David Harsanyi: Gun Grabbing Left Makes No Sense

Mister HARSANYI good to have you on the program, Sir, thanks for having me. Just hit me how long I know you? What's that? Fifteen years ago or something? Right? Yep, we're going on I think thirteen years. We've known each other for thirteen years, so you and I go way back to the early days of the of the Blaze phenomenon. Now tell me this, David, there's been there's all this

back and forth. Now, when people see this or listen to this, we're both, they will already know what the reality is of the Trump showing up in New York City situation. As you and I talk, we're not quite sure what that is going to look like because we're

recording in advance of it. Just everyone knows. But one part of it that has already come out very clearly is if you talk about Alvin Bragg as a Soros funded DA, they go back and forth between one saying that that's not true, which is really they're just lying basically, but it comes to a third party that put the money out there. But put that aside. The other part of this is that it is anti semitic to say that Soros is giving money to people that he gave

money to. Right, So there's two two fast as this one is they say, well, Soros doesn't actually back them because he gave seven million to a pack and that pack only gave Alvin Brag one million, right or whatever. Whatever. The number one, which is a new, completely new standard, which you know, we would we wouldn't be able to say that half the people out there who are funding political causes are funding them in that way because the

money's laundered. It's not laundered, but you know what I mean, it's it's given out by packs, not exactly by the individual. Soros even said I never met him. Can you imagine if that was the standard of saying someone back something, someone you had to see them, you know, give a bag of money to the person in a picture, you know, shaking hands so on. So that's a ridiculous pot But

the second part is much more nefarious. It's that you cannot talk about George Soros without being accused of being anti Semitic, as if George Soros is a stand in for the Jewish community in some way. Well, first of all, first of all, he doesn't care about the Jewish community at all. He's said in a sixty minutes interview years ago that he doesn't really even identify as a Jewish person. A b He funds BDS through you know, his packs,

which is an anti Semitic organization. He doesn't care about Israel, doesn't care about Jews. Is a leftist. That's his identity, that's his religion. And but moreover, the idea that you can't be critical of the top benefactor for hard left causes, the top benefactor of any political causes in America. I think he dropped like one hundred and forty million last year and off, you know, not even in a presidential year.

It's very convenient and very ridiculous. I've always said it's amazing how the left has plenty of billionaires, but their billionaires are good people who we should all be thankful or funding like media matters, and you know, funding these trash political attack organizations all across the NGEO spectrum, and you know, and wacko environmentalists. But those billionaires, like billionaires with a B bill with a big B, those are

the bad billionaires, right. But we hear so much about the the Koch brothers, and not as much these days, I guess. But you know, there's this pretense that the billionaire class, their money all goes to conservative politics. This is kind of like how they also tell everybody that Wall Street is somehow republican. These are just this is just an untrue reality that are, you know, an untrue

perception that the Democrats have entirely manufactured. I mean like Obama and Hillary and Biden got a fast majority of Wall Street money. Yeah, but they say dark money, they mean dark money from Republicans. They would mean dark money from the all the executives at all these sort of investment firms that are I think poles show like ninety

percent of them give to Democrats, not to Republicans. I should mention when Republicans had Sheldon Addolson, who was a huge donor to like pro Israel politicians the Washington Post and New York Times. They have no problem saying Sheldon Addolson backed candidate or caused and no one accused them of being anti Semitic for so even though those issues actually related to Jewish causes, if you know what I mean. But of course, again everything's Calvin Ball, everything changes, it

all depends. But you hit on a very important point. I think they don't. It's almost as if they don't view their causes as political. It's just common sense. It's just the right thing to do, you know. No, it's not let's not politicize this thing. You know, let's save the environment, let's you know, stop guns, let you know, whatever their causes, they view it as just common sense and not political, whereas what you want or I want is politicizing its culture war. It's you know, all these

sort of negative connotations to them. Do you think that the the journalists or whatever whatever we call people now who write for these publications that are very clearly political, even though they pretend to just be you know, the facts in the news. Do you think that when they deploy the anti semitic charge about whether it's Rond de

Santist talking about Soros back da It's fascinating. Soros came up with this whole plan that he has spoken about at length in interviews, and there are financial records of him realizing that there's this weak seem in the system in a sense where you can buy a DA's race with very little money. Because who wants to buy a DA's race? Was that was now people all know why, but that was the thinking, right, and so he has this whole plan and now to talk about his plan,

they say, oh, well, that's that's anti semitic. And yet do you think the people that are saying that, the different chattering class individuals are saying that, do they know it's bad faith and they just don't care, or do you think that they really believe at some like they've convinced themselves that in this case, talking about objective reality just happens to be anti semitic would involve George Soros

could be both. I'm not sure. I'm sure that some of its cynical, but you know, some of it maybe people have convinced themselves that all, let me take a step back, why would rot Santis, who is the governor of Florida, which has a large Jewish community, and he's been pro Israel, pro Jewish, he's only had good things to say about Jews and all that start peddling anti Semitic dog whistles. What what What would the point of

it be? In their wark mind? The point of it is that all Republicans are basically just you know, Nazis underneath it all, and they hate Jews underneath it all, and they're racists and bigots. So he's appealing to that part of it. So I think they've convinced themselves that, yes, Jews are you know that Republicans hate Jews. They you know, they're racist and all that, and that's why they do the Jim Crow two point zero and all this other nonsense. Some of them are cynical, but I think that many

of the rank and file actually believe that. They believe they believe that about their political opposition. And that's really a big problem in this country where we used to sort of be able to disagree without thinking the other side was evil or you know, was going to commit transgenocide or hated Jews or all this other stuff that doesn't really happen, but I think a lot of people have convinced themselves of it. Probably, David, we come back.

You know we mentioned Ronda Santis. In a second. I want to ask you about the the book banning story that keeps I hear there's banning books. This has become a meme. It's all over the place. Let's address that. But but first we have to address how people can get the best pillows imaginable from my friend Mike Lindell and his team at My Pillow. They've got the two point zero version of the product that started at all

for them nearly twenty years ago. The My Pillow two point zero has the patented adjustable fill of the original My Pillow, but now has brand new exclusive fabric that has made with temperature regulating thread. You're going to find this My Pillow to be the softest, smoothest, coolest pillow you'll ever own. If you're tossing and turning at night a lot, flipping your pillow over looking for that cool spot, those nights are over. My Pillow two point zero comes

at a great deal right now. Buy one, get one free for a limited time when you use my name as the promo code buck. The my Pillow two point zero, made with temperature regulating technology is one hundred percent made in the U. I say, go to my Pillow two point zero. I'm sorry. My pillow dot Com is the website My pillow dot com. Click on the radio listeners special square. Get this buy one, get one free offer on the my Pillow two point oh promo code buck.

That's my pillow dot Com promo code buck. You'll get buy one, get one free, Get them my pillow two point off. I've got them here at home in the bed. They're fantastic. All right. So they talk about book banning, but there's a problem with that, right, which is there's

actually no books that are banned. What is going on here? Well, the last week or maybe a little before that, I went to a Barnes and Noble and I, you know, I see the book band book table where you can buy the books that are banned, right, and it hit me that it's just a racket, you know, for the for booksellers, it's a racket like yeah, Lord of the Flies is banned or you know whatever book. And all these books are bestsellers, some of them are generational best sellers.

And it just gets people buying them, probably, and for the left politically, it's it's an ideological racket. It's it's a way to smear people. Like after the Tennessee shooting. In Nashville shooting, I saw a lot of leftists say they'll ban books in Tennessee, but not you know, assault weapons. No book is banned. I can buy any book I want. They are curated, as leftist administrators have been doing forever. Just because my books aren't in any school doesn't mean

that they're banned. It means that they're not appropriate for kids to be reading, even though I think they are. But whatever, you know what I mean. Yeah, So they're not banned by in any sense of the word. In the same way you can say gay in Florida without going to jail. You know, you can say gay. You

can buy any book you want. There are laws that basically prohibit you know, obviously they're over zealous administrators and teachers and parents and stuff sometimes, but in general, you're trying to keep sexually you know, explicit books or violence or things that you don't want young people reading. And it seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you're going to

be in a state in school. Again, I'm asking. I guess they do a little bit of on the spot psychology, But I just have to wonder the people who are going around saying that these books are banned. They have to know that that's a lie, but they say it anyway. Is there just a cognitive dissonance here like they You know, it's so easy, right, I mean, you were explaining how it actually works with curation. You know, when I was at my Jesuit high school, they made a decision which

I vehemently disagreed with. David Okay, I thought it was really really unfair that Maxim magazine was not allowed in school during school hours. You know, all of a sudden, now I wasn't able to see you know, Heidi Klume and Letitia Casta and some of the greats of that era.

As you may well recall, I was not. Now, if I had gone outside the school and protested that there was an all out ban on Maxim magazine, people would have said that I was a clownish, you know, imbecile, because they're just saying, you can't read this during school hours in a jesuit in a Jesuit high school. So while I disagree with it. I knew that it wasn't a band. I just don't believe that it's possible of these people who were talking about the book band don't

know that there's no band. So then are they just mouthing the propaganda because it's an attack, and so it doesn't matter if the attack is true. The point is ron de santist bad. I think partly that's it, but partly these people have convinced themselves that the state's not giving them something, it's being banned. I give you an example.

A few years ago, we were debating birth control, and leftists would say the Republicans want to ban birth control or Republicans want to ban access to birth control, and what they meant was that the taxpayers would no longer be buying birth control and giving it to people. So to them the state, because they view the state as the well spring of all good things. If the state's not doing it, it's banning it or taking it away

from someone. It's the same way, for instance, when you let someone keep their own money who makes a lot of money, you're taking it from someone else. That's how this is how they see the world. I don't mean again I'm sure there are people are very cynical about it. I think rank and file wise they view the world that way because they just don't understand how the world's supposed to work. I guess you know. You're also what was the name of your very excellent book again on firearms,

David for everybody at home? First Freedom first, freedom right through? Yeah, no, go ahead, say the whole title. That's what you're here, right through America's history with the gun, kind of a cultural history. Yeah. So it's interesting me because obviously there was just a there was a mass shooting recently at a school, and so now there's the whole gun control argument. It is remarkable to me how few people I hear talking about the the problem that exists with the pistol bran.

You know, you know about this, right, the pistol brace phenomenon, where you have tens of millions of these things have been sold and the ATF said they're fine, and now they were invented, if I recall by a former marine, I think it was so that people who had a disability could shoot, you know, could shoot effectively, even you know, basically if they couldn't have a stock in their shoulder.

This allowed them to have a brace on their arm and so they could still use say an AAR platform something similar to that as of May thirtieth or thirty first, whatever, the last day of May is. If you don't register this thing or just give it up, you know, get

rid of it, destroy it, you're a felon. So theoretically there will be at least hundreds of thousands, maybe even a few million people that the Biden administration, by the FIAT of a regulatory agency turns into a felon just by doing what had been legal until the Bide administration came along. I mean, to me, this is this is a huge slap in the face to what law is

supposed to be. Yeah. I mean, it's the same guy who signs a piece of paper and says he's going to break contracts of people who borrow money for school and not have to pay it back because he says so, you know, he doesn't care. It's you know, it's interesting with the guns because set aside all the specific stuff, the stuff they want to ban, I think it doesn't really matter to them. It's just incrementalism. Like if it's a solid weapons, they'll go for that. The brace, they'll

go for that. You know, what was there was something else they recently when you know it's just the aesthetics, they yeah, bump stocks all right, So like it. I think it's just moving forward. They know that are fifteens are largely used, are rarely used in criminality. I mean, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns of some sword. But these psychopaths who go into schools, you know, they like the aesthetics. They think, whatever it is,

they use it. So they go after this because there's an emotional component. All their arguments are always emotional. There's never any reason to it. It. Constantly want to ban things that would probably not have stopped or most cases would not have stopped the mass shooting that they're using again cynically to try to pass some new law. I think I think an AAR fifteen band would be on constitutional. At some point, someone's going to take it to the Supreme Court. It is a gun in common use. It

is not a more dangerous than most other guns. Some of the biggest mass murders have been occurred using you know, nine millimeters or whatever, and it will be overturned, you know, and then they'll just delegitimize the Supreme Court because it goes from one thing to the next. It just you know, they're constantly Yeah, I mean you mentioned the use of pistols and mass shootings Virginia Tech, which for a while I believe was the highest casualty school shooting of all time.

Pistols and Ford Hood where I forget the full death count, but it was very it was high obviously that shooting. It by that, you know, self radicalized though lunatic Alaki onwar Alaki disciple, those use stals. But so I wanted to pose this to I mean, this is a theory I've talked about on radio. I think now that there is really there are really two different two different views within the Democrat Party about any kind of gun legislation.

To your point about incrementalism. One is the people who are just they've been you know, there's like a phobia indoctrination, right, they've just been so terrified. Guns are so bad, guns are so scary. So anything we can do against the scary thing is good, irrespective of like all the existing laws and eying that's there. But I also think there's a substantial portion for whom they know it will do nothing. I think this would even be a majority of people

pushing legislation of the Democrat Party. Quite honestly, that's really what I'm going after here. They know it won't save any lives, they know it won't stop any violence. But it is a thumb in the eye of predominantly, not entirely, but predominantly you know, white male, Republican rural gun owners who are gonna have to give this thing up or they're gonna have to wait five more days they're gonna have to go through. They know that's all that it does,

and they're happy with that. Yeah. I think that most of these laws they reel I love. You know, after the shooting, they were talking about permits, permits in Florida, right like, how can we have how could people be able to have a loaded gun without a permit? What mass shooters like, Oh my god, I gotta go get a permit before I go to murder fifteen people like it is just it makes no sense. It is aimed at law abiding citizens. Wait longer. Don't be able. You

know you're not able. They don't want you to sell a gun to your family or give a gun to your family member. Or sell a gun to your friend. You know, that's why they want universal background checks. They just want to make it harder on regular people, like you say, who own firearms in this country, and there

are many of them. But I also want to just quickly mention one thing on the AAR fifteen band they keep how can I say this making the AR fifteen into this super weapon that can kill tons of people, that blows up inside you, you know, a kid when you shoot them, and stuff like this. They are actually making the guns sound, you know, like the super weapon and then they're then they're surprised when a mass shooter gets an AAR fifteen. And don't get me wrong, it's

a good weapon. It's used for self defense, it's easy to shoot all that. But you know, I just think that that maybe some of the you know, maybe they should think about if they really cared, which sometimes I wonder they should think about what they're doing when they

mythologize or whatever they find a gun. Have you ever seen I mean, this is one area where to me, this is this is almost like the people who wear I know, these different issues, but the people who insist on wearing masks alone in their car while driving that. I've never seen a rational defense of that of any kind. I've literally never read or her or anyone say this is going to stop you from getting a virus. I have heard people say it's not about has nothing to

do with the virus. It's showing a willingness to comply, and it shows your desire to be a team player in the face of the virus. Right, So it is, which is basically a fancy way of saying it is straight up virtue signaling gun free zones. That are schools right, gun free zones at all schools across the country. Is there even a defense of this policy? I mean, it's your point about mass shooters or bad people. Bad people criminals in general do not care that it is a

gun free zone. In fact, there's pretty ample evidence in a lot of different cases, got a point to the specific ones that they'll choose gun free zones as places to go because they know that they won't be challenged with a firearm. Is there any serious defense of that policy that you can I'm asking you honestly that no one answers me. I asked this question all the time. What does a gun free zone do? It does nothing.

It disarms, people could defend themselves. It has zero purpose other than to let people know this is a soft target. I think the Nashville I don't know for sure about this, but I think that Nashville shooter. Or they say that she had another target in mind, but you know there it had armed any I've heard this too. It is unconfirmed. Just to be clear, but there were early reports and as you see this or listen to this episode the

manifesto may have come out, we may know more. Just to be very clear, but there there were early reports that she was going to a target a different school, but that school had an armed resource officer, and she knew that because she actually surveyed the targets. Right. So I get a lot of blowback when I say I think should be armed, or rather I think teachers should

be able to arm themselves. I cannot think of a better use of the Second Amendment than saying to a teacher, you get to defend these children yourself, this school, in this community. But yet people go bananas over it, like it's like it's radical and crazy to say this. I just to me arming schools, either with that or hiring vets or whatever, it is, arming a school makes all the sense in the world to me. Yeah what again, because you write and analyze in this realm a lot.

What is the counter argument to the arm resource officer and or ability of not you know, I don't want a teacher with you know, horrible vision, no familiarity with firearms, no interest in ever using a fire even in defense of himself or herself, to carry obviously, right, But there are teachers who spend a lot of time at the range.

They're teachers who were themselves are former law enforcement, former military like that exists as well, you know, plenty of I'm sure there are plenty of high school football coaches, and plenty of people in the you know, in the academic community. More broadly, who have you know, for the former marines? Right, if they want to carry on a school grounds, what is the counter argument? Yeah, yeah, I

don't want to compel anyone. Like you said, I don't want to compel people to have guns that should be able to do to defend themselves. They always say, it's guns are the problem. There's already too many guns. You know, we you know, you know they will won't be trained, so let's get them training. They you know, they won't be you know, how many lives will they really saved. I don't know. They don't have good arguments. They don't

even honestly, these people don't even want to debate. You're I know it's Twitter or whatever, you're on social media. You approach someone and you ask them a question, they block you. You know what I mean. They don't want to engage in any kind of debate because they have a very emotion emotional argument. And listen, part of it is emotional. These these events are horrible, um, but they don't really give you straight answers to the questions you're asking.

They're very good questions. I wish someone would answer them. It just don't see. Yeah, it just it just seems crazy that there can be every time this sort of thing happens, there's this push and and yet there's no foundation for the argument that's being made, and they don't even try, and they don't care. And if you won't go along, they just shout louder at you. Because I also think that ultimately, So now I'm getting really and I'm doing a little bit of like psychology at their

side here, David. But you can tell me, if you can tell me you think this is a little bit little too much, I think, I mean, I'll disagree with you obviously, because I think that way. I think that they like to believe that Republicans are so monstrous that they don't care about kids being shot in schools. They'd rather take NRA money, whatever that means. Like, I think that they like that narrative. So that's part of what

this is. It's just a way of saying you're the evil, bad people, and the argument about firearms and the Second Amendment is irrelevant. That's not it's what you're saying is not even debatable. Of course many of them, Yeah, I get like, uh, you know, basically with great ease, they will say that NRA is a terrorist organization, you care more about guns than dead children. I mean, I get this all the time from people. You This is not some you don't have to be a psychiatrist to delve

deep in there. They say it, and then what they do, which bothers me. And the reason part of the reason I wrote that book was because then they wretch, They go back and and write a new revisionist history of what the Second Amendment is. How guns were you know, how many people had guns in this country and all that stuff. It's just all made up. They're like, oh, well regulated, well regulated. You know, they're constantly pushing myths

about guns. If you don't like the Second Amendment, there is a way to overturn it, if everyone agrees with you, which they always tell me, everyone agrees with us about guns. Overturned the Second Amendment. It can be done, and then you can do what you like. But right now we do have one and you can't do what you want.

You can't ban guns, and that is the long game here for them, in my opinion, I'm gonna come back here at a second, David, and talk about the realities that Donald Trump faces here of the legal system being i think very openly and obviously weaponized against him. We'll get back to that in a moment. Born from the tragedy of nine to eleven, the Tunnel of the Towers

Foundation has been honoring America's heroes ever since. The foundation honors fallen and severely injured heroes and their families with mortgage free homes. This year alone, hundreds of gold Star on fallen first responder families with young children, and our nation's most severely injured veterans and first responders are receiving homes. More than five hundred homeless veterans received housing and services last year, and more than fifteen hundred are receiving housing

and services this year. This coming Memorial Day, all of the brave men and women law since nine to eleven in the War on Terror are having their names read aloud in a tunnet the Towers Ceremony in our nation's capital. Through the Tunnel of the Towers nine to eleven Institute, the foundation is educating kids in kindergarten through twelfth grade about our nation's darkest day. Joined Talta Towers on its mission to do good. Please help America to never forget

its greatest heroes. Join me in donating eleven dollars a month to Tunnel the Towers at t twot dot org. That's t the number two t dot org. So, so, David, I've a proposition for you. I'm reminded right now this moment in time that during the Trump administration it became standard among journalists to say we effectively we are no longer journalists in the sense of people that report and bring you facts. To be a journalistist, to be anti Trump,

because that is what the truth must be. Right. Remember there were variations on that argument. That was what twenty sixteen to twenty twenty, they were openly saying that the truth is anti Trump, therefore you must be anti Trump to bring you the truth. It was just like, you know, the circular argument that justified everything they wanted to do. I think we're seeing something similar to that with prosecutors now in the legal system. Yeah, it reminds me journalisms

are good and not any analogy. I think the whole anti Trump movement, and again that doesn't mean you have to be pro Trump. I mean people who are willing to break every norm, who don't care about, you know, the constitution, who don't care about spreading misinformation about elections and conspiracy theories. To win, they dropped all their supposed norms. They became worse than Trump in every way imaginable to

stop Trump. And part of that is weaponizing the legal system going after a president over a seven year year old campaign finance charge, this demeanor. As far as I know right now, I haven't seen exactly what the charges are, but that's what it seems to be about. And then making the biggest deal imaginable, imaginable out out of it.

And I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist myself, but sometimes I think they're trying to elevate him and make him more popular so that he'll run for a present because they think they can beat him over to Santis. I mean, that's sort of what it looks like to me. I doubt people are playing three D chess. Maybe it's

all in my mind. It usually is, but that's what they're doing effectively, right, And the idea the gall to start talking about how no one's above the law after what we saw with Hillary Clinton, who comey let off, where there was just a mountain of evidence showing she was guilty of felonies, not of misdemeanors. It's just and others as well. It's just a joke. And it also strikes me that the Hunter Biden phenomenon, it's so funny.

You've probably seen this a few times right where people, you know, Democrats will rush to the defense of Hunter Biden on something's just say, you know, it's not a crime to take money because people want to talk to your dad, and then everyone piles on and say as well, smoking crack and buying a handgun, wire a crack user and taking millions of dollars that you hide in LLCs and from the Chinese and don't declare and don't pay taxes.

Like there's a lot of crimes that Hunter Biden one is committed and we're just supposed to think like, no big deal, nothing's gonna happen. Also, and also, you know, sometimes corruption isn't criminal, and there's plenty it looks like there's plenty of corruption there. But yeah, you're right. But but do you notice how they say, you know, they talk about Stormy Daniels, is that her name? Yeah, you know how she was given hush money. There's nothing illegal

about signing, you know, giving someone hush money. We many of us worked in places where we're not allowed to talk about what goes that we signed contracts. We are you know, you can pay people for that if you want whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. But they create they frame it as some kind something that is much worse than it is now. I long before Trump have been against these campaign finance laws completely because I think they undermine the First Amendment in all kinds of ways.

But this basically is a is a bookkeeping a crime. Right, it's a misdemeanor. Most people here, that's it. This is another again, another argument where I don't you know, I can sit here and with Democrats, like we could. I could sit here with a Democrat and we could argue over what the capital gains tax rate should be, right, I mean, we could really we could have that debate. You know, why should it be favored of it? But

it's a there's real arguments. I would have my side that I would think is correct, but we're getting into this realm where they're not. You know, on the on the gun free zone school thing, for example, there's no argument. They're all for, no argument for that. And on this one, if Trump had done what they're prosecuting him for not doing, which is if he had paid off Stormy Daniels with campaign funds, that would clearly be a criminal use of

campaign funds, you know what I mean. Like, so the thing that they're prosecuting him for not doing is illegal the same way that the thing that they're prosecuted, or rather that they would have been able to prosecute him for for doing. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. You see what I'm saying like, it makes no sense that he was supposed to report this as a campaign expense, because if it was a campaign expense,

he could have had a fundraise. You've taken money from a fundraise your Trump between you know, twenty twenty Trump twenty sixteen for president, and paid Stormy Daniels ten million dollars with that money. Two things. One is my problem with this, just as my problem with the press going so hard after Trump all the time, not the lies, just going after him hard, is that I'm not actually opposed to that. I'm not actually posed to going after

a president on legal stuff. I'm a post to only going after one president, only going after one party all the time. I think all press and basically should be impeached. But they don't do that. They go after the Republican like you know, that's what bothers me. But moreover, I just want to quickly say this, think about where this

all started. It started with Trump is a agent of Putin Pot, he's a trader, and we end up with a seven year old book keeping misdemeanor against him, and they celebrate it like they've like they've uncovered water teet, like this is Nixon did you see. I mean CNN has footage or the plane landing and the plane taking off, all of this. They need him so badly for ratings, it's not even funny, you know, I mean they need

him so bad. So I think the same way that they often said that Trump supporters, they always accuse Trump supporters of being in a cult. And there are books, you know, a lot of books You're the Trump cult

and all this stuff. I actually do believe that there is a cult of anti Trumpism, as in that there are a lot of people for whom everything they know and have known their whole adult lives about politics, about the law, about common sense, when it comes to this individual, somehow no longer no longer applies, right, like like everything that we would you know, it is impossible to make a good faith argument to me that prosecuting a president

under such a flimsy pretext doesn't kick open Pandora's box in a massive way for a future nonsense like this, other prosecutors, other things. And yet people that you would think are somewhat somewhat I guess reasonable or serious and other issues are in favor of this. They're like, yeah, go get him. Yeah, they just I don't know what they say. I think they don't care that it'll be turned on them. And this has gone on since Trump

first began running. They think they can do whatever they want, and when Republicans do it, they'll just pretend it's a you know, it's it's fascism. I'll give you an example, the laws passed on the banned books and the stuff we were talking about in the schools. The left has you have used those laws and those that those powers forever. That's how they set all kinds of school agendas. But when Republicans do it, it's immediately fascism. This is how

they work. So I think they don't see it that way. As far as the cult stuff, a thousand percent, Like, first of all, it's not as if people liberals ran around being critical of Barack Obama or run around being critical of Joe Biden. They're in the same kind of cult as Trump supporters are in. You know, maybe I think maybe Trump is because of his personality, Garners more or did more loyalty. But look now there's a big break within Republicans. Some support the Santists, some support Trump.

That's a kind of thing that shows that it's not any kind of cult like you know, I mean brought to your point, Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for getting elected. That's a real thing, right exactly, which is embarrassing, and then the Nobel Committee should be embarrassed forever about although then again Arafat, there's there are some

other bad ones too. Yeah, absolutely, But you know, for years Barack Obama, there would be these you know stories where they put halos or you know, pictures they put halos around them and write about them as there's some messianic figure, you know. So, I mean, this happens with every president. I don't like it. I don't like it at all. But I think that within the Republican Party, like or you know, I debate with like national conservative

types all the time. Like there there are debates on the right, there are very few of those on the left. The central mainstream left has moved to where the progressive left is. They're they're just talking about how much money they want to spend. There's a little bit off, but their goals are exactly the same. Take abortion. It began with the you know, there was a moderate middle of the road position in the Democratic Party. Now it's nine months. You know, do what you want whenever you want, and

you can go on and on issue after issues. So I don't buy their narrative. And again I'm not a Trump fan, but they make people defend Trump because they act in authoritarian ways to try to bring down this supposed, you know, dictator. He's not even president now, right, he's not doing anything to anyone. He's running and they are still doing this stuff. So we'll see how. You know, he's gonna be found innocent, then then what are they going to say about about it? Right? I mean, let's

say he's found innocent of the charges. Let's say he fights it. What are they going to say. We're gonna say, yeah, this is what the law. The law. Obviously you said follow the law. You said, no one's above justice and he's innocent. Will they admit he's innocent? Of course not. Yeah, it will never stop. And also I think that, well, do you think that there will be other prosecutions Georgia the Fed's Jack Smith special counsel, what do you think? Yeah?

I mean, if they're moving forward. And again I'm not saying there's some concerted effort here. I don't know who Alvin Bragg speaks to or doesn't speak to or if he cares. But if they're going after him on this, why wouldn't they go after him on those Georgia charges, which I think are kind of ridiculous as well. But yeah, they'll keep going after him. I mean, they impeached him twice.

They'll keep going after him and after him. And if de Santists, let's say, somehow wins the nomination, they'll go after him the same way. You already see articles saying how he's worse than Trump because he's smarter than Trump, because he's you know, smoother than he's more, you know, he knows what he's doing, you know, with government better

than Trump. I mean, so it's it's like how they used to hate, you know, they always hate the worst Republicans, always the newest one and the old one they'll give brudging respect to as you move forward, you know, one day they'll be like, ah, yeah, Trump wasn't that bad compared to that to Santists. You know, I don't know. That's what it seems like to me. It's absolutely the case. Do you think that at some level do Democrats recognize

that the whole Joe Biden thing. I mean, I would argue that Fetterman, who I know has just come out of the hospital. He says he's been hospitalized for depression

for I don't know, almost two months or something. That when you put somebody who had a stroke in a serious medical condition and clearly is not medically capable of really doing any job that requires intensive thought and serious consideration of complex issues, that if they'll, if they'll push Fetteran forward, and they did, then it's no problem to push Joe Biden forward for a second term. Which is why I thought Biden is going to be I thought the whole time he's going to be there, their second

term guy, and he's going to run for reelection. But do you think at some level there's a recognition of just the the the absurdity of Joe Biden in his best days was a not a very bright guy, a not a very nice guy, and not a very ethical guy. And now on top of that, he really is somebody who like needs round the clock hare in a seniors home. Yeah. I mean, if I think if there was some alternative who they thought could win, they would move in that direction.

But I don't think there is one right now For Democrats that I can think of, maybe Newsom, but I don't I think they overestimate how that plays around the country. So Biden's the man, And yeah, I don't know. I think they must know. They must know that he's incompetent. They must have known that he was a blowhard and not very intelligent to begin you know. I just bring

it up because with a Trump thing. They hate Trump so much, there's always this part of me wants to point and be like and this, Joe Biden, this is your answer, Like this is the best you guys can do. It really is kind of mind blowing, I think because he exudes or or maybe he's thought of as a moderate sort of old timey because of how he you know, because he's old and all that. But honestly, he has

no principles. There is literally and I've challenged people to give me one issue where he's been consistent from beginning to end in his career. What issue has he not flipped onto wherever you know he thinks that you know that will you know, we'll get the most Jews for the squeezes. Yeah, totally exactly. So from a board, you know, he was like pro one day he said he was for what was that an amendment called the High Amendment. Right during the election. There was some blowback on Twitter.

The next day comes out he says it's against the High Amendment. That's like forty five years of politics that he just threw in the garbage because he thought he needed to say something else. So, but here's the thing about him being old and every and I get it, and everyone's all over, you know, all over that. But here's the thing. I don't like to give him a pass because he was terrible before this. He was not right before. He was a liar before this. He was

a fabuloust from the beginning. So I can't believe that a guy who was mentored by segregationist has the gall to go out there and talk about civil rights movement like he does, or you know, who was basically a social conservative gets to talk about Christians the way he does. But that's what politics is today. I think it's all about power and they don't really care who's there as long as they get to run the White House. David, where should folks go to follow you and read your

latest columns? The Federalist dot com is where most of my stuff is and They can follow me on Twitter at David Harsani. Hopefully you know. I hate being on there, but I am on there. I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm the same. It's a toxic place to be these days, right David, a very good friend and colleague, a colleague

of mine in the business, once described David. I thought this is a great description as gutsie in his writing, but not showy about it, which I thought you'd appreciate, not like trying to get, you know, undue attention, just GUTSI and what he writes. David. Thanks, yeah, yeah, thanks so much for being with us man, appreciate it. We'll see you soon anytime. Thank you.