Speaker 1: You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. We have David Harsany with us now
Speaker 1: of The Federalist. He's a phenomenal columnist and actually proofred
Speaker 1: my first ever attempt at a column when I was
Speaker 1: a writer at The Blaze, which he may not even
Speaker 1: remember now, but he was very encouraging and very helpful.
Speaker 1: Mister HARSANYI good to have you on the program, Sir,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. Just hit me how long I
Speaker 1: know you? What's that? Fifteen years ago or something? Right? Yep,
Speaker 1: we're going on I think thirteen years. We've known each
Speaker 1: other for thirteen years, so you and I go way
Speaker 1: back to the early days of the of the Blaze phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Now tell me this, David, there's been there's all this
Speaker 1: back and forth. Now, when people see this or listen
Speaker 1: to this, we're both, they will already know what the
Speaker 1: reality is of the Trump showing up in New York
Speaker 1: City situation. As you and I talk, we're not quite
Speaker 1: sure what that is going to look like because we're
Speaker 1: recording in advance of it. Just everyone knows. But one
Speaker 1: part of it that has already come out very clearly
Speaker 1: is if you talk about Alvin Bragg as a Soros
Speaker 1: funded DA, they go back and forth between one saying
Speaker 1: that that's not true, which is really they're just lying basically,
Speaker 1: but it comes to a third party that put the
Speaker 1: money out there. But put that aside. The other part
Speaker 1: of this is that it is anti semitic to say
Speaker 1: that Soros is giving money to people that he gave
Speaker 1: money to. Right, So there's two two fast as this
Speaker 1: one is they say, well, Soros doesn't actually back them
Speaker 1: because he gave seven million to a pack and that
Speaker 1: pack only gave Alvin Brag one million, right or whatever. Whatever.
Speaker 1: The number one, which is a new, completely new standard,
Speaker 1: which you know, we would we wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: say that half the people out there who are funding
Speaker 1: political causes are funding them in that way because the
Speaker 1: money's laundered. It's not laundered, but you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's given out by packs, not exactly by the individual.
Speaker 1: Soros even said I never met him. Can you imagine
Speaker 1: if that was the standard of saying someone back something,
Speaker 1: someone you had to see them, you know, give a
Speaker 1: bag of money to the person in a picture, you know,
Speaker 1: shaking hands so on. So that's a ridiculous pot But
Speaker 1: the second part is much more nefarious. It's that you
Speaker 1: cannot talk about George Soros without being accused of being
Speaker 1: anti Semitic, as if George Soros is a stand in
Speaker 1: for the Jewish community in some way. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: first of all, he doesn't care about the Jewish community
Speaker 1: at all. He's said in a sixty minutes interview years
Speaker 1: ago that he doesn't really even identify as a Jewish person.
Speaker 1: A b He funds BDS through you know, his packs,
Speaker 1: which is an anti Semitic organization. He doesn't care about Israel,
Speaker 1: doesn't care about Jews. Is a leftist. That's his identity,
Speaker 1: that's his religion. And but moreover, the idea that you
Speaker 1: can't be critical of the top benefactor for hard left causes,
Speaker 1: the top benefactor of any political causes in America. I
Speaker 1: think he dropped like one hundred and forty million last
Speaker 1: year and off, you know, not even in a presidential year.
Speaker 1: It's very convenient and very ridiculous. I've always said it's
Speaker 1: amazing how the left has plenty of billionaires, but their
Speaker 1: billionaires are good people who we should all be thankful
Speaker 1: or funding like media matters, and you know, funding these
Speaker 1: trash political attack organizations all across the NGEO spectrum, and
Speaker 1: you know, and wacko environmentalists. But those billionaires, like billionaires
Speaker 1: with a B bill with a big B, those are
Speaker 1: the bad billionaires, right. But we hear so much about
Speaker 1: the the Koch brothers, and not as much these days,
Speaker 1: I guess. But you know, there's this pretense that the
Speaker 1: billionaire class, their money all goes to conservative politics. This
Speaker 1: is kind of like how they also tell everybody that
Speaker 1: Wall Street is somehow republican. These are just this is
Speaker 1: just an untrue reality that are, you know, an untrue
Speaker 1: perception that the Democrats have entirely manufactured. I mean like
Speaker 1: Obama and Hillary and Biden got a fast majority of
Speaker 1: Wall Street money. Yeah, but they say dark money, they
Speaker 1: mean dark money from Republicans. They would mean dark money
Speaker 1: from the all the executives at all these sort of
Speaker 1: investment firms that are I think poles show like ninety
Speaker 1: percent of them give to Democrats, not to Republicans. I
Speaker 1: should mention when Republicans had Sheldon Addolson, who was a
Speaker 1: huge donor to like pro Israel politicians the Washington Post
Speaker 1: and New York Times. They have no problem saying Sheldon
Speaker 1: Addolson backed candidate or caused and no one accused them
Speaker 1: of being anti Semitic for so even though those issues
Speaker 1: actually related to Jewish causes, if you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: But of course, again everything's Calvin Ball, everything changes, it
Speaker 1: all depends. But you hit on a very important point.
Speaker 1: I think they don't. It's almost as if they don't
Speaker 1: view their causes as political. It's just common sense. It's
Speaker 1: just the right thing to do, you know. No, it's
Speaker 1: not let's not politicize this thing. You know, let's save
Speaker 1: the environment, let's you know, stop guns, let you know,
Speaker 1: whatever their causes, they view it as just common sense
Speaker 1: and not political, whereas what you want or I want
Speaker 1: is politicizing its culture war. It's you know, all these
Speaker 1: sort of negative connotations to them. Do you think that
Speaker 1: the the journalists or whatever whatever we call people now
Speaker 1: who write for these publications that are very clearly political,
Speaker 1: even though they pretend to just be you know, the
Speaker 1: facts in the news. Do you think that when they
Speaker 1: deploy the anti semitic charge about whether it's Rond de
Speaker 1: Santist talking about Soros back da It's fascinating. Soros came
Speaker 1: up with this whole plan that he has spoken about
Speaker 1: at length in interviews, and there are financial records of
Speaker 1: him realizing that there's this weak seem in the system
Speaker 1: in a sense where you can buy a DA's race
Speaker 1: with very little money. Because who wants to buy a
Speaker 1: DA's race? Was that was now people all know why,
Speaker 1: but that was the thinking, right, and so he has
Speaker 1: this whole plan and now to talk about his plan,
Speaker 1: they say, oh, well, that's that's anti semitic. And yet
Speaker 1: do you think the people that are saying that, the
Speaker 1: different chattering class individuals are saying that, do they know
Speaker 1: it's bad faith and they just don't care, or do
Speaker 1: you think that they really believe at some like they've
Speaker 1: convinced themselves that in this case, talking about objective reality
Speaker 1: just happens to be anti semitic would involve George Soros
Speaker 1: could be both. I'm not sure. I'm sure that some
Speaker 1: of its cynical, but you know, some of it maybe
Speaker 1: people have convinced themselves that all, let me take a
Speaker 1: step back, why would rot Santis, who is the governor
Speaker 1: of Florida, which has a large Jewish community, and he's
Speaker 1: been pro Israel, pro Jewish, he's only had good things
Speaker 1: to say about Jews and all that start peddling anti
Speaker 1: Semitic dog whistles. What what What would the point of
Speaker 1: it be? In their wark mind? The point of it
Speaker 1: is that all Republicans are basically just you know, Nazis
Speaker 1: underneath it all, and they hate Jews underneath it all,
Speaker 1: and they're racists and bigots. So he's appealing to that
Speaker 1: part of it. So I think they've convinced themselves that, yes,
Speaker 1: Jews are you know that Republicans hate Jews. They you know,
Speaker 1: they're racist and all that, and that's why they do
Speaker 1: the Jim Crow two point zero and all this other nonsense.
Speaker 1: Some of them are cynical, but I think that many
Speaker 1: of the rank and file actually believe that. They believe
Speaker 1: they believe that about their political opposition. And that's really
Speaker 1: a big problem in this country where we used to
Speaker 1: sort of be able to disagree without thinking the other
Speaker 1: side was evil or you know, was going to commit
Speaker 1: transgenocide or hated Jews or all this other stuff that
Speaker 1: doesn't really happen, but I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: have convinced themselves of it. Probably, David, we come back.
Speaker 1: You know we mentioned Ronda Santis. In a second. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about the the book banning story
Speaker 1: that keeps I hear there's banning books. This has become
Speaker 1: a meme. It's all over the place. Let's address that.
Speaker 1: But but first we have to address how people can
Speaker 1: get the best pillows imaginable from my friend Mike Lindell
Speaker 1: and his team at My Pillow. They've got the two
Speaker 1: point zero version of the product that started at all
Speaker 1: for them nearly twenty years ago. The My Pillow two
Speaker 1: point zero has the patented adjustable fill of the original
Speaker 1: My Pillow, but now has brand new exclusive fabric that
Speaker 1: has made with temperature regulating thread. You're going to find
Speaker 1: this My Pillow to be the softest, smoothest, coolest pillow
Speaker 1: you'll ever own. If you're tossing and turning at night
Speaker 1: a lot, flipping your pillow over looking for that cool spot,
Speaker 1: those nights are over. My Pillow two point zero comes
Speaker 1: at a great deal right now. Buy one, get one
Speaker 1: free for a limited time when you use my name
Speaker 1: as the promo code buck. The my Pillow two point zero,
Speaker 1: made with temperature regulating technology is one hundred percent made
Speaker 1: in the U. I say, go to my Pillow two
Speaker 1: point zero. I'm sorry. My pillow dot Com is the
Speaker 1: website My pillow dot com. Click on the radio listeners
Speaker 1: special square. Get this buy one, get one free offer
Speaker 1: on the my Pillow two point oh promo code buck.
Speaker 1: That's my pillow dot Com promo code buck. You'll get
Speaker 1: buy one, get one free, Get them my pillow two
Speaker 1: point off. I've got them here at home in the bed.
Speaker 1: They're fantastic. All right. So they talk about book banning,
Speaker 1: but there's a problem with that, right, which is there's
Speaker 1: actually no books that are banned. What is going on here? Well,
Speaker 1: the last week or maybe a little before that, I
Speaker 1: went to a Barnes and Noble and I, you know,
Speaker 1: I see the book band book table where you can
Speaker 1: buy the books that are banned, right, and it hit
Speaker 1: me that it's just a racket, you know, for the
Speaker 1: for booksellers, it's a racket like yeah, Lord of the
Speaker 1: Flies is banned or you know whatever book. And all
Speaker 1: these books are bestsellers, some of them are generational best sellers.
Speaker 1: And it just gets people buying them, probably, and for
Speaker 1: the left politically, it's it's an ideological racket. It's it's
Speaker 1: a way to smear people. Like after the Tennessee shooting.
Speaker 1: In Nashville shooting, I saw a lot of leftists say
Speaker 1: they'll ban books in Tennessee, but not you know, assault weapons.
Speaker 1: No book is banned. I can buy any book I want.
Speaker 1: They are curated, as leftist administrators have been doing forever.
Speaker 1: Just because my books aren't in any school doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that they're banned. It means that they're not appropriate for
Speaker 1: kids to be reading, even though I think they are.
Speaker 1: But whatever, you know what I mean. Yeah, So they're
Speaker 1: not banned by in any sense of the word. In
Speaker 1: the same way you can say gay in Florida without
Speaker 1: going to jail. You know, you can say gay. You
Speaker 1: can buy any book you want. There are laws that
Speaker 1: basically prohibit you know, obviously they're over zealous administrators and
Speaker 1: teachers and parents and stuff sometimes, but in general, you're
Speaker 1: trying to keep sexually you know, explicit books or violence
Speaker 1: or things that you don't want young people reading. And
Speaker 1: it seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you're going to
Speaker 1: be in a state in school. Again, I'm asking. I
Speaker 1: guess they do a little bit of on the spot psychology,
Speaker 1: But I just have to wonder the people who are
Speaker 1: going around saying that these books are banned. They have
Speaker 1: to know that that's a lie, but they say it anyway.
Speaker 1: Is there just a cognitive dissonance here like they You know,
Speaker 1: it's so easy, right, I mean, you were explaining how
Speaker 1: it actually works with curation. You know, when I was
Speaker 1: at my Jesuit high school, they made a decision which
Speaker 1: I vehemently disagreed with. David Okay, I thought it was
Speaker 1: really really unfair that Maxim magazine was not allowed in
Speaker 1: school during school hours. You know, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: now I wasn't able to see you know, Heidi Klume
Speaker 1: and Letitia Casta and some of the greats of that era.
Speaker 1: As you may well recall, I was not. Now, if
Speaker 1: I had gone outside the school and protested that there
Speaker 1: was an all out ban on Maxim magazine, people would
Speaker 1: have said that I was a clownish, you know, imbecile,
Speaker 1: because they're just saying, you can't read this during school
Speaker 1: hours in a jesuit in a Jesuit high school. So
Speaker 1: while I disagree with it. I knew that it wasn't
Speaker 1: a band. I just don't believe that it's possible of
Speaker 1: these people who were talking about the book band don't
Speaker 1: know that there's no band. So then are they just
Speaker 1: mouthing the propaganda because it's an attack, and so it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if the attack is true. The point is
Speaker 1: ron de santist bad. I think partly that's it, but
Speaker 1: partly these people have convinced themselves that the state's not
Speaker 1: giving them something, it's being banned. I give you an example.
Speaker 1: A few years ago, we were debating birth control, and
Speaker 1: leftists would say the Republicans want to ban birth control
Speaker 1: or Republicans want to ban access to birth control, and
Speaker 1: what they meant was that the taxpayers would no longer
Speaker 1: be buying birth control and giving it to people. So
Speaker 1: to them the state, because they view the state as
Speaker 1: the well spring of all good things. If the state's
Speaker 1: not doing it, it's banning it or taking it away
Speaker 1: from someone. It's the same way, for instance, when you
Speaker 1: let someone keep their own money who makes a lot
Speaker 1: of money, you're taking it from someone else. That's how
Speaker 1: this is how they see the world. I don't mean
Speaker 1: again I'm sure there are people are very cynical about it.
Speaker 1: I think rank and file wise they view the world
Speaker 1: that way because they just don't understand how the world's
Speaker 1: supposed to work. I guess you know. You're also what
Speaker 1: was the name of your very excellent book again on firearms,
Speaker 1: David for everybody at home? First Freedom first, freedom right through? Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: go ahead, say the whole title. That's what you're here,
Speaker 1: right through America's history with the gun, kind of a
Speaker 1: cultural history. Yeah. So it's interesting me because obviously there
Speaker 1: was just a there was a mass shooting recently at
Speaker 1: a school, and so now there's the whole gun control argument.
Speaker 1: It is remarkable to me how few people I hear
Speaker 1: talking about the the problem that exists with the pistol bran.
Speaker 1: You know, you know about this, right, the pistol brace phenomenon,
Speaker 1: where you have tens of millions of these things have
Speaker 1: been sold and the ATF said they're fine, and now
Speaker 1: they were invented, if I recall by a former marine,
Speaker 1: I think it was so that people who had a
Speaker 1: disability could shoot, you know, could shoot effectively, even you know,
Speaker 1: basically if they couldn't have a stock in their shoulder.
Speaker 1: This allowed them to have a brace on their arm
Speaker 1: and so they could still use say an AAR platform
Speaker 1: something similar to that as of May thirtieth or thirty first, whatever,
Speaker 1: the last day of May is. If you don't register
Speaker 1: this thing or just give it up, you know, get
Speaker 1: rid of it, destroy it, you're a felon. So theoretically
Speaker 1: there will be at least hundreds of thousands, maybe even
Speaker 1: a few million people that the Biden administration, by the
Speaker 1: FIAT of a regulatory agency turns into a felon just
Speaker 1: by doing what had been legal until the Bide administration
Speaker 1: came along. I mean, to me, this is this is
Speaker 1: a huge slap in the face to what law is
Speaker 1: supposed to be. Yeah. I mean, it's the same guy
Speaker 1: who signs a piece of paper and says he's going
Speaker 1: to break contracts of people who borrow money for school
Speaker 1: and not have to pay it back because he says so,
Speaker 1: you know, he doesn't care. It's you know, it's interesting
Speaker 1: with the guns because set aside all the specific stuff,
Speaker 1: the stuff they want to ban, I think it doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter to them. It's just incrementalism. Like if it's
Speaker 1: a solid weapons, they'll go for that. The brace, they'll
Speaker 1: go for that. You know, what was there was something
Speaker 1: else they recently when you know it's just the aesthetics,
Speaker 1: they yeah, bump stocks all right, So like it. I
Speaker 1: think it's just moving forward. They know that are fifteens
Speaker 1: are largely used, are rarely used in criminality. I mean,
Speaker 1: the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns
Speaker 1: of some sword. But these psychopaths who go into schools,
Speaker 1: you know, they like the aesthetics. They think, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: they use it. So they go after this because there's
Speaker 1: an emotional component. All their arguments are always emotional. There's
Speaker 1: never any reason to it. It. Constantly want to ban
Speaker 1: things that would probably not have stopped or most cases
Speaker 1: would not have stopped the mass shooting that they're using
Speaker 1: again cynically to try to pass some new law. I
Speaker 1: think I think an AAR fifteen band would be on constitutional.
Speaker 1: At some point, someone's going to take it to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. It is a gun in common use. It
Speaker 1: is not a more dangerous than most other guns. Some
Speaker 1: of the biggest mass murders have been occurred using you know,
Speaker 1: nine millimeters or whatever, and it will be overturned, you know,
Speaker 1: and then they'll just delegitimize the Supreme Court because it
Speaker 1: goes from one thing to the next. It just you know,
Speaker 1: they're constantly Yeah, I mean you mentioned the use of
Speaker 1: pistols and mass shootings Virginia Tech, which for a while
Speaker 1: I believe was the highest casualty school shooting of all time.
Speaker 1: Pistols and Ford Hood where I forget the full death count,
Speaker 1: but it was very it was high obviously that shooting.
Speaker 1: It by that, you know, self radicalized though lunatic Alaki
Speaker 1: onwar Alaki disciple, those use stals. But so I wanted
Speaker 1: to pose this to I mean, this is a theory
Speaker 1: I've talked about on radio. I think now that there
Speaker 1: is really there are really two different two different views
Speaker 1: within the Democrat Party about any kind of gun legislation.
Speaker 1: To your point about incrementalism. One is the people who
Speaker 1: are just they've been you know, there's like a phobia indoctrination, right,
Speaker 1: they've just been so terrified. Guns are so bad, guns
Speaker 1: are so scary. So anything we can do against the
Speaker 1: scary thing is good, irrespective of like all the existing
Speaker 1: laws and eying that's there. But I also think there's
Speaker 1: a substantial portion for whom they know it will do nothing.
Speaker 1: I think this would even be a majority of people
Speaker 1: pushing legislation of the Democrat Party. Quite honestly, that's really
Speaker 1: what I'm going after here. They know it won't save
Speaker 1: any lives, they know it won't stop any violence. But
Speaker 1: it is a thumb in the eye of predominantly, not entirely,
Speaker 1: but predominantly you know, white male, Republican rural gun owners
Speaker 1: who are gonna have to give this thing up or
Speaker 1: they're gonna have to wait five more days they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to go through. They know that's all that it does,
Speaker 1: and they're happy with that. Yeah. I think that most
Speaker 1: of these laws they reel I love. You know, after
Speaker 1: the shooting, they were talking about permits, permits in Florida,
Speaker 1: right like, how can we have how could people be
Speaker 1: able to have a loaded gun without a permit? What
Speaker 1: mass shooters like, Oh my god, I gotta go get
Speaker 1: a permit before I go to murder fifteen people like
Speaker 1: it is just it makes no sense. It is aimed
Speaker 1: at law abiding citizens. Wait longer. Don't be able. You
Speaker 1: know you're not able. They don't want you to sell
Speaker 1: a gun to your family or give a gun to
Speaker 1: your family member. Or sell a gun to your friend.
Speaker 1: You know, that's why they want universal background checks. They
Speaker 1: just want to make it harder on regular people, like
Speaker 1: you say, who own firearms in this country, and there
Speaker 1: are many of them. But I also want to just
Speaker 1: quickly mention one thing on the AAR fifteen band they
Speaker 1: keep how can I say this making the AR fifteen
Speaker 1: into this super weapon that can kill tons of people,
Speaker 1: that blows up inside you, you know, a kid when
Speaker 1: you shoot them, and stuff like this. They are actually
Speaker 1: making the guns sound, you know, like the super weapon
Speaker 1: and then they're then they're surprised when a mass shooter
Speaker 1: gets an AAR fifteen. And don't get me wrong, it's
Speaker 1: a good weapon. It's used for self defense, it's easy
Speaker 1: to shoot all that. But you know, I just think
Speaker 1: that that maybe some of the you know, maybe they
Speaker 1: should think about if they really cared, which sometimes I
Speaker 1: wonder they should think about what they're doing when they
Speaker 1: mythologize or whatever they find a gun. Have you ever
Speaker 1: seen I mean, this is one area where to me,
Speaker 1: this is this is almost like the people who wear
Speaker 1: I know, these different issues, but the people who insist
Speaker 1: on wearing masks alone in their car while driving that.
Speaker 1: I've never seen a rational defense of that of any kind.
Speaker 1: I've literally never read or her or anyone say this
Speaker 1: is going to stop you from getting a virus. I
Speaker 1: have heard people say it's not about has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the virus. It's showing a willingness to comply,
Speaker 1: and it shows your desire to be a team player
Speaker 1: in the face of the virus. Right, So it is,
Speaker 1: which is basically a fancy way of saying it is
Speaker 1: straight up virtue signaling gun free zones. That are schools right,
Speaker 1: gun free zones at all schools across the country. Is
Speaker 1: there even a defense of this policy? I mean, it's
Speaker 1: your point about mass shooters or bad people. Bad people
Speaker 1: criminals in general do not care that it is a
Speaker 1: gun free zone. In fact, there's pretty ample evidence in
Speaker 1: a lot of different cases, got a point to the
Speaker 1: specific ones that they'll choose gun free zones as places
Speaker 1: to go because they know that they won't be challenged
Speaker 1: with a firearm. Is there any serious defense of that
Speaker 1: policy that you can I'm asking you honestly that no
Speaker 1: one answers me. I asked this question all the time.
Speaker 1: What does a gun free zone do? It does nothing.
Speaker 1: It disarms, people could defend themselves. It has zero purpose
Speaker 1: other than to let people know this is a soft target.
Speaker 1: I think the Nashville I don't know for sure about this,
Speaker 1: but I think that Nashville shooter. Or they say that
Speaker 1: she had another target in mind, but you know there
Speaker 1: it had armed any I've heard this too. It is unconfirmed.
Speaker 1: Just to be clear, but there were early reports and
Speaker 1: as you see this or listen to this episode the
Speaker 1: manifesto may have come out, we may know more. Just
Speaker 1: to be very clear, but there there were early reports
Speaker 1: that she was going to a target a different school,
Speaker 1: but that school had an armed resource officer, and she
Speaker 1: knew that because she actually surveyed the targets. Right. So
Speaker 1: I get a lot of blowback when I say I
Speaker 1: think should be armed, or rather I think teachers should
Speaker 1: be able to arm themselves. I cannot think of a
Speaker 1: better use of the Second Amendment than saying to a teacher,
Speaker 1: you get to defend these children yourself, this school, in
Speaker 1: this community. But yet people go bananas over it, like
Speaker 1: it's like it's radical and crazy to say this. I
Speaker 1: just to me arming schools, either with that or hiring
Speaker 1: vets or whatever, it is, arming a school makes all
Speaker 1: the sense in the world to me. Yeah what again,
Speaker 1: because you write and analyze in this realm a lot.
Speaker 1: What is the counter argument to the arm resource officer
Speaker 1: and or ability of not you know, I don't want
Speaker 1: a teacher with you know, horrible vision, no familiarity with firearms,
Speaker 1: no interest in ever using a fire even in defense
Speaker 1: of himself or herself, to carry obviously, right, But there
Speaker 1: are teachers who spend a lot of time at the range.
Speaker 1: They're teachers who were themselves are former law enforcement, former
Speaker 1: military like that exists as well, you know, plenty of
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are plenty of high school football coaches,
Speaker 1: and plenty of people in the you know, in the
Speaker 1: academic community. More broadly, who have you know, for the
Speaker 1: former marines? Right, if they want to carry on a
Speaker 1: school grounds, what is the counter argument? Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't want to compel anyone. Like you said, I don't
Speaker 1: want to compel people to have guns that should be
Speaker 1: able to do to defend themselves. They always say, it's
Speaker 1: guns are the problem. There's already too many guns. You know,
Speaker 1: we you know, you know they will won't be trained,
Speaker 1: so let's get them training. They you know, they won't
Speaker 1: be you know, how many lives will they really saved.
Speaker 1: I don't know. They don't have good arguments. They don't
Speaker 1: even honestly, these people don't even want to debate. You're
Speaker 1: I know it's Twitter or whatever, you're on social media.
Speaker 1: You approach someone and you ask them a question, they
Speaker 1: block you. You know what I mean. They don't want
Speaker 1: to engage in any kind of debate because they have
Speaker 1: a very emotion emotional argument. And listen, part of it
Speaker 1: is emotional. These these events are horrible, um, but they
Speaker 1: don't really give you straight answers to the questions you're asking.
Speaker 1: They're very good questions. I wish someone would answer them.
Speaker 1: It just don't see. Yeah, it just it just seems
Speaker 1: crazy that there can be every time this sort of
Speaker 1: thing happens, there's this push and and yet there's no
Speaker 1: foundation for the argument that's being made, and they don't
Speaker 1: even try, and they don't care. And if you won't
Speaker 1: go along, they just shout louder at you. Because I
Speaker 1: also think that ultimately, So now I'm getting really and
Speaker 1: I'm doing a little bit of like psychology at their
Speaker 1: side here, David. But you can tell me, if you
Speaker 1: can tell me you think this is a little bit
Speaker 1: little too much, I think, I mean, I'll disagree with
Speaker 1: you obviously, because I think that way. I think that
Speaker 1: they like to believe that Republicans are so monstrous that
Speaker 1: they don't care about kids being shot in schools. They'd
Speaker 1: rather take NRA money, whatever that means. Like, I think
Speaker 1: that they like that narrative. So that's part of what
Speaker 1: this is. It's just a way of saying you're the evil,
Speaker 1: bad people, and the argument about firearms and the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment is irrelevant. That's not it's what you're saying is
Speaker 1: not even debatable. Of course many of them, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: get like, uh, you know, basically with great ease, they
Speaker 1: will say that NRA is a terrorist organization, you care
Speaker 1: more about guns than dead children. I mean, I get
Speaker 1: this all the time from people. You This is not
Speaker 1: some you don't have to be a psychiatrist to delve
Speaker 1: deep in there. They say it, and then what they do,
Speaker 1: which bothers me. And the reason part of the reason
Speaker 1: I wrote that book was because then they wretch, They
Speaker 1: go back and and write a new revisionist history of
Speaker 1: what the Second Amendment is. How guns were you know,
Speaker 1: how many people had guns in this country and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. It's just all made up. They're like, oh,
Speaker 1: well regulated, well regulated. You know, they're constantly pushing myths
Speaker 1: about guns. If you don't like the Second Amendment, there
Speaker 1: is a way to overturn it, if everyone agrees with you,
Speaker 1: which they always tell me, everyone agrees with us about guns.
Speaker 1: Overturned the Second Amendment. It can be done, and then
Speaker 1: you can do what you like. But right now we
Speaker 1: do have one and you can't do what you want.
Speaker 1: You can't ban guns, and that is the long game
Speaker 1: here for them, in my opinion, I'm gonna come back
Speaker 1: here at a second, David, and talk about the realities
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump faces here of the legal system being
Speaker 1: i think very openly and obviously weaponized against him. We'll
Speaker 1: get back to that in a moment. Born from the
Speaker 1: tragedy of nine to eleven, the Tunnel of the Towers
Speaker 1: Foundation has been honoring America's heroes ever since. The foundation
Speaker 1: honors fallen and severely injured heroes and their families with
Speaker 1: mortgage free homes. This year alone, hundreds of gold Star
Speaker 1: on fallen first responder families with young children, and our
Speaker 1: nation's most severely injured veterans and first responders are receiving homes.
Speaker 1: More than five hundred homeless veterans received housing and services
Speaker 1: last year, and more than fifteen hundred are receiving housing
Speaker 1: and services this year. This coming Memorial Day, all of
Speaker 1: the brave men and women law since nine to eleven
Speaker 1: in the War on Terror are having their names read
Speaker 1: aloud in a tunnet the Towers Ceremony in our nation's capital.
Speaker 1: Through the Tunnel of the Towers nine to eleven Institute,
Speaker 1: the foundation is educating kids in kindergarten through twelfth grade
Speaker 1: about our nation's darkest day. Joined Talta Towers on its
Speaker 1: mission to do good. Please help America to never forget
Speaker 1: its greatest heroes. Join me in donating eleven dollars a
Speaker 1: month to Tunnel the Towers at t twot dot org.
Speaker 1: That's t the number two t dot org. So, so, David,
Speaker 1: I've a proposition for you. I'm reminded right now this
Speaker 1: moment in time that during the Trump administration it became
Speaker 1: standard among journalists to say we effectively we are no
Speaker 1: longer journalists in the sense of people that report and
Speaker 1: bring you facts. To be a journalistist, to be anti Trump,
Speaker 1: because that is what the truth must be. Right. Remember
Speaker 1: there were variations on that argument. That was what twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen to twenty twenty, they were openly saying that the
Speaker 1: truth is anti Trump, therefore you must be anti Trump
Speaker 1: to bring you the truth. It was just like, you know,
Speaker 1: the circular argument that justified everything they wanted to do.
Speaker 1: I think we're seeing something similar to that with prosecutors
Speaker 1: now in the legal system. Yeah, it reminds me journalisms
Speaker 1: are good and not any analogy. I think the whole
Speaker 1: anti Trump movement, and again that doesn't mean you have
Speaker 1: to be pro Trump. I mean people who are willing
Speaker 1: to break every norm, who don't care about, you know,
Speaker 1: the constitution, who don't care about spreading misinformation about elections
Speaker 1: and conspiracy theories. To win, they dropped all their supposed norms.
Speaker 1: They became worse than Trump in every way imaginable to
Speaker 1: stop Trump. And part of that is weaponizing the legal
Speaker 1: system going after a president over a seven year year
Speaker 1: old campaign finance charge, this demeanor. As far as I
Speaker 1: know right now, I haven't seen exactly what the charges are,
Speaker 1: but that's what it seems to be about. And then
Speaker 1: making the biggest deal imaginable, imaginable out out of it.
Speaker 1: And I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist myself,
Speaker 1: but sometimes I think they're trying to elevate him and
Speaker 1: make him more popular so that he'll run for a
Speaker 1: present because they think they can beat him over to Santis.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's sort of what it looks like to me.
Speaker 1: I doubt people are playing three D chess. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: all in my mind. It usually is, but that's what
Speaker 1: they're doing effectively, right, And the idea the gall to
Speaker 1: start talking about how no one's above the law after
Speaker 1: what we saw with Hillary Clinton, who comey let off,
Speaker 1: where there was just a mountain of evidence showing she
Speaker 1: was guilty of felonies, not of misdemeanors. It's just and
Speaker 1: others as well. It's just a joke. And it also
Speaker 1: strikes me that the Hunter Biden phenomenon, it's so funny.
Speaker 1: You've probably seen this a few times right where people,
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats will rush to the defense of Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden on something's just say, you know, it's not a
Speaker 1: crime to take money because people want to talk to
Speaker 1: your dad, and then everyone piles on and say as well,
Speaker 1: smoking crack and buying a handgun, wire a crack user
Speaker 1: and taking millions of dollars that you hide in LLCs
Speaker 1: and from the Chinese and don't declare and don't pay taxes.
Speaker 1: Like there's a lot of crimes that Hunter Biden one
Speaker 1: is committed and we're just supposed to think like, no
Speaker 1: big deal, nothing's gonna happen. Also, and also, you know,
Speaker 1: sometimes corruption isn't criminal, and there's plenty it looks like
Speaker 1: there's plenty of corruption there. But yeah, you're right. But
Speaker 1: but do you notice how they say, you know, they
Speaker 1: talk about Stormy Daniels, is that her name? Yeah, you
Speaker 1: know how she was given hush money. There's nothing illegal
Speaker 1: about signing, you know, giving someone hush money. We many
Speaker 1: of us worked in places where we're not allowed to
Speaker 1: talk about what goes that we signed contracts. We are
Speaker 1: you know, you can pay people for that if you
Speaker 1: want whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. But they create
Speaker 1: they frame it as some kind something that is much
Speaker 1: worse than it is now. I long before Trump have
Speaker 1: been against these campaign finance laws completely because I think
Speaker 1: they undermine the First Amendment in all kinds of ways.
Speaker 1: But this basically is a is a bookkeeping a crime. Right,
Speaker 1: it's a misdemeanor. Most people here, that's it. This is
Speaker 1: another again, another argument where I don't you know, I
Speaker 1: can sit here and with Democrats, like we could. I
Speaker 1: could sit here with a Democrat and we could argue
Speaker 1: over what the capital gains tax rate should be, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, we could really we could have that debate.
Speaker 1: You know, why should it be favored of it? But
Speaker 1: it's a there's real arguments. I would have my side
Speaker 1: that I would think is correct, but we're getting into
Speaker 1: this realm where they're not. You know, on the on
Speaker 1: the gun free zone school thing, for example, there's no argument.
Speaker 1: They're all for, no argument for that. And on this one,
Speaker 1: if Trump had done what they're prosecuting him for not doing,
Speaker 1: which is if he had paid off Stormy Daniels with
Speaker 1: campaign funds, that would clearly be a criminal use of
Speaker 1: campaign funds, you know what I mean. Like, so the
Speaker 1: thing that they're prosecuting him for not doing is illegal
Speaker 1: the same way that the thing that they're prosecuted, or
Speaker 1: rather that they would have been able to prosecute him
Speaker 1: for for doing. He was damned if he did, damned
Speaker 1: if he didn't. You see what I'm saying like, it
Speaker 1: makes no sense that he was supposed to report this
Speaker 1: as a campaign expense, because if it was a campaign expense,
Speaker 1: he could have had a fundraise. You've taken money from
Speaker 1: a fundraise your Trump between you know, twenty twenty Trump
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen for president, and paid Stormy Daniels ten million
Speaker 1: dollars with that money. Two things. One is my problem
Speaker 1: with this, just as my problem with the press going
Speaker 1: so hard after Trump all the time, not the lies,
Speaker 1: just going after him hard, is that I'm not actually
Speaker 1: opposed to that. I'm not actually posed to going after
Speaker 1: a president on legal stuff. I'm a post to only
Speaker 1: going after one president, only going after one party all
Speaker 1: the time. I think all press and basically should be impeached.
Speaker 1: But they don't do that. They go after the Republican
Speaker 1: like you know, that's what bothers me. But moreover, I
Speaker 1: just want to quickly say this, think about where this
Speaker 1: all started. It started with Trump is a agent of
Speaker 1: Putin Pot, he's a trader, and we end up with
Speaker 1: a seven year old book keeping misdemeanor against him, and
Speaker 1: they celebrate it like they've like they've uncovered water teet,
Speaker 1: like this is Nixon did you see. I mean CNN
Speaker 1: has footage or the plane landing and the plane taking off,
Speaker 1: all of this. They need him so badly for ratings,
Speaker 1: it's not even funny, you know, I mean they need
Speaker 1: him so bad. So I think the same way that
Speaker 1: they often said that Trump supporters, they always accuse Trump
Speaker 1: supporters of being in a cult. And there are books,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of books You're the Trump cult
Speaker 1: and all this stuff. I actually do believe that there
Speaker 1: is a cult of anti Trumpism, as in that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people for whom everything they know
Speaker 1: and have known their whole adult lives about politics, about
Speaker 1: the law, about common sense, when it comes to this individual,
Speaker 1: somehow no longer no longer applies, right, like like everything
Speaker 1: that we would you know, it is impossible to make
Speaker 1: a good faith argument to me that prosecuting a president
Speaker 1: under such a flimsy pretext doesn't kick open Pandora's box
Speaker 1: in a massive way for a future nonsense like this,
Speaker 1: other prosecutors, other things. And yet people that you would
Speaker 1: think are somewhat somewhat I guess reasonable or serious and
Speaker 1: other issues are in favor of this. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: go get him. Yeah, they just I don't know what
Speaker 1: they say. I think they don't care that it'll be
Speaker 1: turned on them. And this has gone on since Trump
Speaker 1: first began running. They think they can do whatever they want,
Speaker 1: and when Republicans do it, they'll just pretend it's a
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's fascism. I'll give you an example,
Speaker 1: the laws passed on the banned books and the stuff
Speaker 1: we were talking about in the schools. The left has
Speaker 1: you have used those laws and those that those powers forever.
Speaker 1: That's how they set all kinds of school agendas. But
Speaker 1: when Republicans do it, it's immediately fascism. This is how
Speaker 1: they work. So I think they don't see it that way.
Speaker 1: As far as the cult stuff, a thousand percent, Like,
Speaker 1: first of all, it's not as if people liberals ran
Speaker 1: around being critical of Barack Obama or run around being
Speaker 1: critical of Joe Biden. They're in the same kind of
Speaker 1: cult as Trump supporters are in. You know, maybe I
Speaker 1: think maybe Trump is because of his personality, Garners more
Speaker 1: or did more loyalty. But look now there's a big
Speaker 1: break within Republicans. Some support the Santists, some support Trump.
Speaker 1: That's a kind of thing that shows that it's not
Speaker 1: any kind of cult like you know, I mean brought
Speaker 1: to your point, Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize
Speaker 1: for getting elected. That's a real thing, right exactly, which
Speaker 1: is embarrassing, and then the Nobel Committee should be embarrassed
Speaker 1: forever about although then again Arafat, there's there are some
Speaker 1: other bad ones too. Yeah, absolutely, But you know, for
Speaker 1: years Barack Obama, there would be these you know stories
Speaker 1: where they put halos or you know, pictures they put
Speaker 1: halos around them and write about them as there's some
Speaker 1: messianic figure, you know. So, I mean, this happens with
Speaker 1: every president. I don't like it. I don't like it
Speaker 1: at all. But I think that within the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: like or you know, I debate with like national conservative
Speaker 1: types all the time. Like there there are debates on
Speaker 1: the right, there are very few of those on the left.
Speaker 1: The central mainstream left has moved to where the progressive
Speaker 1: left is. They're they're just talking about how much money
Speaker 1: they want to spend. There's a little bit off, but
Speaker 1: their goals are exactly the same. Take abortion. It began
Speaker 1: with the you know, there was a moderate middle of
Speaker 1: the road position in the Democratic Party. Now it's nine months.
Speaker 1: You know, do what you want whenever you want, and
Speaker 1: you can go on and on issue after issues. So
Speaker 1: I don't buy their narrative. And again I'm not a
Speaker 1: Trump fan, but they make people defend Trump because they
Speaker 1: act in authoritarian ways to try to bring down this supposed,
Speaker 1: you know, dictator. He's not even president now, right, he's
Speaker 1: not doing anything to anyone. He's running and they are
Speaker 1: still doing this stuff. So we'll see how. You know,
Speaker 1: he's gonna be found innocent, then then what are they
Speaker 1: going to say about about it? Right? I mean, let's
Speaker 1: say he's found innocent of the charges. Let's say he
Speaker 1: fights it. What are they going to say. We're gonna say, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is what the law. The law. Obviously you said
Speaker 1: follow the law. You said, no one's above justice and
Speaker 1: he's innocent. Will they admit he's innocent? Of course not. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it will never stop. And also I think that, well,
Speaker 1: do you think that there will be other prosecutions Georgia
Speaker 1: the Fed's Jack Smith special counsel, what do you think? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean, if they're moving forward. And again I'm not
Speaker 1: saying there's some concerted effort here. I don't know who
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg speaks to or doesn't speak to or if
Speaker 1: he cares. But if they're going after him on this,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't they go after him on those Georgia charges,
Speaker 1: which I think are kind of ridiculous as well. But yeah,
Speaker 1: they'll keep going after him. I mean, they impeached him twice.
Speaker 1: They'll keep going after him and after him. And if
Speaker 1: de Santists, let's say, somehow wins the nomination, they'll go
Speaker 1: after him the same way. You already see articles saying
Speaker 1: how he's worse than Trump because he's smarter than Trump,
Speaker 1: because he's you know, smoother than he's more, you know,
Speaker 1: he knows what he's doing, you know, with government better
Speaker 1: than Trump. I mean, so it's it's like how they
Speaker 1: used to hate, you know, they always hate the worst Republicans,
Speaker 1: always the newest one and the old one they'll give
Speaker 1: brudging respect to as you move forward, you know, one
Speaker 1: day they'll be like, ah, yeah, Trump wasn't that bad
Speaker 1: compared to that to Santists. You know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's what it seems like to me. It's absolutely the case.
Speaker 1: Do you think that at some level do Democrats recognize
Speaker 1: that the whole Joe Biden thing. I mean, I would
Speaker 1: argue that Fetterman, who I know has just come out
Speaker 1: of the hospital. He says he's been hospitalized for depression
Speaker 1: for I don't know, almost two months or something. That
Speaker 1: when you put somebody who had a stroke in a
Speaker 1: serious medical condition and clearly is not medically capable of
Speaker 1: really doing any job that requires intensive thought and serious
Speaker 1: consideration of complex issues, that if they'll, if they'll push
Speaker 1: Fetteran forward, and they did, then it's no problem to
Speaker 1: push Joe Biden forward for a second term. Which is
Speaker 1: why I thought Biden is going to be I thought
Speaker 1: the whole time he's going to be there, their second
Speaker 1: term guy, and he's going to run for reelection. But
Speaker 1: do you think at some level there's a recognition of
Speaker 1: just the the the absurdity of Joe Biden in his
Speaker 1: best days was a not a very bright guy, a
Speaker 1: not a very nice guy, and not a very ethical guy.
Speaker 1: And now on top of that, he really is somebody
Speaker 1: who like needs round the clock hare in a seniors home. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, if I think if there was some alternative
Speaker 1: who they thought could win, they would move in that direction.
Speaker 1: But I don't think there is one right now For
Speaker 1: Democrats that I can think of, maybe Newsom, but I
Speaker 1: don't I think they overestimate how that plays around the country.
Speaker 1: So Biden's the man, And yeah, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: think they must know. They must know that he's incompetent.
Speaker 1: They must have known that he was a blowhard and
Speaker 1: not very intelligent to begin you know. I just bring
Speaker 1: it up because with a Trump thing. They hate Trump
Speaker 1: so much, there's always this part of me wants to
Speaker 1: point and be like and this, Joe Biden, this is
Speaker 1: your answer, Like this is the best you guys can do.
Speaker 1: It really is kind of mind blowing, I think because
Speaker 1: he exudes or or maybe he's thought of as a
Speaker 1: moderate sort of old timey because of how he you know,
Speaker 1: because he's old and all that. But honestly, he has
Speaker 1: no principles. There is literally and I've challenged people to
Speaker 1: give me one issue where he's been consistent from beginning
Speaker 1: to end in his career. What issue has he not
Speaker 1: flipped onto wherever you know he thinks that you know
Speaker 1: that will you know, we'll get the most Jews for
Speaker 1: the squeezes. Yeah, totally exactly. So from a board, you know,
Speaker 1: he was like pro one day he said he was
Speaker 1: for what was that an amendment called the High Amendment.
Speaker 1: Right during the election. There was some blowback on Twitter.
Speaker 1: The next day comes out he says it's against the
Speaker 1: High Amendment. That's like forty five years of politics that
Speaker 1: he just threw in the garbage because he thought he
Speaker 1: needed to say something else. So, but here's the thing
Speaker 1: about him being old and every and I get it,
Speaker 1: and everyone's all over, you know, all over that. But
Speaker 1: here's the thing. I don't like to give him a
Speaker 1: pass because he was terrible before this. He was not
Speaker 1: right before. He was a liar before this. He was
Speaker 1: a fabuloust from the beginning. So I can't believe that
Speaker 1: a guy who was mentored by segregationist has the gall
Speaker 1: to go out there and talk about civil rights movement
Speaker 1: like he does, or you know, who was basically a
Speaker 1: social conservative gets to talk about Christians the way he does.
Speaker 1: But that's what politics is today. I think it's all
Speaker 1: about power and they don't really care who's there as
Speaker 1: long as they get to run the White House. David,
Speaker 1: where should folks go to follow you and read your
Speaker 1: latest columns? The Federalist dot com is where most of
Speaker 1: my stuff is and They can follow me on Twitter
Speaker 1: at David Harsani. Hopefully you know. I hate being on there,
Speaker 1: but I am on there. I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm
Speaker 1: the same. It's a toxic place to be these days,
Speaker 1: right David, a very good friend and colleague, a colleague
Speaker 1: of mine in the business, once described David. I thought
Speaker 1: this is a great description as gutsie in his writing,
Speaker 1: but not showy about it, which I thought you'd appreciate,
Speaker 1: not like trying to get, you know, undue attention, just
Speaker 1: GUTSI and what he writes. David. Thanks, yeah, yeah, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for being with us man, appreciate it. We'll
Speaker 1: see you soon anytime. Thank you.