The Daily Signal - #317: America's Enduring History With the Gun

Episode Date: October 14, 2018

On today’s show, we feature an interview with David Harsanyi, author of the new book, “First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun.” Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and is a nationally syndicated columnist whose column appears weekly on The Daily Signal. Also on today’s show:• Ken Starr, who served as independent counsel during Bill Clinton’s presidency, discusses impeachment, the Mueller investigation, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. • We feature your letters to the editor. Don’t forget, your letter could be featured on our show; write us at [e-mail] or call 202-608-6205.• And some good news from two of America's favorite quarterbacks.The Daily Signal podcast is available on the Ricochet Audio Network. You also can listen on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts.If you like what you hear, please leave a review or give us feedback. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get you and your crew to the big shows with Go Transit. Go connects to all the main concert venues like TD Coliseum in Hamilton and Scotia Bank Arena in Toronto. And Go makes it affordable with special e-ticket fares. A one-day weekend pass offers unlimited travel across the network on any weekend day or holiday for just $10. And a weekday group pass offers the same weekday travel flexibility from $30 for two people and up to $60 for five. Buy yours at go transit.com slash tickets. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Monday, October 15. I'm Rob Blewey, editor-in-chief.

And I'm Jenny Malta Bono, contributor to The Daily Signal. On today's show, we'll feature an interview with David Harsani, author of the new book, First Freedom, A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun. We'll also share some of our listeners' letters and a good news story about two famous quarterbacks. But first, we'll hear from former independent counsel, Ken Starr. impeachment is a hot topic in Washington and who better to talk about it than Ken Starr. He served as a federal court of appeals judge and solicitor general for President George H.W. Bush, but the role that you probably know him for is independent counsel during Bill Clinton's presidency.

He recently visited the Heritage Foundation and the Daily Signal had an opportunity to talk to him about impeachment, the Mueller investigation, and Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. Starr, why did you choose now to tell this story and what do you think are the most important parts for people to understand, especially young people, who might not remember or have been alive during that investigation? We were coming up on the 20th anniversary of the events that rocked the nation, the first impeachment of a president and a generation. And the lessons that I wanted young people in particular to know are rule of law. and integrity in the operations of government. We know that truth is the best policy, and the President of the United States got himself into such hot water simply because he would not tell the truth under oath. It's also a book ultimately about government, about separation of powers, and the checks

and balances in our system, and what the best checks are to ensure honest government. It's also quite a story. It's a story of how prosecutors, investigators, were determined to get at the truth and to then bring the truth to the attention of the American people through the Congress of the United States and the House of Representatives in the impeachment process. I'd like to talk about impeachment a little bit more, if that's okay. Today with President Trump, you have a lot of Democrats who their go-to now is calling for impeachment. What do you think about that?

And how does that parallel to what Bill Clinton went through? Well, one of the lessons in the book about impeachment is don't go there. It's truly a last resort. Obviously, it's embedded in our Constitution. It's an important process. But then it's up to we, the people, through our elected representatives, as to when and how that process is to be used. Impeachment is so inherently divisive to the American people.

And I tell that story, I chronicle that story from 1998 and 1999. I talk about the alternative that was briefly discussed but not seriously debated of a resolution of censure of the president for his crimes. Let him then face the criminal justice process once he leaves office, as he, in fact, had to do on his last day in office. So the lesson from the past that applies so powerfully now is, find another mechanism to express your disapproval of either presidential policy or presidential methodology, presidential procedure, then impeachment.

You know, recently the left, it seems, has gone even farther out of control than anyone could have imagined, and you've been able to witness this for several decades, especially with what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. How divisive is the country right now? The state of the nation right now is one of deep division that has been enhanced, it seems to me, by the conduct of the senators. To a certain extent, the House of Representatives, when you have Maxine Waters of California, who I describe in my book as someone during the impeachment process who I was so physically close to during that very long day that I describe in detail in the book.

And so when you have these cries of impeachment, including now even cries of let's have impeachment of now Justice Kavanaugh, I think things have spiraled out of control. So we need to, in fact, have a restoration of common sense, of balance, and of civility. One specific thing about Justice Kavanaugh, he's a person of great integrity, great ability, great humanity, compassion. That's what the nation saw. That's what the nation read about. And yet there was this transmogrification of Justice Kavanaugh, led by United States

Senators, in a very odd way procedurally that I think was quite unfair to the process. Obviously it was unfair to Brett Kavanaugh and his family. But it was also unfair to the process to have a United States Senator, Senator Feinstein of California, sitting on allegations, that were never corroborated, there were inconsistencies in the story. For those to be brought forward six weeks after they came to the United States Senator's office,

I think is a violation of the spirit of fairness and due process. You touched on this a little bit earlier, but when it comes to law and order, when it comes to the Clintons, a lot of people kind of look at that whole investigation, it says on your book, too, as a right-wing conspiracy.

Why are they wrong? There were a lot of names tossed around during my investigation over those several years. But what tends to be overlooked in all the political rhetoric is the fact that there were 14 criminal convictions in Arkansas, and there was obviously the impeachment of the president. But what the book reveals, and this is the first time,

that this has been in the public domain, is that we seriously considered, we the investigation in the investigation seriously considered presenting an indictment against Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Little Rock grand jury in the late 1990s based on what we felt was her on criminal wrongdoing in Arkansas as well as her colossal failure to remember that in her testimony that we viewed as perjurious because we viewed it as false that she could not remember, could not remember, and had almost a mantra not that I recall. And that was just part of the broader measure and the broader story of contempt.

So there's so many characterizations that were made then of the investigation that were just profoundly unfair and flew in the face of the facts. Another question for you is about the Mueller investigation. Generally, how do you think it has been handled so far? With respect to Bob Mueller, let me say at the outset that I know him and I respect him. I served alongside him under Attorney General Dick Thornberg, and I know him to be a person of honor and integrity. I have expressed concern about some of the people who are around Bob Mueller, senior people in his investigation, but I have great confidence in him. I believe that at this stage in the fall of 2018, we owe a lot, a lot of thanks to Bob Mueller. The indictments that have been returned, especially against the 11 Russian individuals,

the two Russian organizations are very important breakthrough moments. They tell the American people that which we all need to know. Here's an example found in one of the two indictments. On the very same day, these Russian interests funded both a pro-Trump rally and an anti-Trump rally in New York. The purpose of the Russian thugs is to sow discord and disharmony in the United States. Thus far, here's the key. There has been, as I see it, not a shred of evidence that there was actual collusion, a conspiracy, a criminal conspiracy, between the Trump campaign and any Russian interests.

My last question for you, we just had some breaking news that UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is leaving. What sort of an impact do you think she's had on U.S. foreign policy on U.S. government? Nikki Haley, our ambassador and former governor of South Carolina, has been a real messenger of truth.

Harry Truman talked about plain speaking, and Governor Haley, Ambassador Haley, has spoken the truth in the face of a lot of critics who say, oh, no, you're an ambassador, you need to just go along in order to get along. So I think she has proven now at the national and international level that she has a very bright political future, depending obviously on what she feels the call to be, but I think she's served her country with great distinction.

I'm an unabashed admirer of Nikki Haley. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head, then some Subscribe to Scotus 101, a podcast breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. We're joined on today's show by David Harsani, author of the new book, First Freedom, A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun. David, thanks for being with us. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

Absolutely. Well, David, you are a senior editor at the Federalist, and one of our favorite publications, Brie Payton does a show with our own Kelsey Harkness called Problematic Women, so it's great to have you on the Daily Signal podcast. You're also a nationally syndicated columnist, and you can find David's work on The Daily Signal once a week. That's right. Absolutely. Well, we were here to talk about your book in America's history with guns.

What it inspired you to write this book? I grew up in an area in New York where most people didn't have guns, perhaps criminals, mostly had the guns. And my whole life, I then moved later to Colorado. My whole life, I've been very curious about gun culture. So obviously, I'm involved in the debate over the Second Amendment. Memen and the ideological aspects of it, but I was interested more in the cultural aspect. Why do people treat guns the way to do? What's unique about the American experience with the gun?

And so that's what this book is about. David, I want to ask you a very broad question. Can you explain to us how are firearms linked to America's rise? Well, in every way, in every way imaginable, almost. I mean, first off, it's important to know that as a philosophical matter, the right to bear arms or to defend yourself, your property, your family goes back farther in British law and history than the right to, you know, the freedom of religion or freedom of speech or anything like that. It's one of the oldest rights. So right away, the people were coming here

from England at least, had that embedded in their thinking. And obviously that immediately became, as a practical matter, became important in survival and defending yourself from people who are already here, but also for hunting and defending yourself from the French or the Spanish or whoever else was around. So that's the first thing. The second thing is obviously in the revolution, Lexington and Concord, let's just take the first battle of the revolution. Those men were defending a cache of weapons. They weren't, you know, they weren't arguing about anything specific. They knew that if the British would take the powder and take the cannons and take the guns, they would have no country and their rights could be taken away from them at any point.

David, every time the left proposes some restrictions on firearms or a way to curtail the Second Amendment in some way, we often see a spike in gun ownership in this country. What does that tell us about the American people today? It tells us that many of the American people still understand why the Second Amendment is important to them. And it's not just for hunting. In fact, hunting as a hobby and as sort of a pastime has really declined. over the years, but as a right and the importance of it. So whenever that right has been threatened, and I mean from the beginning until now,

there is always sort of an upheaval or obviously in a capitalistic form of buying more weapons, but sometimes it was more violent as well. David, clearly you've done a lot of research on this topic. Have you ever found evidence where strict gun control laws have led to a decline in violent crime? No, I have not. I mean, I guess if I were to be fair, you know, I would think about the 1930s when a bunch of crazy people grabbed automatic, fully automatic weapons, were driving around, you know, the countryside, robbing banks with, you know, with Tommy guns and fully automatic rifles that putting some laws into place that would make at least a slightly more difficult for those people to have those guns might have helped. the reverse seems to be true. I mean, I don't from, I think crime hit a high in the early 1990s. And since that time over the last, you know, 30, 35 years, we've seen a big dropping crime. And at the same time, we've seen a big spiking gun ownership. So I'm not saying that we saw the

dropping crime specifically because of the gun. So I think it's part of it. But obviously, those two things are not related. So, and most times when we see a mass shooting, very tragic events, Obviously, the laws that the politicians come forward with are almost never have anything to do with the event itself. You know, it's just some other hobby horror, some other law that they've been thinking about that they want to push through. Because in my estimation, it's all just incrementally leading towards, you know, not confiscation of all guns, but as close as they can get to that. Well, and obviously you must have been working on the book when we had some of the mass shootings earlier this year, Parkland, Florida, Santa Fe, Texas. this. What was it like to see those politicians come forward with some of those proposals as you were chronicling this history of firearms in America? Well, there were a lot of parallels, actually, especially to the 1930s when the first federal gun control laws were being talked about.

It's sort of a simplistic. I found it a simplistic. Well, first of all, I found that not only were politicians at the point of those today, contemporary politicians attacking the Second Amendment. but they were attacking the fourth and the fifth and the first and all kinds of other amendments to try to take those guns, which was very reminiscent of what courts during FDR tried to do. The FDR's, you know, presidency tried to do when pushing gun control laws in the mid-30s. So that hit me just from a historical aspect. But then, again, what hit me even more was that someone like Chris Murphy was in Connecticut, where the American gun was basically invented, you know, didn't, does. doesn't understand the culture and why it's so important to so many law-abiding citizens to own their own firearms.

Recently, we've heard a lot about due process in the news about Judge Brett Kavanaugh, now Justice. Brett Kavanaugh, you wrote a recent piece about how new anti-gun proposals, like some that Diane Feinstein has proposed, they can be harmful to due process. Can you elaborate on that? Sure. A few, I'm not exactly sure when they came forward with this was probably two years ago now. on the federal level, Democrats had a sort of a sit-in in the House and then in the Senate, I think, and they were trying to pass laws that would allow the government to ban people who are on secret government list, terror watch lists, which include basically a million or more people who have not gone through any due process

whose names happen to be on their end. It's a very faulty list to begin with and allow them and allow the state to take their guns. more than that, Feinstein. She had a bill, she knew it wouldn't pass, but that would ban anyone forever from owning a weapon if they were on that list, which is a complete attack on due process. And now you have a lot of local laws of California, for instance, where if your neighbor feels like you're a threat to them,

they can go to the police and the police will take your weapons from you. I realize what this is in response to, but we always have to balance out our right, not even balance. We have to make sure that our rights are protected even though people are scared because these laws have not proven to diminish violence in any way. You mentioned California and of course the senator from California is a leading advocate in the U.S. Congress, but California, the state, is taking a new approach we've seen recently, which is restrictions on ammunition and bullets.

Do you think this is a new attempt by the left to, put restrictions on the Second Amendment and does it have any threat that we should be concerned about? Well, yeah. And it's it's a new, it's not a new threat by authoritarian's because this is exactly what the British initially did. I don't know if I documented in my book, but the powder alarm, which happened, which almost had the revolution break out was before, you know, before a year or two before the revolution actually broke out, was about the British trying to take powder. They were going to powder houses. So in the 1700s, black powder would sometimes just blow up, spark hit it or whatnot. So people used to sort of pool all of it in powder houses outside of town. And the British

were confiscating those, the powder from there. And that's the way, you know, obviously you render a weapon useless without ammunition. So I think the high taxes on ammunition, trying to limit the amount of ammunition folks buy is just another way to limit their Second Amendment rights. So it's something to be very, to be careful about because, obviously, it has not shown either to diminish violence because you don't, how much, I mean, people can buy ammunition and, you know, infrequently and build up a storeroom of it. So it's just kind of another silly and practical law that's just meant to try to undermine people from having weapons.

We're in the midst of Major League Baseball postseason, and a couple of months ago, Red Sox star J.D. Martinez, gotten some hot water for supporting the Second Amendment. He faced a tremendous amount of backlash on social media. The owners were upset with him. Why do we see that kind of reaction? I don't feel like defending him after the Yankees lost. Right now. You have an Astros fan here. Oh, good. I'm with you now. So it's a little sore spot. But it is kind of incredible that someone who is someone who is, to defend the Second Amendment, the amendment that secures all other freedoms is just part of American life. And not just in war, but in commerce and in culture and for individual use, that that should provoke a backlash when others are sort of, you know, wearing, you know, kneeling and disrespecting,

I think, at least the flag. I mean, I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to protest in the way they want, but the idea that the person who is defending the Second Amendment should face that sort of backlash is just ridiculous. Why does it happen? Because it's so politicized, the gun issues become so politicized that the people run the media and who focus, you know, who sort of aim the focus of the nation on certain things. They're upset when they see something like that. That's the only reason why. Well, I've got a follow-up question for you on the media. So one of the things that I don't think our listeners perhaps know, and certainly I think, you know, many Americans probably aren't aware of is

that most gun-related crimes are carried out with illegally owned firearms. In fact, I think there's some estimates that put it as much as 80%. Why does the media then tend to focus so heavily when we have a mass shooting and not in places like Chicago where there are violent acts taken almost every day, but we rarely see that on the front page? Well, why? Because they're part of sort of the left wing. They're an advocacy. They're an advocacy group for the Democratic Party, basically. And if you travel out into the country outside of D.C., New York, wherever, and you meet gun owners, legal gun owners, NRA members, they are the most ridiculously safety-focused people on Earth, right? They are very serious about their firearms. They're very safe.

They make sure that everything they do is legal, I mean, the ones I meet. And that's why you see that most crimes are committed by people who break existing law. Now, I'm not exactly sure how more laws help. I mean, this is an old argument about how more laws will help diminish criminality, but that's something they don't focus on. And they don't focus on the sort of mental problems most of the big mass shooters have. And they'd rather focus on guns because that's sort of the default position of the media and the left.

And I don't know why they're the way they are. And they're just terribly left wing. I worked at a newspaper and there was in Colorado where you're, imagine that people would be more open to the Second Amendment. And even there, it was just the default position was to immediately blame gun and gun ownership and say there were too many guns in America. Well, speaking of that, earlier this year, students from Parkland, they led a huge effort to register new voters and to also rally people for gun control. How big of an issue do you think gun control will be in this year's election? It depends, I guess, where you are because of where

they're pushing these laws. But I have to tell you, I can't think of an election where someone lost because they were too pro-gun. I don't think that that has happened that I know of. But I can think of a few perhaps elections where people were not enough, you know, not pro-gun enough and were hurt. But, you know, it's difficult to say in House races especially where there are, you know, where people generally agree with each other. So being anti-gun in a certain liberal district will help you and otherwise not. So I don't think it's going to be a huge issue. I think it was a big issue when you had a president who was so so anti-gun as Obama was, but obviously Donald Trump has whatever his true deep feelings are about the issue. He's been pro-gun, and the most pro-gun

thing he's done is put originalist judges onto the Supreme Court, I think, who will make sure Heller isn't overturned. Well, one of the things that we've tried to highlight on this show, particularly when it comes to the Parkland students, is the alternative voices that we don't often here from the media. In fact, I think it was just a couple weeks ago, Jeannie, where we featured Cameron Caskey, right, who's had a change of heart in some ways and says that he's separated himself from the March for Our Lives movement. He's apologized to Marco Rubio for how he's treated him. What is your message to younger Americans who perhaps, you know, get caught up in the moment, but now have a chance to step back and think about, you know, some of the things that

you cover in the book? Well, first of all, I mean, I'm sympathetic to why they take the position. they do. I think it's scary to go to school and believe that, you know, someone can just walk in with guns and how the left and the media portray it that they can just easier than getting a book, they can just get an A, you know, an AR and come in and shoot everyone. So that's a horrible thing to have to think about. Obviously, I have children and I worry about that as well. But it should be noted that there are fewer mass shootings now than there used to be in the 90s. It should be noted that homicide rates from guns are have fallen dramatically from my childhood. to my kids' childhood. And that's something to think about, you know, because of the way we have social media and the way that we all sort of experience things at the same time together, it makes tragedy seem, and it is horrifying for the people involved, but it makes tragedy seem like it happens all the time.

So that's the first thing I would tell them. And the second is that they should better understand the history of the gun and why so many people have them and why it's important if they were, want to be free to be able to defend themselves and their family, their schools. If, you know, if they really, if we really want to get into it, I don't like to argue with kids have gone through that, but if they really want to get into it, let's talk about why we can't defend you with weapons from people, bad guys who have them who will always have them. So those are two of the things I talk about, but it's very, people who experience something, you know, like that. I think it's very difficult

to reason with them. It's a very, probably very emotional moment for them. Yeah. But I should actually give you a personal story quickly. I was growing up. My dad had a shop and it was robbed with three people had guns. And my dad went his instinct. So in the 1970s crime rose and it was terrible. And that's when the modern debate sort of split. You had people saying we have to get these guns off the street and a bunch of other people saying we have to protect ourselves from these criminals. And that's when the NRA became politicized and that's and so on. So when I was a kid, and then, you know, that happened to me and my dad. And then my dad tried to get a gun in New York City.

And he had to jump through hoops. It was the hardest thing to do. And it hit me at a young age that the Second Amendment says that we can defend ourselves, but we have to go to the state and ask them for permission to defend ourselves. And I think how you feel about that freedom and what you do with that freedom says a lot about how you generally view individual rights in this country. So I completely forgot what the initial question. was, but I know that I had a point to make, and that's it. Well, no, thank you for sharing that

story. I mean, I'll share one of my own. In fact, one of the things that I, one of the reasons I think so many people in the news business are ignorant is because they have no familiarity with guns at all. And they've, they've never held a gun, they've never fired a gun. They've not taken the opportunity to even learn about that. And so one of the things that we did with our daily signal staff is we went to a shooting range and everybody had the opportunity to experience it firsthand. And I think that for those Americans and those of you who might be listening, I mean, that's a step that you could take to better understand. I know there are organizations out there that encourage reporters and editors to have that experience so they can better understand it. So, you know.

I mean, I didn't shoot a gun until I was in my 30s. Yeah. And it was an exhilarating. Same here. Yeah, it was an exhilarating experience of so much fun. Everyone who taught me how to use those guns were very, you know, into the safety. And they explained all that to me before I even shot. And I, yeah, I mean, I wish more reporters did that and it would be less sort of, it would be less of a mystery to them.

I grew up shooting in Texas and I think it definitely gave me an interesting perspective and an appreciation for the Second Amendment for sure. David, what's the most important thing that you want readers to take away from First Freedom? Well, I think when they read the history and they read about the people who used guns to survive initially, the innovations they came up with that were very American Kentucky rifle, you know, Sam Colt and the revolver, John Browning and automatic weapons, the Gatling gun. And I also go into the lives of everyday people and how they used guns.

I think that when you read through the whole history of the gun leading to today, you have a far better understanding of why people in Texas want their guns, right? And once you understand that it's part of the, it's in the DNA of American life, you understand, I hope, why the debate is what it is

and why at least the half of the people in this country or more who believe that we should have a right to firearms. And even liberals never say we want to take away your guns. They're just like we want it to be safer. Even they know that it's sort of embedded in our thinking. Hopefully this history will help you better understand it than just the politics and the sort of way we fall into those two camps and say the same thing's over and over again every time there's a shooting.

The book is called First Freedom. David, thank you so much for telling us all about it. Thank you for having me. Liberals have pretty much cornered the market on 101-style podcasts that break down tough policy issues in the news. Until now, did you know that every week, Heritage Explains intermingles personal stories, news clips, and facts from heritage experts to help explain some of today's hardest issues from a conservative perspective? Look for Heritage Explains on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for sending us your letters to the editor. Each Monday, we feature some of our favorites, both on this show and in our Morning Bell email newsletter.

Ginny, what do we have this week? Well, first up, Roman Mirales writes, I think that what the news media has done to Kavanaugh is a travesty. Newspapers are willing to print unsubstantiated gossip from anyone just for the publicity. Kavanaugh should sue every one of his accusers for everything they have or will ever have. And then they should put out an apology through the newspapers. Harvard has become such a liberal school that I believe they should lose their standing. Colleges should teach not instill their professor's political beliefs. They should teach both sides and let students reach their own conclusions.

And Millie Kirchner of Philadelphia writes, thanks for speaking out for Brett Kavanaugh. We need the opposition and the stupid Americans to hear this, stupid in that they listen to the lying news stations. Not that they don't have degrees or money. They've just lost their way from brainwashing. We got the better detergent. Truth.

God bless you. Well, God bless you, Millie. We appreciate your letter. Your letter could be featured on next week's show. Send an email to letters at daily signal.com or leave a voicemail message at 202-608-6205. Next, we'll share this week's good news story. Hi, this is Rob Blewey, editor-in-chief of the Daily Signal.

If you liked hearing about the issues that watching Washington's not discussing, check out underreported, a brand new video series from The Daily Signal looking at other issues that the mainstream media forgot to mention. Drew, for a thousand days, I've held the record for all-time passing yards in the NFL. I've got to tell you, it's been the greatest 1,000 days of my life. And thanks to you, that's over now, and you've ruined that for me. So thank you very much. I have nothing left to look forward to.

except slicing my tomatoes, making dinner for my family, putting together this wedge salad. Also, let this serve as the congratulations for the touchdown record, because as you can see, I'm very busy. I don't have time to keep doing these videos for you congratulating you. But in all seriousness, Drew, congratulations

on this record. You've done it the right way. All your hard work and dedication have paid off. You and I have come a long way since this picture back in 2000. you were in college and I was in my third year in the NFL. So way to go. Proud of you.

Good luck the rest of the way. Well, that was Peyton Manning, the famous quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts and Denver Broncos. And if you want to see that video and that picture he referenced, go todailySignal.com and you can find it on the link to our podcast. Ginny, I wanted to feature this as our good news story this week because Drew Brees is really somebody who has overcome the odds. I mean, he is somebody who has come back from injury. He's accepted Jesus Christ into his life.

And it's really been a motivator for him, his belief in faith and God. And here he is, through it all, surpassing Peyton Manning for these records. And records that nobody thought would ever be broken because Peyton was just such an incredible person. And I have to say, despite what may have been a rivalry between the two and they were both playing, It's really refreshing to see sports bringing people together this way. It is. And what an incredible accomplishment that everyone can celebrate. I love seeing Payton Manning jumping into the celebrations right out of the gate and congratulating Drew Brees.

I'll be the first to say I don't follow football closely, but I know that both of these players are beloved across the country. It's easy to see why, especially Drew Brees with New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He really helped rally that city and the impact record or no record will be felt for a lot. long time. Well, that's so true. And look, you're a big baseball fan. You've had the opportunity to go to Houston. I know you're closely watching the ALCS and your Houston Astros. But I think the thing about it is, you know, in the past we've talked about on this podcast and Kate and Daniel have covered it, the divisiveness of the NFL. It's really refreshing to see so many people come together, particularly during these moments like the baseball playoffs when, you know, there are our rivalries. But at the end of

the day, and David Harsanya referenced this about the Boston Red Sox, you might be on the losing end, but at the end of the day, you look at the hardworking commitment that these athletes make. It's really inspiring. It is. You know, politics can be so bitter and ugly. We need sports, right? We need sports because it can bring everyone together, no matter what side of the aisle they're on. And it's nice to see these good news stories come out of it. Well, I'll certainly be pulling for your Astros. Because I don't have a team in there. And we're going to leave it there for today. The Daily Signal podcast is broadcast from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. You can find it on the Rurcache audio network, along with problematic women and the right side of history.

All of our shows can be found at DailySignal.com slash podcasts. You can also subscribe on iTunes, SoundCloud Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. And if you like what you hear, please leave us a review or give us feedback. Be sure to follow us on Twitter at DailySignal and Facebook.com slash the Daily Signal News. The Daily Signal podcast will be back tomorrow with Kate and Daniel. Have a great week. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thelia Rampersad.

For more information, visitdailySignal.com.