there aren't very many races. Nobody mentions it.
I was reading through the transcripts of the Sunday shows
because I like to do that to see how left
wing media operate. And first of all, it was whatever
Kristen Welker hosts. I always, they're all like so interchangeable.
I forget which one which network is, Which is she NBC?
(05:57):
I don't know, And she has on like two two
left wing journalists near its tand in and then a
never like an anti Trump Republican Mark Short, so that's
like the panel, she does not mention a word of this.
She just basically runs pro Obamacare propaganda throughout the thing
and then mark short mentions like isn't aside Jay Jones
(06:24):
And that's how it got mentioned? And she says, Yesnir,
why don't you talk about it? This could become a
big story. It was like, was not going to become
a big story when you're suppressing it and censoring it
from your show.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Right, it's a local crime story, Molly, just an aside
on Aiken and that whole thing. Like I remember now
writing a column about how Republicans who are pro life
for some reason have never learned how to actually talk
about the more delicate issues regarding that. So if you
ask someone about rape, which is always the big gatchu,
(06:57):
you know, and you might say, you know, it's tragedy
and horrible, but we can't compound one tragedy with the next,
or something like that, and this dummy says, oh, legitimate
rape doesn't Like It's almost like they need to be
sent to some kind of training to give answers that
make that. You know, it's a tough issue that makes
some sort of sense to people.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
I would like to do an aside here. I don't
know if you've seen the viral three minute clip of
a thirty minute video that Katie Porter had with a
California journalist.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Psycho.
Speaker 5 (07:32):
Well.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
I think Katie Porter has a well established reputation is
being kind of crazy, right, like she'd think she dumped
alleged to have dumped boiling mashed potatoes on her husband's
head or ex husband. Staff said, she's a little what
any But in this interview, it's a very gentle like
(07:52):
such a gentle interview, the kind that a Republican would
literally never get. She's asked about how she might try
to reach out to the forty percent of Californians who
voted for Trump, and she's like, why would I need to?
Like why would I need to do that to win?
But the question was really more about like how, like
how would you or just kind of like a discussion
(08:14):
about it. And she starts saying she just doesn't feel
like it's a friendly interview and she doesn't want to
have a friendly and unfriendly discussion and how she doesn't
want this on tape. I was thinking she really thought
that she could say all these things on camera and
that there would be no downside to it, whereas a
(08:35):
Republican political candidate goes into every single interview knowing that
he's headed into war. Actually, speaking of stupid politicians, they
don't usually realize they're headed into war, and that's why
they get royaled so much. But they've never thought this
is going to be a friendly interview. You know, they
remember thought this person, this person has my best interest
at heart. Katie Porter clearly thought that she could just
(08:57):
negotiate with the left winger or with the journalist, because
so many journalists do that. Do you know what I mean? Like,
you don't have that attitude of entitlement to having a
friendlier interview if you haven't spent your whole life having
friendly interviews.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, of course their expectation is that the that the
journalist is going to help them and andb in some
softballs for them to to hit home runs with or whatever.
Maybe we can do another quick aside here and talk
about how it's not exactly an interview, but talk about
Pam Bondi. Is that too weird to segue here? But
talk about Pam Bondi being in front of the Senate yesterday,
(09:33):
I think for five hours or something I only saw highlights,
but they were fantastic. I'm not a huge Pam Bondi fan,
I have to be honest, but I liked her aggressive
attitude and calling like no matter what the senator asked them,
she would she would like hone in on on the
thing that they did, like shutting down the government with
Adam Schiff, like you know, his dishonesty. So I like.
(09:55):
I like that because I find congressional hearings incredibly boring.
Usually I hate the arrogance of senators and how they
talk to the people's show up. This isn't a dictatorship,
you know. They drag CEOs down and burrate them and
don't let them answer questions or even you know, even
even administration members. So I don't know if you saw that,
but it was it was quite quite fun for me
(10:17):
to watch, at least the highlights for it.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
I mean, so I haven't seen it yet. I was
on a cross country flight and then just we're taping
this in the morning, so I haven't gotten caught up
on everything from yesterday yet. But I do feel that
something like that is okay because Congress is broken, and
so to pretend that a congressional oversight hearing is trying
(10:44):
to find out facts in a legitimate way, is not.
I don't know how to quite explain what I'm saying. Sorry,
it's too early and I haven't had enough coffee. But
whatever Congress used to be, it's completely broken now. And
these hearings are all about getting clips so that you
can look great for rating a witness and then or
you can send it out to your donor pool so
(11:06):
that they will give you more money. And so I
don't feel you need to be overly deferential. But having
said that, Congress is the article one branch and if
they are looking for information, people should give it, right, Yeah,
they should.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
I mean I didn't love all her answers on, for instance, Holman,
this claim that he was bribed, you know, I don't
you know with fifty thousand dollars. I don't know if
any of that's true, Probably not. But she wouldn't answer
that if she had a tape of this happening with
the FBI, which she release it, and stuff like that.
So I found her circumventing that kind of oversight and
(11:46):
quite annoying, you know, But you're right, it's all grand standing,
or most of it is just grand standing and sound bites.
There are a few Senators John Kennedy from Louisiana, who
I I think he's one of my favorite senators in
a way as far as his grant standing, because he
does go after every I feel like he takes his
job as a senator more seriously than most people.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
I do too.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Actually, I've testified in front of him, and I definitely
picked up that feeling. This reminds me that after I
testified for the second time, so I've testified in front
of a House committee and a Senate subcommittee, and after
I testified the second time, someone I was testifying with
had noted that I hadn't done the normal like pleasantries
when you begin your testimony. And I go back and
(12:29):
I look and actually this is true. Most people say, oh,
your honor, your most honorable people, thank you so much
for allowing me a peasant to speak before your august body,
and thank you so much. And I just kind of
started off with, like, I'm Molly Hemingham, editor in chief
with the Federalist. Here's what we're going through with censorship
or you know, whatever whatever the thing was, because I
(12:51):
do think it's very American to not bow down before
a president or a senator or a member of Congress.
The whole point is that they're supposed to be just people.
I mean, we honor them as elected officials, but you
don't need to over you don't need to guild the
lily there.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Oh my god, and I agree completely. I hate that.
Uh back to.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
We changed, yeah, really quickly, since we're talking about this.
We are taping this ahead of Sean Davis, CEO and
co founder of the Federalists, testifying before the Senate Commerce
Committee today with a bunch of other people on censorship.
And I think a lot of our listeners know that
the Federalist has been in just an epic and existential
(13:35):
battle against censorship, some of which happened from the federal government,
which is, you know, all all of the social media
left wing social media suppression of conservative speech and debate
has been awful to go through. It is unconstitutional when
it's funded or supported or marketed by our federal government.
And so we are in uh we're in talks with
(13:59):
the State Department, who we sued over their role in
the censorship. Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted in our
pages that we were censored for our speech, constitutionally protected speech,
and it's just been a horrible thing and very difficult
to go through, and it kind of was infuriating after
(14:20):
this Jimmy Kimmel's stuff happened. Jimmy Kimmel's on public publicly
regulated airwaves. I'm not even saying. We talked about this already.
You don't have to agree with the rules that are
in place for those publicly regulated airwaves, but the idea
that it's the worst thing in the world if the
laws in the laws regulating those airwaves are actually enforced.
(14:42):
We are the Federalist is not on public anything, and
we should not be censored in any way. And that
we've had to endure so much of it because of
how effective we are has been just been a lot
to deal with. So I'm really glad he'll be testifying
and I can't wait to hear how it goes.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Yeah, maybe we'll talk about that next week. Just quickly,
getting back to j Jones for one moment. There's a
story of his texts which are sick. There's the story
of the lack of coverage in the media's attempts to
(15:20):
silly cover up what is a scandal. Then there We
should also note that not a single as of this taping,
I believe that there is not a single Virginia, not
a single Democrat. I mean in Virginia, who has you know,
rescinded their support for him. There were some perfunctory comments
(15:43):
about how it wasn't very nice, but yet you know
he's the right man? Is he the right man? I
will never understand this sort of thing where I don't
know exactly what technically what they would have to go through,
but is this the only man who can run for
this position in all of Virginia? Is this the man
you want representing Virginia? This will never this scandal will
(16:05):
never leave. This isn't just some He didn't misspeak. He
didn't you know, get angry and say something to someone
that he regretted. Even his apology blamed it, called the
National Review Trump controlled media, like they think they can
(16:25):
just make everything about Donald Trump. His apology was terrible.
And yet I also live in Virginia. The you know
Democrats are right behind him. No one is going to leave.
So what does that say about our politics that we
can't even come together and say a guy who wants
to see his opponent's children dead is not the sort
(16:47):
of person we should have in government. I just feel
like parties are so scared to give an inch that
they're willing to just have no principles at all. I
don't know.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
So I saw my husband noted that Tim Kaine is
standing fully behind am I getting his name right as
Jay Jones.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Right, yeah, J Jones. I always have to look, okay.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Fully behind him. But do you remember when there was
that guy running for governor of Virginia in twenty twelve,
let's say, or something like that, twenty thirteen maybe, and
he had said he'd referred to his tracker kaka yeah,
and it became the Washington Post led a campaign to
get him destroyed and he lost the race. Tim Kaine
(17:34):
was said saying that word, which I don't even think
like was a word that meant anything to anybody, was
grounds for not being governor. But doing what Jay Jones
has done, calling for the assassination of his political opponents
and the murder of their children, is no big deal. Oh,
(17:54):
in which we already explained he defended over and over again,
But that's not all about him. Top law enforcement officer,
he'd berated, and I think osted got someone ousted from
a career law enforcement job for giving twenty five dollars
to the completely exonerated Kyle Rittenhouse Legal fund al Rittenhouse
was involved in trying to call the riots in Kenosha.
(18:19):
He recently was ticketed going one hundred and seventeen miles
per hour on a highway. And oh yeah, I mean,
I'm sad to say not always adhering to all of
our traffic laws. And I'm like, I don't think I've
ever gone that fast. I mean, I know I've never
(18:40):
gotten that fast, like in a car.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
I would love to go that fast.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
And I'm like, wow, that's fast.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
He got away, Yeah, and he got away with it
on sixty four, which is which is a busy highway.
And he got away with it at some community service
I think is allen.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
He did his two years of community service or his
pack his own pack in violation of what the order
of the court was. So this is going to be
our top law enforcement officer. And for perspective, everybody should
know that we are in a great historical aberration in
Virginia where we have a Republican governor, Republican lieutenant governor,
and Republican attorney general. That guy, Jason Maires, our Republican
(19:20):
attorney general, who I think has done a pretty good
job and is well liked, is running for reelection against
this guy. But because of the year being what it is,
it's a midterm ish election in a heavily blue state
that has just gotten doged in everything, people are expecting
just an absolute route by the Democrats in many ways,
(19:41):
and so this isn't just a guy running for age.
He's a guy expected to win as ag And I'm
sure the Democrats looked at that and said, if we
do the if we do the honorable thing of speaking
against political violence in a meaningful way here, we could
lose this race. And we don't want to lose it.
But I'm sitting here thinking, like having an age in
(20:02):
office who wants me and my children dead is legitimately
terrifying to me.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Who breaks the law and gets away with it, I mean,
this is like the last kind of This is just
not a person that should be in that position.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
He also said that if there were fewer what did
you say something about how like police are responsible for
most killings or something in there, Oh.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Or the excuse for him is that
these are private conversations, but I'm sorry, private conversations tell
us a lot about what kind of person you really are.
The other day, someone was asking me some stuff about
something that was controversial out there about other people, and
asked me if I wanted to be off the record, like,
why would I be off the record? You know, why
(20:47):
do you why? I'm just going to tell you what
I think about this stuff, And private conversations say a
lot about people. I know that I've met politicians who
seem to me who I thought were normal in their
public persona, but I met them in real life and
they were either very dumb or they were they seemed
like not very nice people. And that happens a lot.
(21:10):
So it's completely fair game. It's journalism to get your
hands on these texts, to share them with people. It's
not you know, it's not some text that that that
you know, undermines his private life in some way. If
he hasn't done anything wrong. This is clearly matters. It's
about politics, and he, you know, any decent person would
step down by the way, you know, it's on him.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
So did you see that there was I think it
was the is it Newport News or something? Like that.
There was some Democrat committee, a local Democrat committee, that
put out a letter saying, we need to vote for
the guy who wants to kill his political opponents for
the sake of democracy, and also said who among us
has not done something like this? So let he who
(21:54):
is without send cast the first stone. And I'm like,
I've literally I can easily say I have literally never
wished death upon my political opponents and the murder of
their children. I can easily say that.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Yeah. Also, we're not sending him to prison. He's just
not going to be ag if he doesn't run. You
know what I'm saying. He's a lawyer. He's going to
make money in the private sector. He doesn't have a
god given right to be in government. Is he a lawyer?
Speaker 3 (22:24):
Who he knows he is. But he claimed he had
extensive trial experience for in order to win this race,
and that turns out not to have been true. Shocking
that a guy like this would lie.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
But yes, you know, he's probably going to win. Abigail
Spamberger is running for governor. She's probably gonna win. That
woman doesn't have to answer a single question about her past.
No one will ask her. She won't answer questions about
her support, for instance, allowing men in young you know,
(22:56):
in school bathrooms for instance, she simply will not answer
any question about it. So that's how it goes.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Should property taxes just come to an end? The watchdod
on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris
helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and
how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Truly, owning your own home shouldn't be a piggybank for
government to extract revenue. Property taxes will forever make you
not an owner, just nothing more than a surf on
the lord's manner. Whether it's happening in DC or down
on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Be informed.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
Check out the watchdd on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
All right, well, there's one more thing I wanted to
just say about this open support for violence, because I
was saying, I think one of the reasons why people
the Democrat Party is standing so firmly behind this guy
who wants everyone dead is that they more or less
agreement with him that certain political opponents should be killed,
and they keep on saying it so publicly. We're seeing
(24:08):
open support on the left for violence publicly, and some
people were really prescient about this when they started noticing
it with well, I mean, you could say it's been
going on for many years, but the Luigi Mangione killing
of a healthcare executive, there was open celebration on the
left of this open and some people were noting, like,
(24:30):
this is a very bad sign for the country going forward.
We of course saw the tens of thousands, if not
hundreds of thousands or more, people celebrating the assassination of
Charlie Kirk. I myself witnessed this on my own Facebook pages.
You saw people doing it on Twitter and Blue Sky
and New York Times, you know how they responded to it.
(24:54):
And we also saw today is October eighth, that we're
taping this. In October seventh was the two year anniversary
of the horrific attack on Israeli citizens that took place
and was tele you know, was shown on social media,
which I can never get out of my head what
that was like. And last night in New York City
(25:16):
there was a parade with a big Palestinian flag to celebrate,
to celebrate what happened there, the murder of what twelve
hundred Jews, and it's just like they're openly being the
way they're being, and a lot of people on the
ride are like, I wonder what's going on. It's like, well,
they're telling it us, so we shouldn't ignore it, you know.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Yeah, I mean, let's talk about October seventh, just for
a minute, if we could. Obviously, the day it happened,
within while Israel was still fighting off remnants of the
Palestinians that had invaded it, and before they had even
identified the number of dead, there was a there were
(26:02):
there was a march in Harvard, there was a protest
in Times Square on the eighth with you know, genocidal
signs like from the river scene so far celebrating it.
So that's not This has been going on. And the
thing is that that kind of view has been popularized
(26:22):
since over the last two years hasn't receded. It's been popularized,
and frankly it is on the left, but it's on
the right to some extent as well. I wouldn't say
to the same degree, of course, But you know, I
wrote a column about this, and just on October seventh,
I think there are two legacies of that event. The
first legacy is that Israel is now more secure than
(26:44):
ever despite what people, you know, ceasefire, now Palestine free Palestine,
people might think Israel has secured itself in a much
more peaceful position. It's decimated hum Us, it's decimated has Bullah,
It's precipitated the fall of Asad in Syria. It's really
(27:04):
embarrassed Iran with the help of the United States. It
set back that nuclear program. Those are all you know,
it's killed the Houti leaders, you know, like it's done
a lot to cement itself. It's a nuclear power there. Yesterday,
did some research. I was kind of surprised because Israel
was once a socialist country and its economy was terrible
(27:27):
until the nineties and now as a higher GDP per
capita than Britain or Canada or France or any of
this country's while it's a small country, while it's being attacked,
you know, by the world in some sense. But the
other legacy of it is that it just unleashed this
anti semitism around the world that we haven't seen. A
lot of ancient tropes are just like reconfigured because Israel's
(27:51):
a democracy. It has to do whatever it needs to
do to survive and to keep its citizens safe. We
would demand the same thing of our government, and that's
sometimes not going to be popular around the world. But
in the end, Benjamin Ettaya, who has to decimate Hamas
or the next day if he doesn't do that, if
he lets it survive as a fighting force, the next day,
his government will fall and that will be it. A
(28:13):
new government will come in that will do it, and
that's that, and we'll see what happens once this is over.
I think hopefully this piece plan works. I'm skeptical that's
going to work exactly right, but at least maybe we're
in the right direction. And maybe once this recedes, the
left will move on to its new you know, it's
next George Floyd or whatever, and things will change. But
(28:35):
we'll see anyway. That's my long monologue on October seven.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So, first of ample, I'm just to say that I
couldn't believe it had only been two years, because it
just seems like the longest two years. You know how
as you age time moves more quickly, But there's something
about the two years since then that have been so
full of things happening that it seems like it's been
a really long period of time, and I just can't.
(29:01):
I just want to say again, I was in Grand
Rapids on the morning of October seventh and woke up
and just saw my social media feed flooding with images
that I really wish I had never seen, because I
find it very difficult to watch things like that. And
(29:22):
it was horrifying, I mean just absolutely horrifying. And I
know that people who support Hamas or the Palestinian cause
would say that every single Israeli is a fighter in
their conflict, ye a colonizer and so forth of them,
(29:42):
but I think we forget this was an attack on
a music festival, like young beautiful people at a music
festival and other surrounding areas, and the argument that these
left wing Israelis were part of their battle is just
I find it hard to take seriously. Now I do.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Well.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
I actually got a very very upset letter from last
week because I don't oppose Israel on this battle. I
genuinely hate the conflict that's happening there, the war that's
happening there, I hate it. I hate all the death.
I don't think anyone can look at what's happening there
and not just feel horrific about everything that has happened
(30:32):
in the last two years. I mean on everything, Like
I don't mean by that that you know, when Israel
did their Operation Pager attack that yes that did cause
that was a violent attack, but it was really well
executed and really impressive from a military strategy point. But
just the loss of life, the death the innocent civilians
(30:54):
who are killed along with it, and you know, in
the Palestinian areas, it's really bad because the whole strategy
that Hamas and other Palestinian political organizations have employed is
to very deliberately embed their military with their civilian population,
which makes the whole idea is, well, if we put this,
(31:14):
we put these missiles in this school classroom, then they
can't hit the rest of the school because they can't
hit us there because the rest of the school we
actually have students coming in here. Or if we put
our operating you know, our head officials below a hospital,
they can't attack the hospital, even though that's where a
(31:35):
military strike would naturally go. Like, it's the whole philosophy
of it, and it really works well. People are like,
how dare you try to get these people below this
hospital or at this school. But nevertheless, if you were
born and raised in Gaza, you don't have that much
of a say in how these things go, and you
don't have that much opportunity to get out also, and
(31:58):
also nobody's taking you from a neighboring area. But I
do think that you should distinguish between people who openly
celebrate the slaughter of Jews wherever they may be, and
people who disagree with Israel's approach to this war, or
who disagree with the alliance that the United States has
(32:20):
with Israel, or who have just gotten fed up with
the political leadership of Israel, or you know what I mean.
There's a difference there, and if you conflate those two,
it's a really good way to make problems worse, I
think for Israel.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Huh, Well, this was the largest massacre of Jews since
the Holocaust, right, But in the long arc of history,
if you read a book of world history and Jews,
you're going to see a lot of massacres like this
going on, not to this scale because people couldn't do it.
The only thing that's changed is that there's no longer
cheap Jewish blood. Jews get to fight back, and that's
(32:57):
what bothers a lot of people. And I'm sorry if
a thousand, two hundred Americans were killed, and if we
scale it up, that's nine to eleven.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
We don't let people just get away with it. You
don't let that force exist afterwards. And Israel doesn't have
to allow that to happen. And people are mad about it,
and Israel loses support, So be it. You got to
do it, You got to do I don't think that
we should be in conflict with the Israeli government. I
think they're the ones fighting for Western values against Islamism.
I think we should be on their side. If people
(33:26):
are against that, they should make that argument, not some
dumb argument about APAK and Fifth columnists and all this stuff.
APEC spends five hundred times less than Katar influencing America
and American institutions. It's a weak organization. When they talk
about APAC like it has this control over people, it's
one of the weakest milk toast organizations ever. They try
to appease everyone. You know, we went off in a
(33:50):
different direction, if you know, if we want to talk
about that more, that's fine, but.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Well, I think it's I think it's important, and I
am worried about some of like I've just like popping
into my feet. I saw a bunch of young college
boys talking about a around a table, and I was like,
oh my gosh, this is interesting stuff that you're seeing.
But to your point about Jews fighting back, I can't
(34:16):
remember who it was. It was a clip I saw
on I think CNBC or MSNBC of a guy just saying,
look at how many people died in Pearl Harbor. Look
at how many people died at nine to eleven, And
so what nine to eleven was more than three thousand people.
We went to major war over that, and relative to
a tiny country like Israel, that was a fraction of
(34:37):
the people that they lost.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
Right, think about we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.
Hawaii wasn't even a state, right We fire bomb Dresden,
We fire bomb Tokyo to beat the enemy so that
we would no longer have to fight war. Why should
Israel when another entity starts a war? Why should Israel
lose its soldiers left and right to try to save
the people who hate them. They're the only people on
(35:00):
earth we have to feed their enemy, you know, like
it is insane. And the faster, I'm sorry, the quicker
this war would have been done if the Biden administration
would have allowed it to happen. The quicker it was over,
the more lives would have been saved in Gaza. But
they didn't let Israel do what they had to do,
and then they had to deal with Habala, which was
(35:20):
flying rockets. Let me just tell you Hasbalah in Lebanon
fired a rocket that killed twelve Drew's children. It was
a remote control rocket. They did it on purpose, right.
Iran fired missiles at Israel first, like it's in a
three four front war and we're busy here talking about
Apak and Palestinian states and all kinds of nonsense. It's
(35:44):
just cheap virtue signaling for people. Cheap virtue signal. Yeah,
I do think that.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
It is a I say this as someone who very
much supports Israel, and I'm getting the nasty emails as
a result of it. But it's also true that a
lot of Americans see their political leaders seem to care
more about Israel than people in their own country, and
they've gotten that feeling built up over a long period
of time.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
And maybe the person who cares more about Israel than
their own country.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
So what I've heard from people when they're complaining about
it or when I'm fighting with them about it, is like,
you know, Mike Johnson runs for speakers saying that they're
going to decrease foreign aid and ends up saying that
God talked to him in a skiff to increase foreign
aid to Ukraine and Israel, you know, And he where's
Mike Johnson during many of the congressional breaks in Israel?
(36:38):
And people are like, well, we've got floods and chaos
and bad things happening in cities here. We would like
him more touring our country than touring another country.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
I am.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
I think there's a difference between that and saying I
would like to see people in this country dead in
that country. There's a difference to be able to distinguish
between those arguments.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
And but but that's not the art that is fair,
you say, because if you think that's how the world works,
that if we give Israel three billion dollars a year
that they spend on military equipment, that that's the same
you know, that that's caring about Israel. Like I never
understood this, I could care about more than one thing.
I care about America first, I care about Israel second,
(37:22):
and then everyone else is whatever, thousands of numbers down
on my list. You know what I'm saying. I care
about Israel because I'm Jewish. I care about Israel because
I think it stands up for the West and I
think it's a great ally. But my thing is, where
is your anger over Egyptian aid? They get, they get mine.
Where's your anger over all the other aid we give
to everyone we give.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
Though, David, is that you're allowed to say that you
don't like the aid going to other countries. But then
the moment you say you don't like the aid going
to Israel, that's when people are like, oh wait, you
can't say that, you know. And that's there's a distinction
in the.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
Response, Molly, you can't say that. Literally. Everyone says that.
The New York Times says.
Speaker 3 (37:59):
That, literally, you can't say it. I'm saying that when
you say it, people will accuse you of anti Semitism.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
If you are obsessed with one country, if you are
obsessed with an organization here, that American organization with American
money that advocates for foreign policy that we have foreign policy,
and you treat people who are pro Israel's fifth columnists
like Tucker Carlson, Candae Owens, Mad Gates whoever. Then yeah,
(38:29):
I'm pretty suspicious about your motivations for sure, and I'm
allowed to do that. Let me tell you another thing.
I've spent twenty years writing columns defending people from the
smear of anti Semitism. People can go back and read them.
You know, someone says something about Soros, and right away
they're anti Semitics. Someone says this, everyone's super sensitive. I
(38:51):
am not being super sensitive about these people. They are on.
They are trying to put a wedge between evangelicals and
Jews and Israel, to put a wedge between I think
they're spreading anti Semitism and the people they put on.
The way they talk. I don't know if they're being
paid or not. I don't buy Qatar or whatever. People
say to me, that's irrelevant, because you speak, your words matter.
(39:16):
I think it's a problem. I'm not saying it's the
same thing, but it's pretty connected. I mean, gosh, the
guy who has that show the Young Turks, right, I mean,
he's an anti semi and he's on Tucker and they're
just laughing it up. By the way, the Young Turks,
where the people who commit his show is named after
the people committed genocide against Armenians. No one cares about that,
(39:38):
but whatever. So I'm all over the place. Now you've
got me all spun out.
Speaker 3 (39:43):
That was a good loop back, because what we're talking
about is this open embrace of violence on the left.
And you know, like you just say, with the Young Turks, gee,
I wonder why they named their show that way. I
think they're telling us exactly why they named the show
that way, right. I don't know these people, and I
haven't talked to them personally, but I think we should
(40:03):
take it seriously. And I am also. I mean, that's
what I was trying to distinguish between people who are
sick of Israel or don't want us stab in alliance
with them, and people who actually honestly want Jews dead.
I think those people marching on Fifth Avenue or wherever
they were in New York they want Jews dead. I
think America or Israel they just want them dead.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
I agree. I don't think everyone's the same. I think
Candice Owens wants Jews dead. That's what I think. Now
I can't prove that this is just my feeling and
you don't like it. I get it, But the I
don't know what this is not Molly saying that, This
is me saying that. But the thing is this, it's
not a real debate over a foreign policy. Now, I
(40:46):
get it. There are a lot of isolationist types and
I mean full blown isolationist types who don't like our
relationship with Israel. Chucker Carlson says, for instance, that we
went to war in Iraq on Israel's behalf. Now that's
a lie. Ariel Sharon told Bush not to invade, and
Iraq Iran is the number one enemy of Israel. But
(41:07):
they just completely gloss over nine eleven. I mean, Tucker
just had a show about how all these conspiracies about
nine eleven. The bottom has fallen out because the government
lied to us about stuff, the FBI lies to us
about stuff. There's law era about Donald Trump, and now
we have to go back to JFK and talk about
how most sod killed him, like people have lost their minds.
(41:31):
And it leads to this one place conspiracies about Jewish people.
I'm sorry, it just does every time. These are just
tropes that are refashioned for the modern times over Zionism
and so forth. That's just what I think. I feel
it every day. I'm telling you, I get one hundred
anti Semitic messages a day, if not much much more,
(41:51):
you know, And it's I don't know if it's organic,
I don't know, but it is very worrisome I think
for people. But the thing is, I don't want to
be I'm not a victim safe here. I love America,
and Israel doesn't want to be a victim anymore. And
that's the difference between Jews then before Israel and after Israel.
And I'm sorry people don't like it. I don't know
if they have a good maybe ay any better pr
(42:11):
maybe they don't. I just don't really even care. I'm sorry,
all right, thank you for letting me event there probably
gonna get in trouble for that. Whatever, whatever, what do
we even talking about it?
Speaker 4 (42:22):
You can?
Speaker 3 (42:22):
I just say one more thing on the left wing
violence situation. So last week this judge in DC gave
a crazy slap on the wrist to the man who
tried to kill Justice Kavanaugh and his family using a
map that the left had provided and to go to
to go outside his house, I mean, he was outside
(42:44):
his house, and this left wing judge gave him a
slap on the wrist and said it was like so
great that everything had happened because this man now claims
to be a woman, and that and that his family
was now accepting him as a woman, so that was
a good outcome from this assassination attempt. And then also
the judge said that because Trump might not let this
(43:10):
man get taxpayer funded surgery and hormones to pretend to
be a woman, that she was going to give him
a light sentence. And historically speaking, you know, there are
debates about how much deterrence works in sentencing, but historically speaking,
people who try to assassinate judges get crazy high sentences
(43:32):
because our whole rule of law system only works delicately
when judges are free to rule without political pressure or
threats of assassination. And so by giving him only eight years,
which is what he asked for, and not the thirty
years that the Department of Justice asked for, it's a
total green light to these other assassins. To know that
(43:55):
if you try to kill a conservative justice, you could
be out of prison in a shorter time period than
the people who participated in the deal in the January
sixth riots were sentenced to And sure enough, we had
another situation happen outside the Red Mass on Sunday. So
(44:15):
the Red Mass is the term given to a special
mass for federal judges and Supreme Court justices ahead of
their term, so their term starts in October each year,
and historically speaking, quite a few justices have attended. They
knew that there were security threats, so they did not
attend this one. But a man was arrested with you like,
(44:40):
a very lengthy screed against conservatives, pro lifers, the Roman
Catholic Church, Jews, and maybe there was another group in there.
And he had literally two hundred explosive devices and had
traveled I think from California. So it's just breaking out
into the open and it's a major issue, and unfortunately
(45:04):
the country is not uniting against left wing terrorism. You
have a political party more or less standing with the
people who are committing the left wing terrorism.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
Yeah, I mean, even if you know sentencing wasn't you know,
long sentences weren't a deterrence. I want to punish people
who try to kill Supreme Court justices. It's a punishment.
And yeah, left wing violence. I mean they have given
the green light to this kind of stuff with their
(45:36):
listen since the sixties, I'm sorry, since the early twentieth century,
most political violence, explicitly political violence has been left wing people.
Get can give me any kind of chart they want
from the ADL. It doesn't mean anything to me. The communists,
the anarchists. A communist kill JFK, an anarchist left winger
(45:57):
killed McKinley, Like it goes back, a Palestinian killed RFK.
I'm not saying it's like we've said, it's not a monopoly,
but it's clear that the left wing is more comfortable
with violence, and TIFA is more comfortable with violence. It's
named after Stalinist group. I mean, why are we even pretending?
Here's my question to you, though, what do we do?
What can you do about this? Is it a cultural answer?
(46:21):
Is there some kind of government answer? People keep saying
do something about it to the government, But I don't
know what you can really do preemptively to stop people
from engaging this in this kind of violence, other than
kind of zeroing in on antifunds and so forth.
Speaker 3 (46:36):
I was just thinking about this on the plane ride
home last night. It is absolutely true that you must
use the power of the state to crack down on
left wing terrorism. There terror networks should be investigated their
financial streams like all of that, and they should be
charged and prosecuted for the terrorism that they're doing or
plotting or you know, all of it. But it's also
(46:58):
true that that will not restore the country tree to
where it needs to be. I mean, the beauty of
where we are, of who we are as a people,
is that we were founded with an understanding that humans
are sinful and that we need to have checks on
our own sinful behavior, that we you know, that we
(47:19):
need to have, that we need to believe in higher
things and show love to one another. I mean, there
were all these things that were present at our founding
that we have systematically eradicated a love of our country
and our founding as we throughout the you know, the
stains of bad things we did, we throughout all the
good stuff as well. And so if we if we
(47:42):
don't understand the greater importance of religion to politics, we
will never be restored as a country. And so I
pray more for that that people will return to God, repent, believe,
love one another more than I pray for justice for
(48:02):
left wing terrorism, but I pray for both, you know,
both things I hope happened.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
It's it's a scary time in that way, and it
really shouldn't be this way because things we are not
suffering in the way a lot of people have suffered
in the past. You know, there's no big economic collapse
or anything. We shouldn't be this angry with each other.
It should be we should be able to work this out.
Sense so puerile. But anyway, I don't even know what
(48:30):
we were going to talk about next month.
Speaker 3 (48:33):
Maybe we should just move to culture now.
Speaker 2 (48:34):
Yeah, you got me. You're anting on something.
Speaker 3 (48:36):
I wanted you to talk about it, but instead I'll
just direct people to read your excellent piece on Obamacare.
One of the nice things about us not being young
whipper snapper journalists is that we have memories that extend
beyond the last ten years, and having been in the
trenches of covering Obamacare, David wrote an excellent piece on
(49:00):
you know what's happening there? With all the lies that
we were told about it and how they have borne out.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
I appreciate that. I think it's important to remember that.
Did you see the Washington Post editorial that said, yes,
a wildcare has never been affordable?
Speaker 3 (49:15):
Turned out it was wrongly named. Oh really, it's known.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Yeah, just a quick note on it. This shutdown is
over the extension of sunsetting subsidies of Obamacare that were
past during COVID. I just want to reiterate this that
were sold as temporary to help people get over that economy,
the marketplace that Obama promised us was going to be
vibrant and competitive and bring back lower prices. Now, citizens
(49:43):
pay ninety percent of the premiums for people involved in
that marketplace. So when they say people are losing their insurance,
they mean that tax payers will only pay eighty percent
of those premiums. Listen, you want to expand the welfare state,
I would do it like this is everyone's like, why
don't you have a plan? But I do expand welfare
to whatever you think is right and let everyone do
(50:04):
whatever they want. Open up the markets, let people find
the insurance they want, let them buy the things they want.
We don't have a plan for supermarkets. We don't have
a plan for auto insurance and national plan. My voice
is a higher octave because you've gotten the all spun
out of that stuff, you know what I'm saying? And
then I get all worked up. So let's talk about culture.
Speaker 4 (50:25):
Right?
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Should I start? Do you want to start?
Speaker 4 (50:32):
Go?
Speaker 3 (50:33):
Actually, I have a story that I meant to tell
last week. Yeah, I forgot, So I told you. I
was at that wedding in Nashville and the mother of
the groom comes up to me and she was like, oh,
I have to tell you. She said, I sometimes have
trouble sleeping, and I'll listen to podcasts as I'm going
to sleep, and you and David both have nice low voices.
(50:55):
She actually said that. And so if she just finds
it soothing to listen to us, and then if she
falls asleep, she'll just like go back and listen to
it when she's awake.
Speaker 2 (51:06):
We help people fall asleep. It's nice.
Speaker 3 (51:08):
It's like she's like, so, I'm at church and the
row in front of her stands up to go get communion,
and she realizes she's about to go up to get
communion as well, and all of a sudden, our voices
start coming out of her purse, and she's got her
phone and She's like trying to figure out how to
(51:30):
stop it, but it just keeps going and she's like
freaking out about it. And then she wakes up and
realizes that the church scene was all happening in a
dream and a nightmare. She emphasized this was a nightmare.
It was horrib like she was so mortified by it.
So I just like that people are using us in
(51:51):
their dreams slash night.
Speaker 2 (51:52):
We've infiltrated their dreams. Incredible. Uh Okay. I watched the
movie souit Superman The New Superman. Did you go see that?
Speaker 4 (52:03):
No?
Speaker 2 (52:04):
No, I heard good things from a lot of people.
I thought it was just immense garbage, just really terrible.
I don't know why people like it. I'm not trying
to be contrariant here. I just do not get it.
It like it has a very immature, kind of, you know,
goofy component, which I didn't mind so much, but then
(52:26):
it has like a serious component. It just seemed really
out of like both seemed out of sync. I just,
you know, I didn't like it. It just I don't know.
I just thought it was a kind of a mess,
an expensive looking mess play Superman Guy's name is David
corn Sweat. I've never heard of him. He's fine, Like,
(52:48):
you know, he's fine. He's he looks like Superman. And
it kind of plays on the on the tropes of
superhero tropes, like putting on your glasses and no one
recognizes you. It's Clark Kennon Superman like. It plays on
that stuff, and that's fine, but just overall, the story
was so ridiculous. It seemed almost like a movie that
was setting up a bunch of other superheroes to have
(53:09):
their own movies and all this suff I am not
a Superman fan in general as far as comic books go.
I never have been, because I think he has just
way too many powers, does that make sense. I like
Batman because he is a person who did it himself.
He invents the stuff, you know whatever. Superman can't really
ever be beat, so I've always found it kind of boring.
(53:30):
Though I did like the Christopher Reeve movie Reeve movies
growing up. I don't know, Yeah, they were nice, they
were fun, but anyway, so that's my review of that.
The second thing I had was I watched an old show.
It's twenty years old. I've seen it before. It's an
HBO show called Rome. Have you ever watched this?
Speaker 5 (53:48):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (53:48):
What is that about? Is it about Rome?
Speaker 2 (53:50):
Yeah, it's about Julius Caesar traversing the Rubicon and coming
back to Rome and all of that. I think it's
one of my favorite shows. I mean, it's got to
be up there. It's one of my favorite shows. Ever,
it is not for the kids. It is not for
the kids. I like it a lot. And if people
can get over some of the sexual and content I think,
(54:12):
which I I just I don't know why it's in
there to such an extent. It kind of it's whatever.
But if you can get over that, it's a good show.
John Milius is the creator. Yeah, he's the creator of it.
Who's you know read Dawn and Conan the Barbarian and
so on. Anyway, that's what I have.
Speaker 3 (54:31):
Okay, I am racking my brain, and I'm pretty sure
that since we last talked, I have not seen anything
cultural or listened to anything Like. I listened to podcasts
on my flights. Those are good. I'm I have like
a weird variety. I like to listen to issues, et cetera.
(54:53):
I also like to listen to the Dana Carvey, David
Spade comedy podcast.
Speaker 2 (54:57):
I've not heard that one.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
It's pretty funny and they're enjoyable. They actually cracked me
up because they were going to talk about the Jimmy
Kimmel situation. They were like, don't worry, we're going to
talk about the Jimmy Kimmel situation. Then when they talked
about it, I think they devoted all of like forty
five seconds to it, and they were like, yeah, so
he's a friend, and I guess it all got resolved.
So anyway, I was on a plane this week and
I was like, Okay, you talked about.
Speaker 2 (55:20):
It, but I'm a Dana Carvey fan. He's funny.
Speaker 3 (55:26):
Yeah, me too. I mentioned that I went out to
Phoenix to host the Charlie Kirk Show with Andrew Colevett
and Blake Knaff and Sean Davis, and that was a
lot of fun. It was really cool to be out
there and just also talk to people who loved and
knew Charlie. So it's kind of part of the recovery,
(55:48):
the grieving period, but it was fun to be on there,
and it's just also fun to have a totally different audience,
which in the case of the Charlie Kirks show seems
to be very young people and not so young people.
Speaker 2 (56:02):
No middle aged people, just the young people and old people.
I wonder what our audience is, Probably young, young, middle class, and.
Speaker 3 (56:10):
I think they're all very handsome and beautiful, smart.
Speaker 2 (56:14):
Well smart, smart for sure. Smart. Accept the angry emailers
towards me. There, that is bright, that's great. If you'd
like to email the show, please do so at radio
at the Federalist dot com. We'll be back next week.
I hope you will be too. Until then, be lovers
of freedom and anxious for the fray
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.