Political Violence and Media Narratives: Analyzing the Trump Assassination Attempt

Dennis, I wanted to talk to you about the assassination attempt on President Trump. Again, uh I'm obviously very concerned about the continuous political violence in our country. You know, they say that right-wingers are violent, yet we're constantly seeing actual violence from the left. And I'm sure you have quite a lot to say about this. I don't know about a lot. I have uh important things to say. Whether it's a lot or not, well, we'll find out. for years since uh since 2016. I said on the radio regularly, isn't it a moral obligation of anyone who believes that Donald Trump is a fascist, is a dictator, will destroy American democracy and other things that are regularly said by Democrats, not just radical leftists.

although the difference today is rather thin. Aren't they morally obligated to kill a Donald Trump? If you really believe that his election will mean a Hitler in America, aren't you morally obligated to kill him? H and then leftists would call my radio show and poorly refute my logic. If I knew that Hitler would be Hitler and had a chance to kill him, wouldn't I kill him? Wouldn't that be one of the great good acts of history? So you can't say things over and over and not expect some consequences, people to take you seriously. If you believe the man is an American version of Adolf Hitler, then you have to get rid of him. It's it's as simple as that. And a lot of people think that way.

So it's it's not surprising that you have these left-wingers who have literally tried to kill him, the most recent one, just this past weekend or last weekend. That's that's the biggest takeaway from all of this. The other is that we know from this guy's manifesto that apparently he wrote in his hotel room right before uh charging uh it trying to charge into the White House correspondents dinner that this is what he believed about President Trump that he was a fascist and authoritarian and etc. and morally justified what he was about to do for a man that he called what a rapist and a pedophile. And about that, it was staggering to watch the president's being interviewed on CBS. And the woman interviewing him read that

exact part about an individual who was a rapist and a pedophile. And a third thing I forgot and he and the president just said this is total lies about me. And then she said, "How do you know it referred to you?" One of the most disingenuous questions ever posed on American television. Who else was it referring to? And of course he's not a rapist and he's not a pedophile separately have the New York Times and CNN and the rest of the left-wing media. Have they portrayed this would be assassin as a man of the left? Are you aware of that? Well, I actually have a quote here from the New York Times that I thought you might be able to react to because you can really get a master's in gaslighting by

studying how the left-wing apparatus has been reporting on this assassination. The New York Times writes charges against assassination suspect based on shotgun, shell, and a screed. Of course, they're not going to write manifesto. And just the title alone shows you that probably within a few months, they're just going to say, "Well, do we even know that there was an assassination attempt on the president? We don't really know." I mean, you mentioned CBS 60 Minutes, Nora uh Norah O'Donnell. She talks she basically puts it back at the on the president and gaslights him and says, "Well, maybe he wasn't referring to you. Maybe he wasn't referring to you being the rapist. So, who on earth was he referring to? You have a person who is admitting who's writing down a

manifesto, not a screed, a manifesto saying that he is he believes that he needs to assassinate the president because obviously he's a deranged narcissist. And then you have the New York Times and the left-wing media apparatus trying to gaslight the rest of the public and pretend that there wasn't really an assassination attempt, right? And remember, most New York Times readers of course agree with the New York Times and most of them only read the New York Times. They don't read anything else. They certainly don't read the New York Post. They certainly don't read the Wall Street Journal.

A and this is it. This is their source of truth. It is their prada. So that's another important aspect of all of this. Do you think enough people on the left are actually convinced that this guy is a potential hero, that actually political violence is justified if it goes against President Trump? Or are they saying, "Well, no, he doesn't really represent us and he's just a crazy person and he's not a symptom of the left." They may say a few things. One, they may say nothing and let the let it go down the memory hole of history. Another that they might say is that the right is using this as a way of bolstering Donald Trump. They've already begun saying that. I don't remember

which source, but I know that they've begun. And beyond all of that, I believe that most people on the left will not say this publicly, but it do believe or do think that they wish he had been successful for the reasons I said earlier. They think he's a fascist. It's as simple as that. It is in all of my years of broadcasting until the last election. I began only that year to use the term Trump derangement syndrome. I never used it before. I was one of the few on the conservative side who didn't because I just I didn't want to be easily dismissed by the left as using some lingo. But they were right. The people who coined that phrase were right. It is a derangement syndrome.

Uh Thomas Freriedman, the Pulitzer Prizewinning columnist at the New York Times, wrote a column in the past two weeks in which he said it's a vile regime in Iran. No question about that. But I can't say I would be happy if Trump deposed them because it would give Trump credit. In other words, his hatred of Trump is equivalent to his hatred of the monsters, the genocidal monsters who govern who have governed Iran since 1979. This is the Pulitzer Prizewinning columnist at the New York Times. Well, and then you have organizations like the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center that has been accusing anybody on the conservative side of all kinds of things. Of course, they've accused

Prageru, Turning Point USA, Moms for Liberty. We know about the Charlottesville uh hoax, which allegedly the SPLC has been involved in. Have you heard about that? I certainly have. They've allegedly paid off these organizations. They're gaslighting when they say we would benefit from an assassination attempt on the president. They benefit by the existence of these far right what they called farright groups. And so if What is it? If there weren't one of these groups, they would have to invent them. So, they've allegedly paid for the Charlottesville rally.

They needed it. The one not the one where people were against the statues, but the one where they uh were neonazis, right? There are so many NOS's who have been monetizing and gaining political power by just radicalizing America's youth, specifically young people. I saw this in education all the time. I saw this in teacher seminaries or teacher colleges where teachers are just radicalized to believe the most extreme things. And you combine that with narcissism and then you have people who just get all steamed up thinking that they should go and take a weapon and literally kill people.

And we saw this with turn wi with Charlie Kirk and multiple attempts on the president's life. What do you think? What is your advice to normal people? Because I think there are a lot of normal people who might be, you know, critical of the left, critical of the on the right, but ultimately as Americans, we don't want to live in a country where we're constantly seeing political violence. Is there is there a way to get out of this moral rut? Normal people are afraid of speaking out against the left. Nobody fears speaking out against the right. You pay no price. You may even get a rewarded. I don't mean monetarily though that is possible. Just rewarded as a human. Normal people, let's say

they fear both the right and the left. Though I don't know what they would fear about the right, frankly. The right is in power now. both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidency. Have you lost any of your freedoms? I mean, what has happened that the left predicted would happen with a Republican right-wing takeover? Nothing. You may like that. You may not like the policies, but have you been affected? Well, they're claiming that now they're claiming now that the right which is in power is going after the SPLC which is supposedly unfair and they're targeting the SPLC.

Okay. So, the only question, which should be the only question always, is it true? Are the charges accurate? If they're not accurate, then they're going after the SPLC. If they are accurate, then the SPLC deserves to be charged. This is not a complex issue. Anyway, the life of the average American is completely unaffected in terms of liberty or whatever they want to do. They can march. They can demonstrate. They can say what they want and anyway they control the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Psych Psychological Association, the teachers unions. It's not like they don't control a lot. And there is

a dimmonition of liberty and a belief in nonsense. The AMA believes that the sex of a child should not be listed on the birth certificate. It'll be determined later. That's unbelievable. The American Medical Association. So, Dennis, I know that you're working now on a an op-ed. Of course, it's about morality. Can you tell us a little bit about it? It's about the we live in the age of moral and truth inversions. It's the biggest, the most obvious is that men can become women or women can become men. They cannot. It's a lie. They can identify as whatever they want, but it is not true that you can change sexes.

It just isn't true. And yet all over the country, we're told that men who say they're women can compete against women in women's sports and shower with women in their locker rooms. Even defenders of women don't defend women on this issue in many cases. That's an obvious inversion. It's an inversion in the moral sphere. The most obvious one today is the depiction of Israel as villainous and kamas's defenders of people's desire to be free. When kamas's represents decency and Israel, a democratic country with an independent judiciary, an independent press

which is so critical of its own government so often and where a fifth of its citizens, 20% of its citizens are not Jewish. and live utterly free lives and end up in the parliament and end up there was an Arab who was uh who was a uh member of the Supreme Court of Israel. Mhm. They're the villain. That's the unbelievable moral inversion of our time. It's a terrible time we're living in. in terms of clarity, what do you think the impact on the world is going to be after European countries declare that the Palestinians should have a state? Well, all of the groups in the world that want to be uh independent states will learn the lesson. If you kill a lot of innocents and engage in atrocities in the name of your movement,

you may get a state. What will the Kurds learn who by the way do deserve a state? What will the Weaguers learn in China? What will the Bas and uh and others want independence from Spain learn? I mean you know how many groups in the world believe that they should secede and become their own state. the lesson. It is unbelievable that after the rapes and atrocities and murders and hostage taking of October 7th, the kamas won this massive victory of recognition of a so-called state of Palestine, a state that nobody can find on the on the map. What? What does it mean?

And by the way, I was always for a two-state solution. I stopped being one with the second inifat when I realized under Bill Clinton, Israel was willing to give up more than 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. And that's when Yasir Arafat said, "Put bombs in Israeli buses and schools and bar mitzvah and weddings." That was what they got. Palestinians. We have a Prageru video that David Bron gives that shows that five times the Palestinians and the Arabs deny it. Uh the uh the right to have their own state rejected. Not denied. Rejected it. It's they don't want two states. They want one state from the river to the sea. Palestine will be free. That's what they want.

Well, it's sad to see Europe going down physically, morally. That's right. On so many levels. It's just, you know, we just had Tommy Robinson here at the office and he describes what the UK looks like. It's unrecognizable. Uh our friends in France are saying the same thing. And so as go the moral values of these European countries, uh so does Europe go in the same direction sadly down the drain. That's right. When they declared what was it the uh Constitution of the European Union a few years ago, they never once mentioned Christianity. But Christianity based of course on Judeo roots, but Christianity made Europe. That's what defined Europe. And they wouldn't even mention it. It's part of the moral inversions I was

talking about. Well, it was great Margaret Thatcher who said, "We're losing our Judeo-Christian roots." And she was right. And now they don't know what they stand for. Aaron Mullen, I know you had her on, right? Yeah. She's terrific. Yeah. From Australia. She just did a video from London and her thesis was it's worse than you knew. Well, Dennis, glad you're feeling well enough to give us some commentary on some of these big issues this week and looking forward to doing so looking forward to having you on again.

Bless you. Thank you, Marissa.