'You're Wrong' With Mollie Hemingway And David Harsanyi, Ep. 155: Trump’s Foreign Policy

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they break down the Trump administration's decision to drop bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities, explain why CNN's resident Russia hoaxer Natasha Bertrand can't be trusted, and analyze the results of the New York City mayoral primary. Mollie also recounts the worst travel day she's ever experienced, and David shares his thoughts on A Minecraft Movie.

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.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. I'll
tell you what's going on here, Molly.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Where I am?

Speaker 1 (00:31):
It's hot. You're in Colorado. I'm on the East Coast.
Is it hot there as well?

Speaker 3 (00:36):
It's beautiful in Colorado. It usually is, and it is dry,
and it is warm but bearable. And every time I
open up my weather app and see that it says
it's like ninety eight in Virginia, but it feels like
one hundred and ten. I am happy to be here,
although I'll be returning shortly.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Anywhere else it's hot, Molly.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
The Middle East? Oh, okay, come close, close.

Speaker 4 (01:04):
Nice.

Speaker 3 (01:05):
What's happening there?

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Well, things have cooled down since last we spoke. The
United States got involved in the war against Iran, and
since then there's also been a ceasefire. I suppose we
should talk first about America's involvement it I guess last weekend,
or yeah, I forgot which.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
Today, Actually they dropped Saturday.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Saturday, Okay, the US dropped fourteen thirty thousand pound bombs
on the three nuclear facilities in Iran. I think they
launched a bunch of Tomahawk missiles as well, from some yeah,
limited precision strike. In my view, it's clear, it seems

(01:51):
that for the Israelis to have taken care of those
sites would have meant far longer war, maybe even landing
some ops. I don't know, you know, who knows what
kind of planning they have going on. But obviously the
Israelis had more than one reason for being in this
war with Iran, which in my view Iran began on
October seventh, But obviously the propelling.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
Reason, or the reason that.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
They needed to do it was to stop the Uranian
nuclear program. What was your reaction when that happened? Did
you expect us to get involved? I know, I don't
think that you were a fan of the idea initially, So.

Speaker 3 (02:32):
Sorry for my pause there. First off, I've been off
the grid. I've been in the mountains of Colorado, and
I arrived into a town on Saturday night and was
hanging out with some family of Marx actually, and we
were watching surfing on the river, which is a weird thing.

(02:54):
Have you ever seen that where people can surf on
a river? No, So they build the I don't know,
it's like a dip in the river. It's a manufactured
dip and you just can get out there on a
surfboard and you can ride for a while. And it
was very popular in this town. And we were just
having such a good time watching people young and old

(03:16):
surfing and then biting it. And you know, also whitewater
rafts are trying to make it through this surf area
and some of them didn't make it, you know, they
would capsize or whatever. And it was just a really
fun thing. And it was also International Surfing Day June
twenty first, So I'm I take a picture of the surfers,
and I take a picture of the handwritten International Surfing

(03:38):
Day board and I'm like tweeting, Happy International Surfing Day.
And then as soon as it posts, I see a
picture of one of those big bombs being dropped on
one of the nuclear sites and I was like, this
is not an appropriate tweet at a time when we've
clearly just dropped a massive ordinance on you know, the

(04:01):
bad guys. So That's how I realized that we were,
that we had done this and it had happened like
many hours earlier. I just had no idea because we
didn't have radios on. We didn't have you know, we
weren't following the news, and so I don't know. I
was I'm I'm of this. I was of the same

(04:21):
mixed mind. Now I'm thrilled by the way, but on
that day, I was worried, well, you know, hopeful that
it worked out well because Iran can't have nuclear weapons, so,
you know, supportive of that part, nervous that there would
be some kind of massive response on Israel or on
American troops, and just kind of praying, what do you

(04:43):
think when it happened.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
I hate to use the word happy when it comes
to war, but I was grateful. I guess that we
we did this for numerous reasons. I mean, I'd like
to take a step back and just talk about Donald
Trump's decision.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
And everyone kind of harped.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
On his claim that he was going to wait two weeks,
but he actually chose his words carefully there. He said
within two weeks in two days after the statement is
within the two week period. I think it was another faint,
not that you really needed it. Because Israel had taken
out all air defenses, we can essentially do what we
wanted to them. I think the whole operation, just now
that it was successful, we'll talk about that a little

(05:24):
bit later, is that I think Donald Trump, as far
as US foreign policy goes, has now moved US past
Iraq in a way.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
I don't know if you will agree with this.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
He's kind of rejected the Tucker Carlson factions, which I
think are isolationist ideas, and he rejected the neo conservative
ideas that we have to clean up everywhere we go
and make sure everyone has a regime change.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
Now.

Speaker 1 (05:47):
I'd love to see regime change there if I knew
it was going to work out well for the people.
We don't know. It was never in the cards. We're
never landing troops there to do that, and I don't
think so Israel is playing psychological warfare with the with
the clerics there, trying to scare them. It's sad for
the people because I think they're gonna come down hard

(06:08):
on them, considering all the things that Mosad probably did
within the country. But I think we've moved past that
and we showed. I think Donald Trump returned a level
of deterrence to the Middle East. When we say something,
we mean it. I think people are going to be
less inclined to do things we don't want them to
do as far as nuclear proliferation and other things. As

(06:30):
long as Donald Trump's president, I don't know the future
with the future holds, so I think that those things
matter as well beyond just what happened in Iran.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
How do you feel about that.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
Kind of similar I think that the vast majority of
American people have long been in that area that you
just described as it being in between, like the you
can never go to war war any use of the
military is bad kind of posture, and the never met
a war. I didn't like posture that is so prominent

(07:05):
among like elected Republicans, some elected Republicans and some you know,
TV pundits and stuff like that. I think most Americans
have long been in that middle ground, which is when
we have to do something, we do it, and we
do it to completion, we win it, we do it well,
and then we don't get embroiled in a long, messy thing.

(07:29):
So that was another thing that made me nervous. It
was like the next day on Sunday, I feel like
when Trump tweeted out, you know, some people say regime
change is a politically incorrect word, but I think it's
a beautiful phrase to use for Iran. And I'm like, okay, okay,
George W. Bush, like, where are we going here? And

(07:50):
it seems like he was more doing that as a
reminder that we could and that Iran really really should
move to cease fire.

Speaker 4 (07:58):
Right.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
Yes, I think it was a way to scare the
Mulas into not surrendering. They were never going to surrender.
That doesn't happen in the Islamic world in the way
it might happen in a European war or something or
you know, but to yeah, relent immediately when they fired
those missiles on the US base.

Speaker 2 (08:20):
And Katar I knew it was over.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
It was just they telegraphed that attack for like three hours.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
It was a domestic face saving maneuver.

Speaker 1 (08:30):
Obviously, later we learned they had actually told the quitar exactly.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
What was going to happen.

Speaker 1 (08:35):
And that's this is a hallmark of Middle East wars.
The same thing happened with the Israelis in seventy three.
You had to make sadt not lose complete face. It's
impossible for them to surrender or whatever if they look
like they've been humiliated. But the Mulas were humiliated. Their

(08:55):
whole air defense was just knocked out in the first
DAID all their generals were basically all their top generals
were basically assassinated within the first few hours. This is
one of the most impressive military operations in the twenty
first century. Another thing I just want quickly want to
say about Donald Trump was he understands something I think
that a lot of people who are maybe on the

(09:17):
non interventionist side don't care very much about. Is that
superpowers don't act terrified of threats or of other nations.
People should be terrified of us, And I think using
your power and for something good. It wasn't just like oh,
shock in awe. There was a reason for this attack.
I think also lets people know that they should have

(09:39):
a reason to be scared of the United States if
they undermine our interest, they hurt our people. Let's not
forget Iran has been an enemy of the United States
for forty five years. They've killed Americans, they take hostages
even now.

Speaker 3 (09:52):
Yeah, that's what I was going to say when you
said you think this war started on October seventh, I
do too. I mean, you can say the war has
been long going on, but October seventh is the reasonable
date to set for this most recent phase of the war.
And a lot of people were saying that we have
been at war with Iran since nineteen seventy nine or

(10:14):
you know, when they took the hostages, and I'm like, yeah,
I get that, but you have to respond quickly to
things and you can't let them fester for fifty years.
And viewing this as a more recent conflict I think
is helpful for all parties. It's a way to avoid
getting like dragged into a long, disturbing, never ending war.

(10:38):
Is when you understand, like, okay, Iran, through its proxies,
declared war on Israel on October seventh. I mean, they've
really been calling for the death of Israel for much
longer than that, but this was you know, that's when
it started with moss has Bola also started right then,
and Israel's been responding and we've been helping Israel respond

(10:59):
and this as part of that.

Speaker 1 (11:01):
I agree with that sentiment. You should have reacted to
the House. That's shaking when it happened, et cetera. But
as an old guy, I do remember those things, you know,
and I's it feels like we've been pushed around by
some bully when it should be the Well, we shouldn't
be a bully, but we shouldn't be pushed around.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
But I just won't quickly also talk about this.

Speaker 1 (11:23):
So if the war started on the seventh, and obviously
Israel was unprepared for Hamas's attack, and it is still
something I don't think that there's been a reckoning for
in the Israeli government. Think about what they've done since then.
They just attacked Iran and his Balla did nothing. His
Bola is also decapitated. The Syrian airspace was wide open.

(11:47):
In fact, I saw report yesterday that Israel has been
talking to Syria, possibly bringing them into the Abrahamical That
is just mind boggling. Russia's out of Syria, right, Russia
didn't even turn the Iatolus calls during this war, even
though the Iranians had been said, oh and.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
You heard Trump say that. That Putin called and was like,
do you need help with Iran? And Trump said no,
I need help with you.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
Yeah, I think you have enough on.

Speaker 3 (12:13):
Plate, the fact that Putin was offering help even here.

Speaker 1 (12:17):
You know, yeah, so and Hamas's is decimated, They're still there.
It's much more difficult. It's difficult situation in a different sense.
But so they've won the wider worn in real way,
and there was a chance for peace here. Listen, we
can talk about this in a minute. But also China,
by the way, which a lot of people thought would
get involved. I mean that the idea that they're going
to get involved in a war with the United States,

(12:38):
right they are over Iran.

Speaker 2 (12:40):
It's not going to happen. Most they just want their oil.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
When the Iranians started to threaten that they were going
to close the Straight of Harbus, the Chinese were like, nah,
you're not doing that.

Speaker 2 (12:49):
We get forty five.

Speaker 1 (12:50):
Percent of our oil through there runs no enemies, allies,
and it's in big trouble. Anyway, I think it was
a real success and how we should be finding wars
if we have to, and it's not really I wouldn't
even I wouldn't.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
Close to the war. Yeah, I want to go back
to this thing about the two extremes and how Trump
was smack dab in the middle. I do think so
when I look at the isolationists, I hate that word,
but it actually can work for the then the extreme
non interventionists, the restrainers, they did not seem to be

(13:32):
acting like Iran with nuclear capabilities was a threat. Now,
it might not be a threat to the United States
because they still couldn't reach the United States with their nukes,
but it's certainly a threat to the civilized order, to
the world, to Europe, to Israel. Right. Yeah, they never
seemed to acknowledge that, and I just think that's like

(13:55):
a big reason why some of them weren't taken seriously.
On the other side, it did seem some people were
a little too gleeful about going to war with Iran
and not recognizing that war always has tremendous downsides, whether

(14:15):
it's financial cost that you know, the amount of money
being spent on that is not being spent on domestic priorities,
or the chance of loss of life. The people you
bomb always get a vote in how they're going to respond,
and you can't control that entirely. And they didn't seem
to recognize that in a way that also made them

(14:36):
seem extremely unserious. And I think the way this has
gone thus far. I mean, it's like you get nervous
speaking too quickly because anything could happen in the hours
and days and weeks to come. But seems like it
went really well for people who want to use our
military to achieve our goals and then and then return

(15:00):
into the United States, right.

Speaker 2 (15:03):
I agree with that.

Speaker 1 (15:04):
The Iraq War, especially with some younger people, and I
noticed who I will call isolations. I think there were
people who are like, yeah, we shouldn't have been involved
in World War two, are actually showing me that they
don't think that we should be involved in any war
unless someone's landing in California, you know, parwatrooping into San
Diego or something. I see people saying, yeah, this has
nothing to do with us, This is Israel's problem. Yeah,

(15:26):
of course it is Israel. More of Israel's problem because
they're right there. But I'm just going to give you
an example that's not as outlandish as it seems. Let's
say Iran, which did send people here and to Europe
to possibly try to assassinate Donald Trump. But let's say
they're just assassinating ambassadors or whatever they're doing. If they
have a nuclear weapon, there is literally nothing we can

(15:46):
do about it, and if we did, there's the possibility
that nuclear war would happen. So that's dangerous. It's dangerous
that a big oil producing country has nuclear weapons that
can blackmail the world. Listen, everyone's saying, oh, I don't
care about the streets near Iran because we don't get
most of our oil there. That's not how oil works.
It's a fungible commodity. The prices will go up if

(16:08):
you cut off a major producer that matters to us.

Speaker 2 (16:12):
Our economy could crash. Things like that.

Speaker 1 (16:14):
But I also think the Iraq War created this idea
that every conflict we get into will spiral into some
forever war or World War three, or it's.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
Not how the world actually works.

Speaker 3 (16:24):
Okay, yeah, no, that's not fair though, because it's not
just the Iraq War. It's the Afghanistan War, it's the
Ukraine War. It's like every the last few decades have
not gone well for military involvement. People are more than happy,
in fact, they love funding the military and they love
the military. I just went to that two hundred and

(16:46):
fiftieth Army Pride. People love our army and rightly so.
But the last few decades we changed our war footing
to be how long can this war last? How much
money can we spend on it, rather than how able
are we to achieve an objective and return home? And
when you realize that the length of time was considered

(17:09):
a metric of success as opposed to a problem, you
know you see why so many of our conflicts over
the last few decades have not gone well for America.
They've been very expensive in terms of human life and
money and having your attention in places it shouldn't be,
but they haven't been very good at achieving objectives, you know, quickly, efficiently, powerfully,

(17:32):
and that also makes us weaker when people think you're
just going to like occupy them for a while and
help build their infrastructure when you go to war with them.

Speaker 4 (17:45):
Rule Number one of investing is compounding is the royal
road to riches. The watch Dout on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection
between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
If you're saving money and you let impounding work, it's magic.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of
when you will be wealthy, whether it's happening in DC

(18:07):
or down on Wall Street.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
It's affecting you financially. Be informed.

Speaker 4 (18:09):
Check out the Watchdout on Wall Street podcast with christ
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.

Speaker 1 (18:18):
Is a famous movie in the sixties that people probably
don't know about, what Peter Sellers called The Mouse That Roared.
I don't know if you've ever seen it, but there's
this super tiny nation in Europe that's bankrupt. So they
decide they're going to invade the United States because they
know that once you fight the United States in a war,
they're going to help rebuild your country and give you
lots of money. And what happens is at the same
it's from a book. Yeah, at the same time as

(18:40):
they're invading, there's like a national emergency, like a practice, right,
not a practice, I forgot what you call it. But
you know, everyone's underground and bunker. So they actually win
the war and they like take over. They think they've
won the war. It's a very funny movie. I would
say this, I agree with you in principle that those
things were unwise and bad, but I think that we

(19:04):
need to define things better. I don't believe that our
policing of Afghanistan and our nation building and our social
engineering project, there is really a military operation the military.
Our military operations were quite successful in both of them.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
I always try to remind people that, like, those were
not failed wars. We actually did really well in Afghanistan.
We did really well in a rock, and we did
it quickly, and then we just stuck around for another,
you know, ten to twenty years.

Speaker 1 (19:32):
I just don't think there's an appetite for that anymore.
I actually, perhaps unlike you, believe that for a lot
of people that came out of a place of well
good intentions, right, that we want to bring these people
a better life, not just that we want war to
go on and on. And it failed. It's a failed
experiment in the Islamic world that has not happened. You know,

(19:54):
we did it elsewhere to great success. You're you know,
in essence was peaceful. Japan is our ally for a
long time. So on anyway.

Speaker 3 (20:04):
You tell me about Like there was another phase of this,
which was when Donald Trump was asked a question about
the ceasefire. Because then he announces that the ceasefire is
put into effect on Monday night. I think is when
it was announced, and then by Tuesday morning you have
Trump on the White House lawn with the perfectly executed

(20:24):
f bomb about his frustration with Israel and Iran, like
almost violating the ceasefire or violating the spirit of it.
But I don't actually know the order of events there.
Do you know what happened after the ceasefire was announced
but before it went into effect.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
I mean Israel carried out right after it was announced.
I saw Israel carry out a few bombings, but it
was not in force yet, you know what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (20:46):
So they carried announced it, You announced it, and then
there's like a time when it's which is.

Speaker 1 (20:50):
Going to be yes, yeah, So they were bombing some
military installations. I quickly would like to say here that
Israeli's the Israeli strikes, we're all either some kind of no,
We're all had military purpose except for a few things
like the TV station. The Iranian strikes were just random

(21:11):
assaults on civilian areas, which there was no military strategic
missile strikes at Israel's basically all just civilians. And then
I believe from what I read that the Iranians had
fired after the after the ceasefire had been in effect
killed a bunch of people, and then Israel was going

(21:33):
to go back and retaliate, and Trump was mad about that.
Trump said that maybe they had done that, the Iranians
had fired accidentally.

Speaker 2 (21:41):
The Israelis went and just.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
Like did some symbolic bombing of a radar station and
went back. They didn't really do much, and that's how
I remember.

Speaker 3 (21:49):
It, Okay. So then Trump asked about it, and he
was like, they don't know what the f they're doing.
Do you understand that? And it was also, you know,
people have been saying that he was just being led
around by Babing and Yahoo and that you know, he

(22:10):
was weak and blah blah blah. And it was just
kind of a funny statement because I think a lot
of Americans are exasperated with the Mid East inability to
get it back together and how much time other people
have to spend helping them all live with each other.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
I just Donald Trump doesn't strike me as the person
and I've been following him since I'm a kid who
has contrived opinions, Right, that seemed like he was literally
angry at them, because I think he wants to be
seen as a peacemaker if they break it and keeps going,
it looks like he failed. I think there are many
reasons for that. The Israelis were like, you're right, whatever

(22:48):
you know will stop now. I think that there are
like incredibly appreciative that this president finally allowed them to
do what needed to be done. I don't think other
presidents had.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
So she reminds me of something that bothered me before
the attacks. So Joel Pollock, who's awesome over at Breitbart,
had posted like a video clip that he said was
making the rounds in Israel, and it was from Modern Family.

(23:18):
And I don't remember the names of the people in
Modern Family, but one of the families is this couple
with three kids, and it's Phil is the dad, and
I don't remember the mom's name, Phil Dumfree, Yeah, yeah.
And so the parents are both agreeing to jump off
of a large rock, and so Phil gets the American
flag and the wife gets the Israeli flag, and she

(23:40):
jumps off and they go, Okay, we're going to do
this together on the count of three. Right, They're like right,
And they counted three, and she jumps off and he doesn't,
and so she climbs all the way back up to
the top of the rock and she's like what happened?
And he was like, oh, I just got scared and
blah blah blah, and so they agreed to do it again,
one two, three, Once again she jumps. He doesn't, I
mean think it happens three times. And it was like,

(24:03):
this joke is going around Israel and I wanted to
and you just said Israel was very grateful, and I
think Americans would like Israel to be grateful. And when
they saw, like when they see stuff like that, like oh,
here Israel's making fun of the US for not just
willy nilly going to war with Iran. I wanted to
be like, for people who want our help, maybe don't

(24:27):
mock us as being afraid.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
You know, who knows how much that's going around. I'll
tell you what was going around. I saw a highway
in Tel Aviv and they had just a giant there
are more American flags in Israel than there are in
New York City, by the way, flying just so you know,
and there's just a giant American flag that said like,
thank you, mister Trump, like President Trump. I mean, so
I listen, I'm not saying everyone.

Speaker 2 (24:50):
There is perfect.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
They were as grateful as maybe they should be in
a sense. And you know, I mean it's fair to
say that Israel could not do it in this way
without the United States. It's weaponry, the backing, all of
that incredible.

Speaker 3 (25:03):
Couldn't have bombed these without Israel taking out all of
the our defenses.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
Too, but we shouldn't.

Speaker 3 (25:08):
So it's a good teamwork makes the dream work.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. And I think it's important for people
to realize that this was an incredibly precise military operation.
It's pretty crazy. I don't know, I just I was
trying to think of a of an example of a
similar strike in modern warfare where one country takes out
the other country's entire military leadership essentially and breaks chain

(25:32):
of command a person that a country one country taking
out in other countries completely all their aerial defenses like
this doesn't happen.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
This was a very.

Speaker 1 (25:43):
Impressive achievement I think as far as military warfare.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
Goes, And by the way, these nuclear I think there
is so much agreement worldwide that Iran cannot be trusted
with a nuke that the moment they started in uranium
for nuclear weapons, this should have happened. That we should
have bombed them.

Speaker 1 (26:06):
I mean, the plan to do all the all the
things I just mentioned has probably been in place for
ten years or more, you know, I mean the Mosad
sources within their country, knowing where all the scientists are,
all the people, like a lot went into this years
and years and years, I'm sure with American help. Let's

(26:28):
talk about the Was the bombing successful? I mean, was it?
Did it achieve its objectives? Yesterday, CNN reported, and then
The New York Times followed up with a story. The
headline reads, early US intel assessments suggest strikes on Iran
did not destroy nuclear sites, that the Iranians would be

(26:53):
back in business within months. It was written, one of
the one of the reporters was Natasha Bertrand.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
Tell us about her.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
Wasn't she one of the leading, maybe one of the
first people to pass along the dossier during the Russia
Gate thing. Yeah?

Speaker 3 (27:12):
So. Natasha Bertrand, whose nickname is Natasha Fusion GPS. Bertrand
is probably most well known for regurgitating the Democrat Party's
info op that fifty one top ranked spies had assessed
that Hunter Biden's laptop was fake and Russian disinformation, and

(27:32):
she wrote that piece, did her duty as a total
carve out for bad actors in the intelligence community and
has been kind of a lot laughingstock as a result
of this, although in the media you get rewarded for
participating in Democrat info ops and so she, I think,
got moved from Politico to CNN. She also was well

(27:55):
known for being a regular funnel of Fusion GPS information
and Fusion GPS was hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign
to craft the Russia collusion narrative and to disseminate it
into compliant media, and Natasha Bertrand was one of the
most compliant media for that. So if Fusion GPS and

(28:17):
their Democrat you know people said, let's say, Donald Trump,
you know, did this, she would write it up with
no questions asked. And so that's the kind of person
she is. And so she wrote this piece about a
piece of intel. Now, I was just doing some reporting
on that, and I have spoken with people very familiar

(28:38):
with the document in question, and it is true that
there's a document rated low confidence meaning like I think
that's the lowest of the confidence intervals low saying, and
it was it was a document created on Sunday night,

(29:00):
like you know, just a day after the bombing, and
it says at the top, this is not to be
taken as definitive. We have to do not just days,
but weeks of finding out information, and we are nowhere
near that point. So it says that, like at the top,
for anyone who can read, this is not like real. Basically,

(29:24):
this is like a very early assessment at very low confidence.
But you know, here's what we think about the damage
to the sites and people who there are a lot
of I think there are people who have access to
this who are like Democrat party operatives for like actual
so Congress also has access to this document. So let

(29:46):
the let the listener understand, and so it was immediately
fed to those like people who are Democrat operatives in
the media like Natasha Bertrand either to suggest that Trump's
bomb wasn't as successful as everyone is saying it is,
as Iran is saying it was, as Israel is saying
it was, as everyone in the US other than this

(30:09):
one intelligence assessment. Oh, it also says on the document
this was not conducted in coordination with US intelligence agencies.
So I think people usually understand there. I think there's
seventeen major intel agencies, any one of them can have
an intelligence product, and then sometimes they're shopped around to

(30:32):
other people, and other people will say, Okay, that doesn't
match with what we're finding out. You know, there's just
an it's called an intelligence community for a reason, and
it's very hard to get good information from human sources
or photos or other stuff. So you usually are just
combining a bunch of different intelligence products to make an
assessment about how successful everything is. You don't take the

(30:54):
thing that was created hours after the bombing that by
its own admission, isn't very you know, full done, and
is by its own admission, at a very low confidence level,
and say, okay, well, no more work to do to
assess the situation.

Speaker 1 (31:08):
Well, the New York Times bias on this never mentioned
that it was low confidence. The CNN piece, I don't
believe did. Now it does. I think it's been updated
since everyone pointed out how crazy it is to treat
this as definitive. I completely think it was meant to
try to embarrass the administration, to make it seem like

(31:28):
we wasted our time there. Now, common sense tells me
that if you drop fourteen of the most powerful bombs,
that the Iranians are just going to pick up and
give back to work in a month or two. You
are insane to believe that. Now, since this report, obviously
the President came I think the maybe Trump even came out,

(31:49):
I know of some others came out and said it's ridiculous.
It's been destroyed all these three facilities. But also the
International Atomic Energy said that the damage to Iran's nuclear
program is significant, at least sent back a few years.
The Iranians themselves have said that it is you know

(32:14):
that there's been significant damage, though I saw a report
that spies have picked up communication between military leaders and
the mullah or the clerics, that that they're lying to
the clerics about the damage done the Israelis themselves. Now
you have to take this with skepticism. It's the Israelis,

(32:35):
but I don't understand why they would not. What I'm
saying is that Iran is still the enemy, the mulah
is still the Mullahs are still in charge. For them
to kind of downplay how dangerous the program is seems
counterintuitive to.

Speaker 3 (32:48):
Me, right exactly. I always think you have to think
about the interest of the person making a claim, and
israel Is saying this was like a very very effective strike.
They would have every reason to say otherwise if they
had a reason to believe otherwise.

Speaker 1 (33:04):
Yeah, or simply keep iron you know, in check, right,
so keep them worried that another attack might be coming.
But you know, they say this like, there was this
great piece I think I mentioned it last week in
tablet with this physicist there. I saw another piece in
the Wall Street Journal where they talk about centrifugea is
how hard it is to keep them going, how it's
not so easy to It's not like you just have

(33:25):
some enrich uranium and you just screw it on top
of a war ballistic missile. You know that there is
a process. It takes a lot of facilities. It's clear
to me from everything I'm reading that this program has
been heard in a way that's going to be hard
to recover from.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
Now.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
Obviously they can start it up again, and maybe they will.
I mean, I don't understand their obsession with this honestly,
knowing that Israel will never allow this to happen in
the United States will obviously never allow it to happen,
it seems like very suicidal. Now I'm not saying they're
so people saying, oh, are they rational? Are they not
rad You could be both. It's like a suicide bomber

(34:04):
and his way to his target doesn't, you know, step
in front of a bus. I mean they want to
preserve their regime, but they also want nuclear weapons. So
in any event, I think it's this is what was
a successful strike. It seems to me, I don't know
how you survive something like this. Also, incidentally, Israel killed
like twelve at least of their top nuclear scientists. Like,

(34:27):
if you're in a young Iranian you're not going into
a STEM program anymore. You're going to like liberal arts
or whatever. You don't want to be a nuclear scientist, right.
I mean, it's hard to replace knowledge. All those generals
that were killed, they have institutional knowledge is incredibly difficult,
like SOLEMANI to just simply replace. It's not as simple
as people think.

Speaker 3 (34:50):
I want to make this is such an unimportant thing
to complain about, But I also just want to say
I was annoyed by everyone on Twitter when I would
check in extremism on display between the opposing sides, the
catastrophic nature of the one. You know, the one side
would be like, this is World War three, it's over.

(35:11):
We're in another forever war. Donald Trump broke his promises,
and then the other side being like anyone who doesn't
support this or who is worried about this is worse
than Hitler, and people just kind of lost their minds
and it was really annoying to watch.

Speaker 1 (35:28):
Well, I want to say this, though, when we talk
about those who were wrong about Iraq, we don't give
them quarter and say, well, you know, you know, maybe
I just did before when I said that they did
good intentions. People who were scare mongering about this, like
tick Car Carlson and others who were wrong essentially about
everything they said that would happen didn't happen, and then

(35:49):
pretend that they were. They had put the pressure on
Trump to to not invade and regime change. Well he
never said he would. You're this is you're killing a
regime change tweet did not say anything about America doing it.
I think wanting the regime change, as we said, was
meant as sort of a psychological ploy to scare them.

(36:13):
But anyway, setting that aside, no troops were removed. You
tom vade a country, There's a lot that goes into it.
There is no evidence that that was ever in the
cars the United States was coming up with some plan
to do it. My point only is like, if you're
that wrong, and you're scare mongering the whole time, and
you're spreading what I would say is our borderline anti

(36:34):
semitic theory is about how Donald Trump's a puppet of
the Jewish State and Natagna who is leading our foreign policy.
I mean, I think you deserve to be reprimanded or
mocked for that. You don't you know, I don't know,
you know, That's how I feel.

Speaker 3 (36:49):
I just want everybody to kind of calm down and
be less extreme it. I had a tweet where I
said something like, it is reasonable to be worried about,
you know, being dragged into a war, but you should
also remember that Trump and his team are different than
you know, George W. Bush and his team and Obama
and Biden and their teams. And I think that, by

(37:10):
the way, aged very well, right, Like, you can be worried,
but you should also remember that Trump has I mean,
first of all, oh, actually, all these people who are like,
why are you not turning on Trump? Now that he's
bombed Iran? It's like, why are you not turning on
Trump after he did the thing he said he's going
to do for like fifteen years, you know what I mean.

(37:31):
Like it's like people weren't listening to him when he
said Iran can't have nukes and we can do this
the nice way, or we're going to do this the
mean way. I mean, he said it since like five
years before he was president the first time.

Speaker 1 (37:42):
Right, do you remember that? Do you remember that tweet
where he's like, if you heard another American, We're going
to like turn you into glass or whatever it was.

Speaker 2 (37:48):
I don't know if you remember that.

Speaker 3 (37:49):
Sweet Okay, So you had some people being like you're
a hypocrite for not turning on Trump now that he's
bombed Duran. You know, it's like he literally has always
said that this would happen if Ron didn't stop voluntarily, right.
And then you have other people who are like, you

(38:09):
should just put one hundred percent of your trust in
Donald Trump to always do the right thing. It's like, well,
in the Bible, there's the Psalm that says, put not
your trust in Princess. As a Christian, I believe you
only put your faith in God and not any man.
You can like a guy like Donald Trump, but you
don't put your faith in him completely, and you you

(38:33):
are allowed to express your opinion, and in fact, there
should be more of public debate about different wars. This
is another unpopular thing that I said. She's like, I
know that nobody cares about this anymore, but constitutionally, Congress
is supposed to be involved in the decision to go
to war. And people say, well, this is just a

(38:53):
strike or like the soul mind, I think just a strike.
That's true, but sometimes strikes lead to war, and so
you want just more public debate and more constitutional way
in even if we've kind of moved so far away
from that that it seems like a quaint notion.

Speaker 2 (39:11):
Yeah, I agree with that. I don't.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
Prefaces by saying I'm not an expert.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
I have no league.

Speaker 1 (39:18):
Like see John you saying it's okay, but he's always
going to say it's okay when we drop a bomb.
In my opinion, right, loved John. He did make Yeah,
he did make good arguments in I think it was
a national review, but I don't know for sure. I
do think this is a strike. I don't think you
needed a declaration of war here, but let's be honest
that umph has been in for twenty years. We have

(39:39):
it now, we bomb all over the place. The people
complaining who had no problem with Libya, which was a
far more destabilizing and in my ridiculous action.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
Okay, that's a great example, because it wasn't that much
of a strike on Libya and then it ended up
completely messing up the whole region, and more of should
have weighed in there.

Speaker 1 (40:01):
Well, yeah, I wrote a column about this now. I again,
I think that sometimes Donald Trump's lack of kind of
ideological consistency, as we you know, see it as sort
of in a political signs sense, as maddening, But when
it comes to foreign policy, I think it's actually quite
helpful for him because Iran's not Libya, and every situation
is different and you have to deal with different people

(40:22):
in different ways. And it's clear to me that he's
never really been an you know, even a non interventionist
really in this. I mean, he certainly is compared to
Bush administration and things like that, but you know, he's
not It's not like Warren Harding in the twenties, you know,
I mean, he wants to be involved in the world.
He was out, he's out now and I think he's

(40:43):
with NATO, you know, and they just agreed to pay
five percent of their military budgets each.

Speaker 2 (40:49):
To fund NATO.

Speaker 1 (40:50):
I don't know that they're going to actually do it,
because they've made promises before. But but you know, even
Obama wanted them to pay more, and he got it done.
I mean, when it comes to foreign policy, I have
very few complaints about Donald Trump, really, but I wanted
to mention this. You said, people like, yeah, you know,
basically let him cook, you know this, and that. I
hate that kind of stuff. If Donald Trump is making
good decisions, we say he is, but we don't say, oh,

(41:13):
it's just because it's Donald Trump always makes good decisions.
I mean, first of all, that's not true, because no
person does, certainly among them. But also we have to
have some kind of doctrine, though not like strict ideology,
and his doctrine seems to be that if you undermine America,
that if you're an enemy of America, you may have
to pay a price for that.

Speaker 3 (41:32):
And you can admit that because Donald Trump has been
so excellent with foreign policy, like so so much better
than his predecessors, that he receives a degree of trust. Yeah,
you know, and he's he is pretty Jacksonian in his
foreign policy. So even as I was nervous at how

(41:53):
like excited Lindsey Graham was, which was very excited, And
it's always a good idea to be nervous and Lindsay
Graham is excited, I kept thinking like, this is a
guy who's been pretty consistent with his articulation of foreign
policy and does not want to get involved in a
big war. There's no reason you can you can get

(42:17):
a degree of deference without saying this sort of blasphemous
trust whatever he does.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Thing I mean, think about the Abraham Accords should have
won him a Nobel prize. In my view, everyone's like, oh,
you know, Dubai wasn't at war with Israel.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
Yeah, that's so stupid.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
So you're creating this pact where people speak, where there's
economic cooperation, and yeah, maybe it was kind of small
to begin with, but it may have Saudi Arabia soon,
it may have serious soon. Israel is at peace with
most Arab nations, most soon in nations and maybe Lebanon.
Actually I heard you know now that Hezbolla is weak
and may maybe thinking about joining as well.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
No, that's going to happen.

Speaker 1 (42:58):
But the point is that with without I don't think anyone,
especially Saudi Arabia or Israel, e been one destabilizing wars
in the Middle East. They want to slowly work towards peace,
and I think Donald Trump has helped them do that
more than any president maybe ever in modern history, you know,
maybe since World War Two.

Speaker 2 (43:18):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
I mean, the world was a very different place when
the Soviet Union was around. So but any anyway, I
hope that the world will be more peaceful now, and
I think it will.

Speaker 3 (43:29):
I pray so, and I pray that everyone. I mean,
piece is a wonderful goal. It's very difficult to obtain,
much less maintained, but it's good when we're all fighting
for it. Okay, what about domestic politics? Have you been
following what happened in New York City last night?

Speaker 2 (43:49):
I am a native New Yorker, so yes, are.

Speaker 3 (43:52):
You excited about your the new communist mayor.

Speaker 1 (43:56):
Someone said that the Mulahs might have lost in Iran
but won in New York City yesterday? So so on,
Ma'm donnie right?

Speaker 2 (44:07):
And how you pronounce it?

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Won the Democratic primary against Andracromo and others. It is
in New York City. Winning the Democratic primary is very
much like winning the election. I looked it up twice before.
There have been independent runs that have won. One was

(44:31):
and they're they're weird. One is Bloomberg who went independent. Yeah, yeah,
he just could outspend and you know, and he won.
And then lind Lindsay I forgot his first name right now.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
In sixty five.

Speaker 1 (44:45):
He was a Republican when they used to be progressive
Republicans in those days we left left wingers essentially, and
he became an independent when the Republican Party sort of
started going the other way after Goldwater. So those are
the two. So maybe Eric Adams can win. I don't
know enough about really what going on there these days.
It seems unlikely. Doesn't seem the same to me. I

(45:06):
had tweeted that, you know, I was in New York
on nine to eleven, and to me, it's twenty four
years since nine to eleven. For New York to elect
someone who's not just a comedy but a jihadi apologist
is kind.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
Of mind boggling.

Speaker 1 (45:19):
My hometown, you know which, Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson called
Heimi town in eighty four, right for how Jewish.

Speaker 3 (45:26):
It was the things that batched that Jesse Jackson, you
said it is.

Speaker 2 (45:32):
But it seems so quaint now, doesn't it.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
It seems like such like nothing in today's environment.

Speaker 2 (45:38):
But I mean, and I say this.

Speaker 1 (45:39):
Because he defends the phrase into globalized, the Intifada, and
you know he's part of that movement. But here's the thing.
Everyone's saying, Oh, it's because of immigration, it's because of
Muslims and this and that. Listen, that's a discussion to
be had his But it looks to me like he
his core constituency are a educated white progressives in New York.

(46:01):
It's not as if immigrant neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, Jewish neighborhoods
largely voted against him. It's the how can I call them?
The immigrants from other places who moved to Brooklyn and
elsewhere were white, highly educated, make a lot of money.
In most cases, they're the ones who love the crackpots
socialist ideas, at least theoretically, they're not going to love
it in real life. So I think that's worth talking

(46:23):
about as well. You know, it's not just some immigration problem.
My parents are immigrants in New York and others were imigrants.
They're very conservative, you know what I mean, you know
years ago. So I don't know. I'd like to look
more into the numbers, but I know what was your
reaction to it.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
In a very sinful way. I was so excited that
the Kami one. I really don't like Cuomo. He did
not run a campaign. He killed a bunch of people
during COVID and has never been held accountable for it.
He lied about what he did. The media were treating
him like the Second Coming. It was. I just do

(47:04):
not like him, and I think he's a bad person.
And then I also have anger at the left and
how they're trying to destroy the country.

Speaker 1 (47:12):
So the.

Speaker 3 (47:15):
Fact that they're electing someone like this in New York
City and the same way that they have in London,
Like you've got these attacks on capitalism in London and
New York City. I'm just I'm sort of divided between
hoping for the best for New York and then wanting
people to see the damage that leftist policies cause more

(47:36):
quickly so that maybe we can get away from them
more quickly.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
This tweet, someone tweeted me this, and or I saw
this tweet and I liked it a lot, and an
unknown person to me, but he wrote the mam de style.
Mamdanni's style game is to legitimize and make mainstream antipathy
towards and marginalization of Jews who support the existence of
Israel as an independent Jewish state. There's a large majority

(48:00):
of Jews, to make these Jews feel unwelcome and insecure
in their own city. And I know a lot of
people in New York. My family's in New York, and
I can tell you this is true. People do not
feel the same way about the city. I love the city.
I think it's just such an incredible place. Right when
you're there, You're just like, this is just the amount
of people, the culture, everything is just so amazing.

Speaker 2 (48:23):
I don't know if it's going to be able to
it's never going to be the same city again. But here,
here's actually my question.

Speaker 1 (48:28):
Quickly, nine percent of people in New York voted here,
or nine percent of people voted for this candidate in
New York. It's not a ton of people. It's an
off year election, It's a left wing city. He ran against.
His number one competitor was a true cuomo who killed
his own constituents, and is you know, scandal plagued. Do

(48:51):
you think this really reflects a move to this kind
of communistic policy or is it just sort of a
kind of almost a populoist against Democratic Party in a
way like almost like what happened with populism on the right.

Speaker 3 (49:08):
I don't know the Democrat Party as well as I
understand the Republican Party, but every time I see a
gathering of Democrats, it seems like they're divided between Andrew
Cuomo types and these far left, radical Jihati loving anti
capitalist left wingers. And this is the struggle for the

(49:31):
heart of the Democrat Party. And so I saw someone
say what happened in New York is very good news
for AOC and very bad news for Josh Shapiro. And
you even saw it like with the riots in La
over enforcement of the rule of law. Gavin Newsom, who
desperately wants to win the Democrat nomination for president, was

(49:54):
fully like supporting the rioters and opposing rule of law.
That's not a good sign for the health of the
Democrat Party that you have to cater to this fringe
wack adoodal left wing base in order to have any
prospect of a political future, and we already saw that
there are problems with the Democrats seeming just quite simply abnormal.

(50:18):
They support removing genitalia from children and permanently sterilizing children.
That's like a main plank of the Democrat Party and
it's insane, right. They oppose the rule of law when
it comes to like the very most basic rule of law,
whether or not to have border and laws governing your border.

(50:38):
They know they're bloodthirsty. And their support for abortion, which
is like a more popular issue for them, but like
they're kind of just weird and violent and angry, and
a lot of just normal Americans look at that and
say I want nothing to do with that. I'm not
saying they will do horribly in the midterms. Historically they
should do very well, and Republicans certainly aren't giving much

(51:01):
of a reason for people to vote for them outside
of the presidency. But this is the debate in the
Democrat Party is whether to embrace the jihati or chart
like a Bill Clinton style moderate way forward.

Speaker 2 (51:19):
Yeah, it's weird, you know.

Speaker 1 (51:21):
It used to be that the bigger the election, the
more kind of culturally more was imbued with cultural positioning
like I'm just going to vote Republican for president no
matter what or whatever. And the more local you got,
you know, you could vote for Rudy Giuliani maybe to
be mayor because this actually was closer to you and
you had to run the city, right he had, you know,
he wasn't very popular, but in New York you'd have

(51:44):
these areas like Staten Island and in Queens where normal
people still lived. I was born in Queens. I consider
myself normal, you know, and they would vote for someone
who would run the city instead. I'm a crazy person
that seems to be gone. But I saw like people
are like, should we you know, is Wall Street gonna
end up moving to Miami? Like do you really need
more douchebags in Miami? I don't think so close the border,

(52:08):
I say, I do wonder this if he does follow
through on like nationalize and not nationalizing because it's a city.
But you know, having state run supermarkets and all the
you know, the rent control all these things. Does that
and fails, Does that help the Andrew Cuomo tis to

(52:29):
turn things around?

Speaker 2 (52:30):
I don't know. I mean, I feel like it'stant to fail.

Speaker 3 (52:34):
I was thinking about how everyone, almost everyone who I've
ever voted for based on what they said they were
going to do, like ninety nine point nine percent of
the time, they don't do it. So did he use
all of this extreme rhetoric and make all these claims
about socializing the grocery stores because he really wants to
do it or just because he thought that would get

(52:55):
him elected. And then he'll, you know, once he's in office,
he'll turn he doesn't want to get rid of Wall
Street or doesn't want to destroy the ability of people
to eat food. It might it might just be something, Yeah,
all of a sudden, he might like the police.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
I'll tell you one thing, just last thing on this
from me is like that there even if he doesn't.
There's a problem here is that we're normalizing extremism in politics.
You know what I mean, We're normalizing communists in major
cities in America. This is not the only place that's happening.
I mean, though he makes the others look like quite normal.

Speaker 3 (53:30):
So someone say like, like polio, communism is this thing
you get. Our socialism is the thing you get when
you forget how bad it is. And Dan Foster, who
I fall on Twitter, was like, good news. We're getting
both ectly we turn to Polio and Cosm.

Speaker 1 (53:47):
Kasparov said that the just guy. All right, I think
that's it for politics today. You want to talk about culture,
look to hear what you've been up to. I have
almost nothing.

Speaker 3 (53:59):
I have been traveling. I had the worst day of
travel of my life, which I know was boring to
talk about, but I was trying to get to Durango, Colorado,
and we had a seven hour flight delay out of
Reagan National to get to Denver to then fly to Durango,

(54:20):
and there was basically no way we could fly to Durango,
but I had stupidly booked all of the hotels than
they were non reflendable by this point, and so we
had to get there. People on Twitter were like, why
are you trying so hard to get there? Oh. After
we arrived in Denver late, we had to change and
the only car rental place available was ABIs. We showed

(54:40):
up at like one thirty am, and we were the
twenty sixth group in line and there was one agent working.
So it took us hours to get our rental car
and we had to drive to the Sorry, so I
should explain for people not familiar with Colorado layout that
Durango is in the southwest corner of the state and

(55:01):
Denver is in the you know, it's not in the
northeast tippy top corner, but it's in that quadrant.

Speaker 2 (55:07):
That's a long drive, very long.

Speaker 3 (55:09):
And my plan had been to fly in and then
drive back and see my family who are in the
Denver area. And I didn't want to drive there and
back the same route. So we drove stupidly. I seventy
and we were stopped to a dead halt, you know,
for lengthy periods of time, like four times, including there
was like a fire at one point on the side

(55:30):
of the road. But we made it there, and we
made it to Ura. Have you been there, Ura?

Speaker 2 (55:35):
I think so, yeah.

Speaker 3 (55:37):
Oh, it's beautiful, this high mountain Victorian mining town that
has hot springs. And I had always wanted to drive
on the Million Dollar Highway, which is this dangerous road
with no guard rails and steep drop offs between Uray
and Silverton, which is another high mountain mining town, and

(55:59):
we did get to do that, and I got to
see Silverton for the first time. My high school history teacher,
Richard Boniquista, had taught in Silverton and he showed us
this paddle he had. This will really age me. I mean,
it was horrifying to us at the time. But he
had this big, long, wooden paddle with holes in it,

(56:19):
and he said that when the boys in high school
acted up, they got an option, which was they could
get swatted with the paddle, or if they didn't want that,
they could just have their dad be called up out
of the mines and at which point they would then
get a beating from their father. So they always chose
the wooden paddle and he would just show it to
us and we were like, oh, no, mister Boniquista, that's horrible. Anyway,

(56:45):
got to see Silverton beautiful and they have a steam
engine that goes from Durango to Silverton and back and
it's a narrow gauge railroad I think, And so that
was just kind of cool to see.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
And isn't that what Telly Ride is?

Speaker 1 (56:59):
Also, isn't it's near Telluride.

Speaker 3 (57:01):
So then on our way leaving r A, we decided
to tell your ride is ten miles from Ura, but
it takes over an hour to get there because you
have to go around a mountain. The drive into Telluride
is one of the most beautiful I have ever seen.
And we did not know that we were hitting tellur
Ride on their busiest weekend of the year, which is
the Bluegrass Festival. And then also the wonderful people of

(57:25):
c Dot Colorado Department of Transportation decided to paint the
two lane road to tell your ride on that Saturday
morning that we were driving there. So that was good.
We just had good luck everywhere we went. Now, so
we went into Telluride. I had never been there. Beautiful town,
super gay, like gay gay, like everything was gay. There

(57:51):
were flags that I didn't understand the meaning of the flag, like.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
Well, doesn't Tom Cruise lives there?

Speaker 3 (57:58):
Yeah, I know, so oh Daryl Hannah.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
So no, that was a Tom Cruise gay joke. But
I it out.

Speaker 3 (58:10):
Like it would be the Trans flag, but with other
things on it, like a tpe looking black and white thing,
and I'm like, I don't even know what sexual perversion
we're honoring here, Like I have no idea.

Speaker 2 (58:23):
That flag is being complicated. No, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (58:25):
But now they have that kind of like triangle on
the side thing and that's.

Speaker 3 (58:30):
The Trans one, and there's like a bipock trans gay flag.
But these were different than those. I'm not you know,
I feel like I'm a pretty well informed person. I
had no idea what these were. But Tell your Ride
was fine. I just strongly preferred ur A, which was
more real Colorado, whereas Tell your Ride just used California.

(58:53):
Do you care about any of this I'm giving you.

Speaker 2 (58:55):
Now, I'm interested.

Speaker 1 (58:56):
I'm always interested to hear what's going on in Colorado,
my former state.

Speaker 3 (59:00):
And then we drove to Salida through and we went
to a Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Have you been there?

Speaker 1 (59:06):
I don't know, don't think so.

Speaker 3 (59:08):
It's a national park and it's a really deep, beautiful
canyon and you can hit the you can hit the
park from like different areas, and we did the South
Rim and it was really fun. We liked it. And
then we drove into Salida where we saw International Surfing
Day and my husband's cousins. So my husband has this

(59:28):
cousin who was an Olympian in two thousand and four,
I think high jump silver medalist Matt Hemingway and grew
up in Buna Vista. And that's my husband's first cousin,
and so he happened to be in town, and his
brother happened to be in town, so we just got
to see a bunch of family, which was cool, and

(59:49):
the kids and I went whitewater rafting with one of
my husband's family members and who's a guide on the
Arkansas River and it was so much fun. I have
not had that much fun on the Arkansas since I
was like twenty. And we had really good rapids and
it was really fun to be in the raft and

(01:00:10):
beautiful day. It was just great.

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
So oh, I love whitewater rafting. Colorized amazing, it really is.
I can't believe they ruined that state, but it is
as far as just geography and beauty, it's it's hard
to match.

Speaker 3 (01:00:25):
Okay. I have one more thing to mention, which is
I went to Casa Benita with the family.

Speaker 1 (01:00:30):
So the South Park guys bought that, then they sold it.
I don't they own it? Okay? Is it still as
cheesy as when I went, like maybe fifteen years ago.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
Well, I was expected, so I knew that they had
bought it and had redone it. But it was exactly
like I remembered it, I mean exactly. It looked and
felt the same, but the food was much much better,
and the cocktails were much better, and it was cleaner
and more professional. So it's you know, you have to

(01:01:02):
make reservations months many months in advance, and you're like
to go to Cossa Benita, which is always sort of
the joke of Denver, right, like, yeah, a totally cheesy,
no pun intended experience. They have cliff divers, they have
a guy in a gorilla suit who's being there. They've
got black bart who's this like, you know, most wanted guy.

(01:01:25):
They have face painting and balloons and stuff like that.
So it was I had a blast. I thought it
was really fun and totally worth it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
When I used to go with my kids years ago,
the food was so gross, but the cliff diver was cool.
Did they have maybe someone with the like juggling torches maybe,
I don't know. They had all kinds of crazy stuff
over there. All right, that's I'm happy they kept that
place going.

Speaker 3 (01:01:48):
I am too. And they have a little museum, and
the museum is very honest about how bad the food
used to be. And this is such a Trey Parker
matt Stone touch. But the museum goes through history because
there used to be many cosa Benita's I think this
one's the only one that survived really, and yeah, I
was started by a guy out of Oklahoma, or I
think he was out of Oklahoma. There definitely were some

(01:02:10):
in Oklahoma, Arkansas. Places like that, and it goes through
the history, but like right in the middle, it'll say,
like this cell phone was found in twenty fourteen. If
it's yours, like in the museum. If it's yours, please
contact the front office or whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
I just love places like that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
I have nothing. I watched one movie with my kids.
We were all too old to be watching this movie,
but we did anyway. It was the Minecraft movie with
I really want to talk about it very much, Jason
MoMA and Jack Black. It was a waste of two hours.
It's fine if your kid. I'm sure that was it
for me.

Speaker 3 (01:02:50):
Okay. I did have some movies too nice. I know.
I'm just I'm all cultured up here. I'll skip the
Miss Congeniality too Armed and Fabulous. That was pretty bad.
But on the plane I watched two movies which were
both super weird, ok And I didn't know what to expect,
Like I had just long wanted to see Banshees of

(01:03:12):
insurance have.

Speaker 1 (01:03:14):
Yeah, I saw that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:15):
That's with it's an Ireland, I forget the two what's his.

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
Name, Colin Ferrell, Yeah, yeah, yeah, And I really enjoyed it,
but it was very weird. I guess I didn't know
it was going to be weird. And Mark was like,
it's a Martin McDonough film, of course it's weird or something.
I don't know, but about this remote island off the

(01:03:43):
coast of Ireland in maybe like the teens or twenties,
and it's about these two friends who are who have
their friendship dissolve and it kind of goes through that.
And then I also watched this animated movie called Flow

(01:04:03):
about a cat that gets caught I think as soon
me and then has a journey.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
That yeah, I see I see people, Yeah, I see
that around.

Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
I have not seen the movie.

Speaker 3 (01:04:21):
And there was one more which was Speed, which somehow
i'd never seen.

Speaker 2 (01:04:26):
So Speed with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock.

Speaker 3 (01:04:29):
Yes, I you love Sandra Bullock, Like that's just my
kind of lady. I like her. I think she's really
pretty and funny and smart and all that, and so
I'm surprised I haven't seen it. And I thought it
was a fantastic movie. And Mark is making fun of
the kids and I for thinking it was so good.
He's like, that's not a good movie. Like, well, we

(01:04:50):
liked it a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:04:52):
It's kind of the bad nineties movie that I know
isn't great, but I love watching, like the one with
with Keanu Reeves is the Surfer is the under undercover
surfer guy.

Speaker 3 (01:05:01):
On that point break point break.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
Yeah, no, yeah, point break point break.

Speaker 1 (01:05:07):
Great. If people would like to reach the show, just
as a reminder, they can email us at radio at
the Federalist dot com. Molly, I won't be here next week.
I'll be on vacation. We will have a special guest.
You will Mark Hemingway. Yea, yeah, he's been. He's been
a co host before with me, but that will be

(01:05:28):
with you. Be real for everyone. Yeah, but anyway, until then,
be lovers of freedom and interest for the prey.