‘You're Wrong' With Mollie Hemingway And David Harsanyi, Ep. 198: Rudy Giuliani

Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of Your Wrong with Molly Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief of the Federalist and David Harsani, senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Just as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please do so at Radio at the Federalist.com. We'd love to hear from you. Molly, how's it going? Good and great. I'm up here in New York. Took a couple weeks off of my normal routine to promote Samuel Alito, my new New York Times bestselling book. I saw you, I saw you were on Twitter saying that you would demand everyone refer to you as a three-time New York Times bestselling author, Molly Hemingway. I said I was going to insist that my family referred to me this way. And my favorite thing about, well, I had multiple favorite things about it.

One, I had forgotten to tell one of the kids this at the time that I had tweeted it. Like I hadn't told them anything about the book. And then I showed the tweet to another kid who said, that doesn't sound like you at all. And then my husband dunked on me by retweeting it with as in make me a sandwich. three-time New York Times bestselling author, which pretty much explains the dynamics of our marriage. But everything went very well, like so well. I can't believe how well. So thanks to everyone who read it, bought it, or otherwise supported it.

And I feel like it came out at just the right time, too, because everyone's interested in Samuel Alito right now. But anyway, I'm up here in New York, going to do some stuff at Fox. and then head back down to D.C. Speaking of New York, did you see that Rudy Giuliani was hospitalized? He is in critical condition last I read. I hope it gets better. Obviously, he's 81 years old. But it did get me thinking about him and how strange his legacy is in the sense that it's how a lot of younger people.

people would remember or think of him has nothing really to do with how like I remember him and think of him. He's not gone yet, but I'm just talking about his legacy in general. I believe he's been disbarred. You know, it had to do with. Yeah. Oh, really? Okay. I think so. Yeah. I could be wrong, but having to do with 2020 election and, and his role and just what, whatever you think of what he did there, a lot of his appearances were kind of, I hate to say it, but clownish. like he was a different person later in life, I think, than he was the incredibly impressive mayor of New York in my view. We could just want to talk about that a little bit as well. But did you think Giuliani was an effective spokesman for Trump during 2020 election problems?

Like, what are your, what's your view of as a non-New Yorker, you know, of Rudy? I suppose I should get it out of the way that I was pretty critical of him in my book. rigged on his legal efforts in the 2020 election challenge. There were really good election challenges that when he would talk about them, he would say they were about things that they really weren't about. You know, like in Pennsylvania, they had a really good case dealing with different treatment of ballots based on which county you were from, which had partisan effects. And he would say it was about things that it was, you know, much more dramatic things

that were less likely to have legal success. But I was thinking about this too. I didn't support Rudy when he ran for president. I've always had problems with him because he's pro-abortion. But the man was incredible during 9-11 and thereafter. And that's what he should be remembered for when he, you know, if at some point he dies. He will.

at some point if it's before the second coming um so he i just think that when you are that great of a person at that important of a moment it some of this other stuff doesn't matter so much i don't know how you feel about that well you said that he you know he was great on nine 11 thereafter he was also great before nine 11 yeah um i mean i grew you know i grew up in the new york area i i i grew grew up in when I was a kid I lived in Queens, New York, which is part of the city. People don't know that is disgusting, litter-strewn, smelly, dangerous, and ungovernable. New York, no one thought New York could be governed. The middle working class left New York.

There was a complete exodus. I think a million people during the 70s. My family was part of that. Every single kid I knew growing up, their parents were basically part of that. and no one ever thought they could be a Republican mayor. Now, you're right. He was a social, socially, I would say he was an old, old style liberal who believed in things that a liberal in the 40s or 50s might have believed in. But by the time, kind of the racial and radical Democratic Party took over cities and destroyed them in the 70s and 60s and 70s.

that was over. In 1990, I just was writing about this, so I looked it up. The year, he became mayor in 1993. He lost in 89 to David Dinkins, who's one of the worst mayors of all time in New York. But there were 2,245 murders, 2,245 murders. There were 250 felonies every month on the subway. That's a lot. Felonies, not misdemeanors. And that's just what people, you know, people who were caught. So when he became mayor, he had crime in one term. The big criticism or something that people say about Giuliani is that there was this organic urban gentrification and crime reduction going on across the country. It wasn't him.

But I looked it up. Violent crime in New York, the drop outpaced the national average by a lot. And I don't know if people know about broken windows theory where essentially you, if you concentrate on the small infractions and the small criminality, graffiti, you know, being the beggars, turnstile jumpers, things like that, then you, you like head off the bigger crimes. So he saved that city. He made that city a livable place. Obviously, now it's headed, I think, in a different direction. And I just wanted to bring up one real juxtaposition here. In 1995, my favorite moment when he was mayor, he went, he threw Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO, out of Lincoln Center.

There was a performance of Beethoven's Ninth by the New York Philharmonic for world leaders. He threw him out because he said he was a terrorist and he didn't deserve to be there. I think today's mayor would probably name a street after Arafat, not throw him out. And I don't know, he had this moral certitude that people, some people hated, but that really played well on 9-11, where he kind of like embodied the righteous anger that people had. And he brought the city together. I'm not saying he was a perfect mayor, but I just don't think there's been a mayor like him in America since then. I'm not sure we will ever have mayors like that again. He governed an ungovernable city even before 9-11.

And after 9-11, he was amazing, like you say. Anyway, that's my little spiel on. Yeah, no, and I think the longer we get from his era as mayor, the more remarkable it is. When you think about government having a main purpose of securing the order, what he did should be emulated by other people. And when people aren't free, when children aren't free to roam the streets because it's too dangerous or women can't walk around because it's too dangerous, it's really it's really bad um and we have lost a lot of that in many parts of the u.s i think there's a book called the prince of the city sorry to interrupt by fred segal it's an older book about juliani it's amazing but i've read found this quote in it that i just want to read that

i think embodies what how he was not a progressive but a true liberal he said for purposes this is when people were critical of him on crime and where he was concentrating his efforts and so on. And he said for the purposes of ethics and the law, we elevate human beings by holding them responsible. Ultimately, you diminish human individuality importance when you say, oh, well, you're not really responsible for what you did. Your parents are responsible it or your neighborhood is responsible for it or society is responsible for it. In fact, if you harm another book, and in this book, there's a whole section, I mean, Giuliani was always being called a racist. But in this book, they go into how he treated every crime, even if it was in Harlem or

whether it was on Wall Street the same, with the same importance. People forget that Giuliani is a prosecutor. And by the way, he was only like 37 when he was number three in the Justice Department. He put Michael Milken, Ivan Boski, Mark Rich, all these, well, yeah, he prosecuted these huge Wall Street crooks. And he did that as well, which he never really gets credit for. So anyway, I hope he's going to be okay. But I also hope that people remember the totality of his legacy, not just where he ended up in his final years. So speaking of New York, do you want to speak a little bit about Mahmoud Khalil?

Yeah. So. Wait, remind me who he is. I know who he, I know when he was in the news last year, but just do a little bio if you don't mind. He's, I think he's from Syria or Algeria. He calls himself a Palestinian who was a one of these professional students at Columbia. He's been there for a long time. And he was spokesman for the group that, do you remember a group took over the library, the Columbia

library, I think it was. I forget which built. Yes. He was the spokesman for that group. Yeah, the group's name was Columbia University apartheid divest. One of their goals, right now, I'm not making this up, is the total eradication of Western society.

They advocate for global intifada, which is the targeting of Jewish people around the world. And he supported armed resistance of Hamas and so on, which is people. might forget a terrorist group. Khalil hates America. He hates Western society, and he's a bigot. So the Trump administration wanted to throw him out of the country, which they should be

able to, of course, do. But to do it, you have to go to court. It costs millions of dollars. It's taking a very long time. So the other day, the New York Magazine ran a big, long feature written by him, where he, it's titled, I Miss My Old Life. The subtitle is one year after my, quote, abduction by ICE, I still watch my back every day. He's a kind of a folk hero now on the progressive left.

My position on this is if we cannot throw people who hate this country who aren't citizens out of the country, we are committing suicide. And if it's going to be this hard to throw someone out of the country, we cannot let these people in to begin with. We cannot have student visas from places where there is, you know, large groups of people who are pro-terrorists. The New York Times ran a piece the other day about the Trump administration sending out a directive to Homeland Security that anyone with anti-American views or anti-Semitic views shouldn't be let in or should. be kicked out if they'd only if have a visa one of the instances of of things you can do to have that happen is desecrating the american flag and the new york times was very upset about this right because it's free speech yes it's free speech because free speech is a neutral principle you have no neutral there is no neutral principle that says we have to give citizenship to people

who hate this country there is no and you can't bore into the soul of a newcomer. So if they're burning a flag, you don't have to. You have evidence that they hate this country and they should be kicked out. You know I'm big on immigration, but I am changing my mind a little bit every day because I cannot abide by this nonsense that we have to allow people who don't want to be good Americans who hate this country, who make the lives of their neighbors miserable. We cannot survive as a nation. If we can't survive as a nation, if we can't doing this. And I already see what's happening in academia. I can't imagine what's going to happen when this spreads to other institutions and maybe it has already.

Well, I was thinking about how the last couple of years have made me really dislike the philosophies that say simply desiring to come to this country makes you as American as anyone. else and that ignores our distinct culture, people, moors, laws, everything. We have seen what I think is almost, I mean, the sad thing is it actually could be worse under that ideology, but we've seen so quickly how things have become much worse for Americans when you adopt that ideology that we should have open borders and that, anybody who wants to come here for any reason is fully American. I, yeah, so I think I'm just saying I agree with you on a lot of this.

But in particular, you see how in other countries you can really change a country for the worst by not holding on to your culture in the face of widespread immigration. It is shocking to me how quickly this has happened in Europe. I think I mentioned that last year I went to Poland, which has fairly low immigration rates outside of, they're very good about letting Ukrainians come in who are displaced by the war. But other than that, they're kind of a low immigration country. They're having the benefits of that.

They have a pretty tight culture. They have a lot of economic success right now. And I was thinking about the first time I went to London, versus now. It's like a completely, completely radically different country. Just like you can walk down the street and be like, where am I?

And you can feel it in the loss of trust among people. You see it, you know, where I am in northern Virginia, I can't remember what percentage of the population is foreign-born, but between legal and illegal immigrants, you know, just completely reshaped the state in a pretty short period of time. And I get why Democrat politicians in particular, and some Republican politicians,

love immigration. I get how it works for them. But when you're talking about the American people and what you need to have a country that's cohesive, not, for instance, teeming with anti-Semitism or teaming with violence, or just all the bad things that happen with loss of trust, it's not a coherent,

it's not a good approach for how to have a happy, healthy republic, I think. Especially part of this is our own fault, not our own fault, the left's fault. Because if you're pro immigration, you should also be pro assimilation. And we have this moral relativism that doesn't allow us to say our culture is better, that you should adopt our culture. culture is good. Now I would say that they think that the other cultures are actually better quite often. I think progressive left does. So if there's no expectation of assimilation like there was none or is none in the European Union, you get what you get. You gettos of people who have very different

ideas about the world. I'm not saying that this is, you know, plenty of people come over from, Middle East and do assimilate, but increasingly it seems that they don't. And quickly wanted to mention that when Marco Rubio made a comment about this recently, the Times and the Washington Post and so on, they accused the Trump administration of invoking and quote an obscure 1952 law that was meant to deport communists during the Rets scare. So any law they don't, like, obscure just means a law we don't like that's on the book still. Well, I hate to break the news to people, but that was a great law, denaturalizing and deporting a bunch of commies in the was really smart because communism is incompatible with the Constitution. There is no reason for us to import people who believed in something that would destroy our country.

It is also completely legal to have ideological standards for people who come here. It's actually in the law. It's never been found unconstitutional. You ask people, are you a member of the Communist Party? Have you been a member of any kind of fascist party? My parents were asked that. they were asked that because those things are incompatible and you want to assimilate and you want to embrace American ideals. And American ideals are not just, oh, diversity. We have diversity. Yeah. Diversity is a nice flavoring to how things are in this country. I actually like it. I like that there are different sorts of people. But all those people have to embrace some basic ideals like living with people, your neighbors. I'm sorry, the Islamic world is violently anti-Semitic.

and quite often violently anti-freedom as we see at liberty. And we're just importing that. That is suicidal. It's driving me nuts. This reminds me that after 9-11, there would be these global polls that would say, actually only 28% of Muslims believe in violent jihad against other cultures. I'm like only 20.

Like I'm glad it's not 100. That's true. But 28% when you're dealing with however many hundreds of millions of people is still a really high number. And I saw that recently with polls of the left as well, that there are a lot of people who identify as left wing, like Democrats who support political violence. This is not good. But it kind of reminds me of when we opened up trade with China. If you go back and read all the articles in the Wall Street Journal at that time or other publications, the case was made that this would benefit us economically, but also we would be able to export our values to China,

which, you know, has a severe lack of freedom. it did benefit us economically in many ways, particularly on the macro level, less on the micro level. But instead of us exporting our ideas, we imported a lot of their ideas of surveillance and control. And you have to remember that when you have a free exchange of ideas and people and You have to guard your own values, too. And that's what I think here. Like we have exported or we have shown how tolerant we are of differing systems.

And we brought in people who in some cases do not share that tolerance, but have exploited that tolerance for gain. And to bring it back to the New Yorker's favorite columnist, I think we have a situation. where people have figured out how to exploit a lot of our best aspects of free freedom of speech without having those values inculcated in them. Yeah. Mahmoud Khalil wants to import Syria, not become a good American. And do we need another, like even if we are bringing people, especially students here, he's a professional activist.

We don't have enough America hating professional activists yet. We need more of them. We need to import them. It's not like he's an engineer or something. He's ridiculous. And it can't be this hard to get rid of someone. It just can't. Ugh.

This is Molly Hemingway of the Federalist, inviting you to join me for the 2026 Issues, Making the Case Conference, Friday, June 12th, and Saturday, June 13th at Concordia University Chicago. I'll be speaking and signing copies of my new book, Samuel Alito, the Justice who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the U.S. Constitution. Learn more at issuesetc.org,

making the case, June 12th and 13th in River Forest, Illinois. Issuesetc.org. Speaking of bad ideologies and people, did you, you see that Janet Mills in Maine dropped out of the Senate race. So clearing the path for Graham Graham Platner to be the next Democratic senatorial candidate from Maine to take on Susan Collins. I wrote a column and I asked this question in the headline. What would do you think it would, I'll ask you it, what do you think it would take for Democrats to abandon a progressive candidate? Like what could they do? Could they get an SS tattoo? Could they have it for 20 years? Yes. could they be pro Hamas, yes?

Could they? I don't know. I don't know what you could possibly do that would get someone like the podcast bro types to drop the candidate and say this isn't okay. I mean, I think the situation is actually worse than that, David. I think they kind of like these things about him. Like many Americans look at this and say,

probably we shouldn't elect someone with an SS tattoo that he knowingly had for decades before it became so problematic that he had to pretend that he didn't know what it was about and get it covered up. But I think a lot of these left-winger kind of like that about him. They find it edgy. They might share some of the anti-Semitic feelings that are at the root of that. They think it's real and different than the type of politician that they're normally forced to choke down. And I think, I mean, I think they really like him. She dropped out because he's going to win the Democratic nomination. But he also could very well win Maine.

It's a pretty left-wing state. And Susan Collins has been an incredible senator for Maine. But she is getting up. there and she doesn't have the excitement that a Graham Platner has. I mean, she is what people, what Democrats pretend they want and what people pretend they want, what the media pretends they want sometimes, like just a real, a moderate, a centrist, a person who's always trying to find a middle ground. I know conservatives get angry, but that, you know, having a senator like that in a state

like Maine, which would typically be Democrat, I think is good for Republicans. you have to be realistic about these things and to have her replaced with a guy and by the way, one of the excuses is like, yeah, maybe he has a Nazi tattoo, but he's never shown any inclination towards that kind of belief system. Like, first of all, do you think that

if a Republican had a Nazi tattoo, they would have any chance of being a senator? It would be no way. But more than that, he has. He went on a, he's been on podcast for Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. I'm serious, a full-blown neo-Nazi. I'm not going to say his name.

And it's just not plausible. You know, the thing that still bothers me about him is that he's cosplaying as a working class man when he's the son and grandson of extremely wealthy people and went to elite boarding school, you know. 70K a year in Connecticut. Yeah. I just, it's hard for me to take.

that level of pretense. And Chuck Schumer immediately endorsed him. Chuck Schumer just wrote a book called, I think it was called Antisemitism, a Warning. He frames himself or puts himself up as the defender of Jewish interests. He would, he, that guy has no morality. He would drop. He would support anyone, obviously, if it helped his political prospects. He has absolutely zero decency.

And the only person, I think, on the Democratic side who's said anything is John Fetterman, you know. And I see that there allegedly is this push to try to make him a Republican, you know, to change a party. I mean, the guy is a progressive on virtually every issue. He's just not pro-terrorist, basically. He's not a Republican in any way. And yet that's the one issue. Oh, my question is what issue can have the make Democrats turn on you? Yeah, it's supporting Israel.

That's the only issue. I think you would not be allowed to oppose the ending of unborn children's lives. That's true. I think you would not be allowed to do that. There is no pro-life. I think there's one pro-life house member or something like that who's on the Democratic side. Forget his name. You probably would not be allowed to believe that marriage is retained for one.

man and one woman. But I think that one you might be able to get away with in certain jurisdictions. I don't know. The most popular progressive is Hasan Piker, who says he wants to see. He wants to soak the streets with capitalist blood, who just showed a picture of himself on a train. It's so cringy reading what should be done or whatever by Lenin, right? Was that the guy who had the Cartier ring on while he

Yeah. We are in a bad place. I don't think there's ever been a major party that's radicalized in American history. But David, I also think we're in a bad place on the right because after decades of we thought doing a good job of educating everybody on these principles that we all share related to the market

or values or national security, it seems like there's no cohesion on the right. too. I don't know if it's a bad place, but we're in a disrupted place right now. There seems to be a lot of debate about where things are going to be in the future. You feel like I feel like I'm I don't want to be too dramatic sometimes by calling people communist or whatever. It's hyperbole, right? But the truth is that these people like communists want to take your children away from you as young as possible, throw them into state-run schools with a brainwarned. them on all these issues. I don't know if you've seen there's a, you know, if you want, I'm sure you have,

if you want to homeschool your kids, they want to take that away from you. They act like that is some, it's insane that you would want to educate your own children over having the state do it. If you want to send and use the money that you use on public schools to send your kids to a non-public school, they act like it's an assault on the constitution. They want to capture your kids. They want to then send them to college where they get further brainwashed in most colleges, which are just run by far leftists. And then your kid comes out at 22 or whatever and is a leftist. And you're like, well, yeah, they have just been indoctrinated for 20 years of their lives, right?

This is what's going on. So I'm laughing when you talked about being hyperbolic about the use of the word communist. My poor children have to deal with me as their mother. And I refer to every bad person as a communist. Like, I mean it, I mean it sometimes quite seriously, like this person who's running for city council was part of a communist group growing up, you know. But I also mean it when there's like a bad driver or, you know, just like anybody. And one of the kids, when they reached an age where they realized that communist didn't just mean bad person, they were a little critical of my overuse of the term. And it's fair.

Don't you love when you say, call someone a commune and some leftist like, oh, you're so dumb. You don't understand the difference between socialism and communism. Or they're like they're democratic socialist. Yeah, Bolsheviks were democratic socialists too until they took power. Everyone's, they have no choice but to be democratic. Once they take power, they'll be less democratic. That's how it always works. When a guy like Hasan Piker, who's a dope, but he's popular, he's popular because he's a dope,

He's popular because he uses violent imagery. He's popular because he says crazy things. That's why that's why he's popular. He's reading Lenin, I'm still not allowed to call him a communist. When am I allowed to call someone a communist? Okay. So I went to see a movie in a theater, which we'll talk about later. But before the movie, there were all these previews for, I guess, Hollywood's just making trash these days, which is like Marvel-type movie after Marvel-type movie.

As they were running through, I was saying, I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care about this movie. I don't care about the characters. I don't care what they did to Star Wars for the 280th time. Like, I just don't care.

That's what I feel when people tell me I'm not allowed to call someone a communist because actually it's something else. I don't care. You're all commies. We already know what that means. You're a bad person. I just don't care. Bernie Sanders is a communist.

You can, he is a quintessential red diaper baby. and everyone knows it, and we should start calling things what they are. We are facing the biggest energy security threat in history. The Watchdog on Wall Street podcast with Chris Lisa Murkowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet. Experts are saying we've lost 13 million barrels of oil per day, and the effects truly are not priced in yet. If this extends much longer, then look out. happening in D.C. or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed.

Check out the Watchdog on Wall Street podcast with Chris Lisa Murkowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. So my last week, the Supreme Court struck down the redistricting in Louisiana, right? Upholding the Voting Rights Act that doesn't allow. allow racially drawn districts. Is that correct? But people, of course, were angry about it. Yeah, it's a little complicated because we've had the Voting Rights Act for a long time.

such ruling that you have to be racist in favor of black people and against white people when drawing maps is therefore it's just not it's not a proper interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. And Clarence Thomas and Gorsuch of course would have gone further and said that section two of the Voting Rights Act just isn't constitutional and it was a really big decision. Now, you might remember, I don't know, I don't remember if we talked about it. But in my book, Samuel Alito, I broke the news that Elena Kagan had slow walked the dissent in the Dobbs decision, even as the lives of her colleagues were under threat, was quite seriously under threat, and that she'd been asked to wrap things up and she steadfastly refused and, in fact, contrived to make the decision go even, to delay the decision.

even longer. But they had previously been reporting that in this case that we're just talking about, the Voting Rights Act case, that she had been slow walking that decision as well because the idea was that the liberal justices understood that if they delayed this decision sufficiently, that states wouldn't be able to redraw their maps in a constitutional manner until after the forthcoming midterms. because there's like a certain, you know, people are already working on primaries and things like that. Well, I don't know, I don't know, but I can't help but wonder if the combination of my explosive reporting in my book, plus this report that they were doing it with this case, sort of forced their hand,

and they got the decision out by the end of April, which does give many states enough time to redraw their maps in a constitutional manner. but it's just kind of interesting how political they were being. But I also want to point out that I think some of the racists involved had asked for a delay of implementation of the Supreme Court. And then yesterday that was denied. And Ketanji Brown Jackson Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the denial of the racists meant that the six justices were being political in how they operated. And Samuel Alito smacked that down quite vociferously. He showed that he just found everything Ketanji Brown Jackson was saying in her dissent

to be reprehensible and pointed out that this case was fully briefed and argued by the middle of October of the previous year, suggesting that the case. there had been an undue delay by the liberal justices, thereby supporting that reporting that they had been slow walking this. But it was just interesting. It's a very, very big major decision by Samuel Alito. As one of my lawyer friends said something about, like, imagine being the guy who overturned Roe and killed this interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. Like, these are two major things to be done by the Supreme Court, both in a constitutional direction, I would say. I went back and read the Voting Rights Act, and it has completely race-neutral language.

It is obvious that the authors or most of them or people who voted for it believed that there should be integrated districts, not racially drawn districts. And this is a proper upholding of that law and decision, right? As far as like political implications, obviously this helps Republicans. After just, I don't think we talked about it, but the Virginia referendum passed that is the most, I think, egregious example of gerrymandering in the history of the United States, taking Virginia from a 6-5 split, which is very reflective, I think, of the electorate there to a 10-1, is it, split? it. But that's being held up in court. I believe the Virginia Supreme Court has it now. So there's a lot, the midterms are coming and there's some limbo, you know, in these states. So I wonder if that helps Republicans in the long run. And I just want to say I was against the Indiana redistricting. I think the Texas redistricting was a little more complicated because there was the courts had held it up initially. So it's a little more complicated. And also a fairer gerrymandering, by the way. But after this, Virginia, thing, I think Republicans need to do whatever they have to in every single state. You cannot unilaterally disarm, right? You cannot. And so I actually am not a fan of gerrymandering at all.

And I have that radical idea that we should instead dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives so that people might have a chance of knowing their own rep. I agree. I want like a Thunderdome Congress where it's just like 10,000 people. I think. criticism of what Indiana was going to do until they totally chickened out neglects the fact that Democrats have gerrymandered, including racist gerrymandering for decades. It's not like this just happened this year. They've been getting dozens of additional seats that they shouldn't have because of racist gerrymanders and other things like this.

But I do, this should in the short term, I think there's a lot of expectation from Democrats that it's going to be very bad for Democrats and good for Republicans. Republicans. However, I think having less racist districts is just good because you can't say that black Americans by having this like unfair situation where they get representatives that they wouldn't get otherwise, that that's worked out well for them. Like they're, you just can't say like, oh, you know, situation is really improved for black representation with these racist gerrymanders. you would have a more, instead of dividing people along racial lines, I think it's good if you see the people of this town are a unit, regardless of their race, you know, the people of this county,

instead of drawing it like where one side of the street is this way and one side of the street is that way, just having less, I think you could still gerrymander, you just can't do it racially, but just losing that racial component, I think, might make for better representation, perhaps even more moderate representation, the type that might work across the aisle. And I know Republicans and Democrats hate that. They love having these super selective seats where everyone's safe and they don't have to really worry about running for re-election. But I wonder if it would be better if you did have to worry about representing your people

a little more. I do wonder about that quite often. I've been thinking about it a long time. In some sense, I think people should be able to live in communities where everyone things like them. And they don't have to worry about politics all the time, to be fair. You know, if I move somewhere in the middle of a state that's red because I'm sick of dealing with liberals or vice versa, I think that that's the American way. But because of gerrymandering and extreme gerrymandering, you're kind of destroying that in a way that is destructive. So I don't

know. But I do believe we should expand the house. I think that's a good idea. And by the way, nothing we do, nothing government does, but nothing we do in general should be race-based. That should not exist anymore. It's Democrats who want to keep race-based programs and ideas alive because they rely on that as a political cudgel against Republicans all the time, because they know and take the black vote for granted. And this destroys that for them in a way. If you can't racially gerrymander, that's a big problem for Democrats, especially in red states. I don't know much about Louisiana.

I have to be honest. Is any kind of redistricting now going to be run? Do you know if it'll be run by Republicans or what's the story there? Yeah, I think it will be. But it just, they won't be a lot. They were, they were being told that they had to create a second racist district. They already had one. And they were told they had to create two.

And now they don't have to have any because they can just, they can just district however they want. I also think it's, I just have to do a shout out for Ron DeSantis. I think it literally took him and the Florida legislature two days to redraw their maps so that they didn't have racist districts. Two days. There's just something so beautiful about how things get done in Florida and how quickly they get done. There were some states that said, well, we're going to allow the racist districts for another, you know, through the midterm. And there were a popular outcry like, no, you should not do. do this. And so many more states are going to redraw here quickly. I think in Louisiana,

I can't remember which state it was, but I think it was Louisiana. They put their primaries on hold and said, we're going to redraw real quick and then we'll, and then we'll do the primaries. So if if if things continue on this trajectory, then the house is going to be less democratic in a way. And it's only I think it should be more democratic, but you're just, they'll be like Senate seats. you'll gerrymander it and there'll be a red state, a blue state. There won't be many purple states, right? And I don't know if that's good for. I think the reason why people want, like the people in power want that, they want their safe seats.

But when people don't feel that they are well represented, it leads to very bad things. And so it would be great if we had some statesmen who had a longer vision than can I get reelected in 18 months, you know, but more like, how are we going to have this republic survive with people, feeling appropriately represented. Because you're seeing this on both left and right. People do not feel like their interests are in any way represented. Okay. That's enough. Let's do culture.

I honestly don't have much. How about you? You went to the movie theater I heard. There's a rumor about that. I did. I just first want to say again, the two weeks I spent doing book promotion were exhausting. It was crazy how you just had to do interview after interview after interview.

and I would be, there were certain things I wanted to make sure people took away from the book. I'm assuming most people don't read the book. So these interviews are an opportunity to get the big themes and messages out. But I'd be on these interviews and I'd be like, did I already tell this Des Moines radio audience, this thing or not? Like, I can't remember. So it was fun. I enjoyed being outside my usual media sphere, like getting to do podcasts. elsewhere or TV shows elsewhere just to see how different.

I've been working at Fox for a long time, which is such a great place and so professional. But kind of fun to see how other people are doing things too. And I'll continue doing events, talking about the book. And on that note, I did want to mention that I am very excited that I will be at the 2026 issues, et cetera, making the case conference. It's in Chicago, Friday, June 12th, and Saturday, June 13th.

It's on the campus of Concordia University, Chicago, which is located in River Forest. So if people are worried about Chicago, they should know that if they go to this and they should that River Forest is eight miles west of downtown Chicago and a lovely, lovely suburb. So a four-day drive from central Chicago. You love that podcast. That's your favorite podcast. We're your second. That's number one. Yeah, that's true. It is my favorite podcast, which has long been my favorite podcast.

I listen to it whenever I'm traveling, I download the episodes and I listen to it on a plane. But it's also my favorite conference. It's geared toward Christian lay people. And this year is going to be great. Aaron Josh Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom will be there. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. the wonderful Megan Basham of the Daily Wire. I'll be there. I'll be talking and I'll be signing my latest book, Samuel Alito. And you can learn more about it if you haven't gone.

You should go. It's really wonderful. It's truly my highlight of my year to go to this. But you can register at issuesetc.org. It's called Making the Case. It's June 12th and 13th in River Forest, Illinois. issues etc.org. And if you can tell me if you're going to, I always like that.

I know some people who listen to our podcast are regular listeners of issues, et cetera, as well. So I'm going to do that. But yeah, I did go to that movie. I told you I went to see a movie. I'm embarrassed about this. And let me just tell you that someone I am married to, I'm not naming names, but someone I'm married to said that this movie had been getting good reviews. views. I'm pretty sure that was a lie. Park Memim Way.

I'm not just, you know, identity protected, but it was the devil wears Prada too. Gotcha. It was horrific, like horrible. I saw some people I know and like saying, I was pretty fun. It wasn't fun. There was nothing fun about it. It wasn't funny. It wasn't fun. All the joy of the first movie, gone. I was going to ask you if you enjoyed the first movie. I loved the first movie. I loved it.

I thought it was great. Now, I mean, I just want to say there's like one little aspect of it that I don't mind, which is it sort of talks about the value of a work ethic, which I guess by Hollywood standards makes that good. But it was a bunch of old ladies. And they're all, they all looked so old and crone-like. Like, you're like, what is wrong with you that you're working instead of of having a family and having joy.

So Merrill Streep, who's got to be in her 80s now, is still working as the editor of this publication. She looks awful. It just seems like, didn't you have kids? So they should have kids. Shouldn't you be having fun with your grandkids, maybe even great grandchildren at this point? Like, what are you doing?

You're not fooling anyone. You're an old lady. Like I am so excited to become an old lady and have kids and grandkids and hopefully great, grandchildren that I get to nurture. Yeah, yeah. But isn't like, isn't that true to real life? Isn't Anna Winator or whatever her name is? Wasn't she an editor? Wintour, yeah.

Wasn't she the editor of? Is she the editor of? Yeah. It's, I think loosely based on her. But then there's the woman Anne Hathaway, Hathaway plays this like, journalist. Armand White had the best review of this. I'm just going to tell everybody, go read Armand White's review at National Review. He eviscerates the film. But one of the things he points out is, it's a movie about how great journalism is at a time when literally nobody thinks journalism is

great. Anne Hathaway forsook, is that the word, forsook having children and getting married so she could be a big J. journalist has written nothing of consequence is best. back at the magazine, looks old and lonely and awful. Everyone was mean. And did I mention it's blasphemous? They're standing in front of a recreation of the Last Supper. And the 80-year-old Merrill Streep is saying, this, you know, he didn't depict Jesus with a halo,

which is his way of saying that we're all sinners and fallible. It's like, well, that's, that is not what that painting is about at all. And Jesus was not sinful or fallible. But I, I'm just appalled. And it felt like the pacing was off. It felt like a, like a lifetime movie. The music was kind of cutesy. And the first movie had been so great, like great fashion, great clip.

It was, it was also like really politically incorrect in many ways. And they didn't really address. all the problems of the wokeification of fashion. And you know Miranda Devine would have had actual words to say about how much fashion has been destroyed by the woke left. But anyway, sorry for going off on that. Do not go see it. It's horrible. Whenever I'm watching anything with the wife and they say J.C.'s name in any way that is not in praise, I get like, I'm like, oh, I'm not going to be able to watch.

I get two, I think, strikes and then that's it. So, okay. Well, I'm happy you went to a movie. And you so, yeah, yeah, you got more. I have, I mean, you need to do some, but I have more too. I have nothing, but go on. Okay, I also rewatched reality bites. Yeah.

Oh, the Gen X movie with Ben Stiller, right? And Janine Garofalo and the two, who else is in that? What was the, when? Steve's on. Right, Winona Ryder? Right, Winona Ryder, right? Winona Ryder. I kind of was wondering, like, what happened to Janine Groflo? She seemed like such a major presence when I was, first of all, I realized this movie is my age group, which is obvious, but, or, you know, maybe a little bit older.

But, and did so much to codify that slacker, Gen Z. It was right in the sweet spot with me. Yeah, I think it was like 23 when it came out. And Mark was upset that the music that they were singing. was in some cases, like older, you know, like tempted by the fruit of another. But that resonated with me. That would have been the type of stuff. My girls and I were singing as we drove in the car.

And it was, you know, it was, it made me feel like my generation had no substance at all. But it was well acted. I thought it was well-paced and directed by Ben Stiller. I was like, does he, sorry for my teenage speaker. Has he directed more things? And I just don't know. he was a director? Yeah.

Yeah. he directed the Walter Middy remake. Oh. He directed. I did not like that. No,

that wasn't very good. I'm just stalling for time to see his filmography here. He directed others. So reality bites, cable guy, Zoolander. Oh, yeah.

Tropic, Tropic Thunder, which I thought had some funny parts. Yeah. are all good. And he himself was great in reality bites. Oh, and he's the creator of Severance that show. I don't know if you

watched it, but. No, I tried a few episodes and then I decided that it wanted to seem smart rather than being smart, but... That's true. And then I'm making up for lost time. I had to do nothing this last weekend because I was so

fried from my work I output the previous two weeks. So I also started watching this show about a professor who tries to take care of his daughter who's just been left by her spouse. She's a professor at a, well, he becomes a professor, I should say. And if you're talking about it all, I don't know the name of this. Who's in it? Is this a Steve Carell show?

Oh, yeah, it's called Rooster. And I'm somewhat enjoying it. really i was i was curious about that show is it is it like an adult show meaning like is there a lot of okay wait what do you mean meaning what it does it have like is there are there sexual is it for an adult or is it just a pg show i don't know how to put it it's definitely not pg okay and my my biggest problem is i don't do well with people who pretend to be uncomfortable or who are acting you know i that that's such a

big thing and it makes me uncomfortable to watch people who are uncomfortable. And Steve Corell is very uncomfortable in his body and in everything. But it's funny and it's made by the guy who did Scrubs. And so there is, I wish I knew the name of this guy who played like the head doctor in Scrubs. Yeah, yeah. John McKinley or something. I don't know. But he, I loved, I loved him in Scrubs and I'm loving him in this. He plays the head of the college. He's an absolutely absurd character, but in a great way. So there you go. I don't have much.

I was watching the show on Netflix called St. Dennis Medical, I think it's called. It's kind of like the office or parks and rec kind of show. But in a hospital, a small hospital in Oregon, it's like amusing, but no gut laughs or anything. It's not like as good as the office. I tried to watch again, The Man in the High Castle, a show about what would have happened. It's a Philip K. Dick book,

based on Philip K. Dick book, which I, an author I don't love, who, and it's what would happen if America lost World War II. And America's divided into like a German section, a Japanese section on the West Coast, and the middle is kind of a no man's land. It's very difficult for me to,

race these kinds of shows because I'm sorry we will never be conquered by anyone. I just don't buy it. This is not Man in the High Castle. Yeah, man in the High Castle. What I said. Oh, did you just say that? Sorry. I think I'm not sure.

I just didn't hear it. Yeah, man in the high castle. Have you watched that show? I loved it. I thought it was great. All right. I wanted it to be more like both in terms of length and like it seemed like it fell apart at

some point. But I liked the alternate history, alternative history. Also, like the Colorado was this like freedom zone. Yeah, the freedom zone. The man who plays the, the bad Nazi leader. He's good. He's so handsome too. So I just like love that.

They have they. I'm sure that gets you going too. Yeah, it's totally there for his hunkiness. The, the, the, the focus on on the little things, like the little, making little American, Americana be more non. Nazi-ish, you know, it was really well done, I thought, right? But I just, we have so many guns and we'd love freedom so much. I just don't buy that we would all just become Nazis like that.

Oh, it's so funny you say that because once we went through COVID and everybody bowed down and kneeled to St. Anthony Fauci, I realized that we aren't who I thought we were. But this is the 1950s. I just, I'd like to think that, I'd like to think, I'd like to think that red, it would be like red dawn, not like man in the high castle. Another Colorado movie. Oh, yeah. They land in Fort Susan Collins, the Nicaraguan paramilitary.

Speaking of Colorado, that's a place that's no longer freedom-loving. It was incredible watching that happen. I was there. Everything was red when I left. Everything was blue. And the place is not the same anymore. It was probably something you did. Maybe my column was so bad.

It turned off so many people. I actually blame Bill Owens. He was such a, such a spineless coward, that guy, in my view. Remember when he was going to be president? He loved the ladies. Can't get into that. No one would ever come forward. But anyway, we'll talk about that another time.

Bill love the ladies. Ladies love Bill. So I think that's it. If you'd like to email the show, please do so at Radio at the Federalist. We love to hear from you. We'll be back next week. Until then, be lovers of freedom.