All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 26, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:05:52
Trump Protects The American Flag!…PLUS We Break a MAJOR Story
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
An epic episode of Good Trump, Bad Trump.
President Trump is saying that he's going to try to fight flag burning with actual criminal penalties.
We'll get into all the details there.
Plus, he tried to fire a Fed governor.
What exactly does that mean?
And we have a massive breaking story and exclusive here at Daily Wire exposing the American Medical Association, one of our most cherished institutions, again, opened up and eaten from the inside first.
We are one week out.
My first book in four years, Lions and Scavengers, hits shelves.
September 2.
That's right after Labor Day weekend.
It's about strength, cowardice, and the fight we are all in, whether we like it or not.
Go to dailywire dot com slash men to pre order now.
It's available everywhere.
Amazon, Walmart, Target, Barnes and Noble.
But signed copies are only ava at the Daily Wire shop.
Again, go to dailywire dot com slash Ben, we're one week out.
Don't miss it.
Well, folks, a little bit later on in the show, we're going to get to the American Medical Association.
We have a breaking story here at Daily Wire about the AMA.
It's pretty astonishing stuff.
Basically, they're now pushing gender affirming care, no matter what.
We've obtained secretly recorded footage of AMA president, doctor Bobby Makamala, and it's truly astonishing.
Wow.
We'll get to that a little bit later on in the show.
But we have to begin the day with President Trump.
So President Trump had himself a day yesterday.
It was an epic day of we're bringing it back because it was such a big day of this.
Good Trump, bad Trump.
Yes.
They're back.
Play the song, guys.
Okay, so yesterday, President Trump suggested via executive order that we are going to arrest people and put them in jail for flag burning.
Now, you don't know which way I'm going to go on this, right?
Was that bad Trump or was...
was that good trump wait for it wait for it wait for it it was actually good trump i'll tell you why it was good trump the reason it was good trump is because people are misreading the the executive order.
So what President Trump said, as always, is a very simplified version of what the executive order actually says.
First, here's what President Trump had to say while signing the executive order.
If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail, no early exits, no nothing.
You get one year in jail.
If you burn a flag, you get, and what it does is incite to riot.
I hope they used that language, by the way, did they?
Incite to riot.
Incite to riot, and you burn a flag, you get one year in jail.
You don't get ten years, you don't get one month.
You get one year in jail, and it goes on your record.
And you will see flag burning stopping immediately.
Okay, so number one, there is a ruling in Texas v.
Johnson that says that flag burning is indeed a legal activity under the First Amendment.
Now, I want to go through the history of this in just a second, but I first want to say what the exact executive order says because people are saying that it somehow criminalizes all forms of flag burning that is not actually true.
First of all, the president does not have the authority just via executive order to make anything criminal.
You can't just make things criminal via executive order at the federal level that requires some sort of congressional act.
The president can't just deem a thing illegal and it magically becomes illegal.
He can enforce the cur the current law by directing his DOJ to prosecute certain crimes that are already on the book.
So what exactly did the president sign?
Well, according to the executive order, it says the key part says.
Our great American flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America and of American freedom, identity and strength over nearly two and a half centuries.
Many thousands of American patriots have fought blood and died to keep the stars and stripes waving proudly.
The American flag is a special symbol in our national life that should unite and represent all Americans of every background and walk of life.
Desecrating it is uniquely offensive and provocative.
It is a statement of contempt, hostility and violence against our nation, the clearest possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves our rights, liberty and security.
Burning this representation of America may incite violence and riot.
American flag burning is also used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, the court has never held that American flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to fighting words is constitutionally protected.
Okay, so notice what the executive order is doing here.
President Trump didn't write himself.
You know, obviously he has lawyers on staff who are doing this.
He is not saying that if you just burn an American flag at a protest, that you're going to go to jail because that would in fact violate Texas versus Johnson.
What he is saying is that like pretty much all other words in American life, if you do something that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, that is not protected by the First Amendment.
If I tell you, let's go, for example, attack that courthouse, that is words, right?
Those words are not protected by the First Amendment.
Why?
Because they are likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Also, there is a category called fighting words, which has sort of fallen out of common parlance.
Legally speaking, it's not clear what fighting words are, but traditionally what it meant is that if you insulted someone, if I called your mother a whore or something, you punched me, then you could say theoretically that those were fighting words that were not constitutionally protected.
Hey, so this EO.
doesn't do what everyone thinks it does.
It doesn't say that if you burn a flag under any circumstances, you're going to jail.
And so what exactly does the White House now expect the Attorney General to do?
Well, quote, the Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of the fullest to the fullest extent possible of our nation's criminal and civil laws against acts of American flag desecration that violate applicable content neutral laws while causing harm unrelated to expression consistent with the First Amendment.
This includes, but is not limited to, violent crimes, hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens or other violations of American civil rights and crimes against property and the peace, as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate and aiding and abetting others to violate such laws.
So again, the the whole thing is designed to avoid first amendment concerns.
Now, it may never be invoked, but this is the reason why it goes under good Trump versus bad Trump.
So there are a few different positions on this.
Many of them are wrong.
Many things can be true at once.
One, according to the Supreme Court, the Constitution of the United States protects flag burning as a form of expression, as long as it doesn't violate other things like incitement to violence, for example.
To the Supreme Court decision in Texas versus Johnson is wrong.
It's a bad decision.
That 54 decision, which is held in high esteem by libertarians and members of the left, but but actually violates centuries of American precedent.
It is a bad decision.
Justice Scalia was wrong about this.
And I say that advisedly.
I'm a huge Justice Antonin Scalia fan.
He was the deciding vote 5-4 in Texas versus Johnson back in 1989.
He was wrong about this.
It's not true.
The First Amendment was not designed to protect flag burning.
It just was not, historically speaking.
And I'll get to that in a moment.
So two things are true.
One, the law currently says, until it is changed by the Supreme Court, flag burning is protected activity as expression under the First Amendment.
Two, that Supreme Court decision is wrong.
Three, the executive order is designed to avoid the reach of Texas versus Johnson by linking flag burning to things that are not protected by the First Amendment, right?
Because the truth is that if you're talking about expressive activity, anything could theoretically be expressive activity, right?
The question is does it violate other forms of criminal law?
So for example, if I strangle you to death with an American flag, can I say that that's freedom of expression?
No, that's a criminal activity involving the American flag, and I will go to jail.
So what they're attempting to do is link this with incitement, which is in fact a criminal activity for there are a bunch of people on the right who are saying, well, you know, it's criminal in America to burn the Pride Progress flag or the Black Lives Matter flag, so it should be criminal to burn the American flag.
Okay, it's not criminal in America to burn the Pride Progress flag.
If you wish to buy one and then burn it, you can absolutely do that.
Now, there are hate crime laws on the books that I think are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment that may be implicated by, for example, spiraling your wheels over some sort of gay pride flag painted on the sidewalk.
I think it's idiotic.
It's ridiculous.
It's no worse form of defacement of public property than than if you were to just do it on a crosswalk without a gay pride flag on it.
That's a question about hate crimes.
It really isn't a question about whether it's illegal to burn a Pride Progress flag or a gay pride flag or a BLM flag.
It is not.
So don't use one misinterpretation of law to justify another misinterpretation of law law.
It is neither legal to burn an American flag nor is it illegal to burn a Pride Progress flag under the current status of law in the United States.
When this kind of bizarre spiral to the bottom where everyone says a very simplified version of what they think the law is to justify another violation of the law, that is a very silly thing.
So all these things are true at once.
Now, I want to go back for a second to the idea that the Supreme Court decision in Texas v.
Johnson is wrong.
The American flag is special.
It should be special.
I've been a backer, my entire political career of a constitutional amendment that would, in fact, criminalize flag burning.
Why?
Because as we've seen in America, as our institutions fall apart.
As we have less and less fealty to anything in common, the American flag remains the only thing to which we should have total fealty.
The Constitution of the United States, the American flag, these are the bases for being a good American.
I know there's a lot of fought debate right now about what it means to be a good American.
Very, very basic standards to be a good American.
You should like the American flag because it's the flag of your country.
And two, you should really like the Constitution of the United States, the organizing founding document of the country.
Those seem to me like two very, very basic ones.
And all this talk about heritage Americans that you're hearing from the right.
The idea that you're a true American if your ancestors got here in 1710, as opposed to you're a bad American if your ancestors got here in.
1908 or in 1945 or 1983 or something.
First of all, it's a bunch of horse crap.
It's not true.
There are plenty of people who are descendants of people who came here in 1710 who are totally anti-american.
There are a lot of those people.
In fact, it is an anti-american idea that just because you got here at a particular point in time that makes you more American than an American who came here at a different point in time.
That's really, really silly.
Okay.
But and from the left, you hear this idea of American citizenship that American citizenship essentially means nothing and diversity is what American citizenship is all about, which is not true.
It seems to me that if you are going to form an Americanism around ideas, loyalty and love for the country,, the American flag is a very good place to start, which brings us back to that Texas versus Johnson decision.
I'm just going to point out here that's a bad decision.
It's a very bad decision.
Already coming up, we get into President Trump's executive order.
What does the thing actually say?
Plus, we'll get to President Trump firing a Fed governor and a breaking story here at the Daily Wire about the American Medical Association.
First, how many times have you said to someone, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That's usually good advice.
It is not so true for a cell phone because cell phones degrade over time.
Over time, that battery life fades.
The processor can't keep up.
It's fallen in the toilet.
Maybe one too many times.
Fortunately, thanks to pure talk, your cell phone is something you can replace without feeling guilty when you switch to pure talk this month., they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy 836 for free with a $35 qualification plan, just $35 a month for talk, text, data, and a free Samsung phone with scratch resistant gorilla glass and a battery that lasts all day long, all on America's most reliable 5G network.
I use pure talk all the time.
Obviously, I'm using my cell phone all the time.
Business calls, family calls, those things matter to me.
They matter to you too.
So why wouldn't you try out pure talk?
Supporting companies like pure talk is a smart thing to do.
You win by cutting your cell phone bill in half.
They win by hiring more Americans and helping more veterans make the switch in as little as ten minutes.
Go to pure talk dot com slash shapiro, get your free phone today.
Again, that's pure talk dot com slash shapiro to switch to my wireless company., America's wireless company, pure talk.
Again, that's pure talk dot com slash shapiro.
Also, if you're a homeowner, you do need to listen to this in today's AI and cyber world.
Scammers are stealing home titles.
Your equity is the target.
Here's how it works.
Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and then just like that, your home title can be transferred out of your name.
Then they take out loans using your equity or they even sell your property.
You won't even know it's happened until you get a collection or execution notice.
So when was the last time you checked on your home title?
If your answer is you never have done that, well, you probably should.
And that's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock today.
You can find out if you are already a victim.
Many people at the Daily Wire, including people on this very team, trust Home Title Lock to protect what is likely one of their biggest assets in a time when the economy is sort of up and down and all around, your home is a massive asset.
You don't want anyone stealing value in it.
Use my promo code shapiro at hometitle lock dot com.
You'll get a free title history report and a free trial of their million dollar triple lock protection.
That's 24/7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts for any changes.
If fraud does happen, they'll spend up to a million bucks to fix it.
Don't be a victim, protect your equity today.
Go to hometitle lock dot com, use promo code shapiro.
That's hometitle lock dot com promo code shapiro.
By 1932, every single state in America had a flag desecration statute.
Even though according to the Supreme Court, the flag was a federal symbol, states could still criminalize the desecration of the American flag.
And typically, this was designed not only at preventing marking the flag or mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, defying the flag or anything of that.
It was also originally in many of these states prevented from from advertising.
You weren't supposed to use the American flag in advertisements, which of course has basically gone by the wayside over the course of time.
You see the American flag on all sorts of gear now.
Well, in West Virginia Board of Education v.
Barnett, 1943, the Supreme Court started to say things like people could not be compelled to salute the flag because refusing to do so is freedom of speech.
And you can make that argument that that at least is a fairly decent argument.
Justice Jackson wrote, if there is any fixed start in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.
Now, again, I think that's an arguable opinion.
I think that saying that you should actually, you know, like the country and like the flag, that's not a horrible prerequisite to being an American citizen.
But you can see the counter argument, which is the freedom of speech at the federal level at the very least, not at the state level.
Remember, the First Amendment to the Constitution applies to Congress.
This Congress shall make no law bridging freedom of speech.
It does not apply to the states.
The states routinely in the early days made lots of laws bridging freedom of speech.
However, you can see the attempts by the Supreme Court to sort of carve back much of the law surrounding the flag.
In 1968, Congress passed a federal flag desecration law, which was meant to mirror many of the state laws.
The federal law made it illegal to knowingly cast contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it.
And then there were a bunch of Supreme Court cases, again under the very, very liberal Warren Court that carved a lot of this back, including 1969 saying that you could curse the flag, 1974 saying that you could sew the flag to your pants, that you could sit on it in a way to shame it.
And then that all culminated in the Texas v.
Johnson decision, which was written by Justice Brennan.
The court there found that the flag burning it was symbolic speech and that Texas' statute was content-based.
Justice Scalia, who was the deciding vote in that case, he said, If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal wearing scruffy, bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, but I am not king.
Okay, but as Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative justice, wrote in dissent, in holding this Texas statute unconstitutional, the court ignores Justice Holmes' familiar aforism that a page of history is worth a volume of logic.
For more than two hundred years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our nation, a uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here.
He pointed out that every single state, except for Alaska and Wyoming, had statutes at the time prohibiting the burning of the flag.
He says the American flag, throughout more than two hundred years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation.
It does not represent the views of any particular political party.
It does not represent any particular political philosophy.
The flag is not simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.
I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress and that the laws of 48 of the 50 states which make criminal the public burning of the flag.
The government may conscript men into the armed forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibitit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.
And of course, Justice Rehnquist is right about that.
So the reason that this goes under good Trump is on the merits.
He is not wrong.
Flag burning, bad.
The EO does not prohibit flag burning per se.
That is not what the EO does.
He does not have the power to do that.
He even said that in that quote, he says it's about incitement to violence.
Now it's going to be very hard to prosecute that.
It just will.
But the reason it's also good is because it is good politics.
Because now what you're going to see is a bunch of leftists going out in the street burning the American flag, which is precisely what Trump is tempting them to do.
You know that's what he's doing.
He's baiting them.
President Trump is saying, you know, you believe that America is all about burning the American flag that America, American citizenship is about quote unquote dissent is patriotic.
Well, hitting the American flag is not something that most Americans actually like very much.
Okay, so that goes under the category of good Trump.
Although I can see why, again, there are a lot of people on the libertarian right who are upset about it.
Cool your jets.
That's not what he's saying in the EO.
Okay, now it's time for unfortunately.
Here he comes flying in from the side.
Here he goes.
Yes.
It's time for some bad Trump.
All right.
Yeah, yesterday was a real mixed bag gang.
So yesterday, the president fired or tried to fire the Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook.
was the Federal Reserve governor who is on the so-called Fed Open Markets Committee.
They decide collectively on whether to lower the interest rates or not.
She has been an opponent of lowering the interest rates.
She was appointed by Joe Biden.
He doesn't like her very much, the president of the United States.
And so on the basis of an allegation that she falsified mortgage documents by essentially claiming two separate homes as her primary and getting a mortgage on the basis of that allegation, not adjudicated, no guilt actually found.
He's attempting to fire her.
I do not like.
I do not like number one because you shouldn't fire people on the basis of of allegations alone at the federal level.
When you're talking about government employees, this is not according to the statute.
Typically, if you are a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, then the only way that you can be fired is for gross misconduct.
This does not amount to even remotely gross misconduct.
You can not like it.
If she's found guilty, you can fire her theoretically, but the idea that you can just kind of fire willy nilly anyone who violates the law, but not even allegedly violates the law, this is setting a pretty bad predicate.
I understand that a lot of people on the right right right right now are cheering President Trump's massive centralization of power in the executive branch.
They're cheering it over tariffs.
They're cheering it over the Federal Reserve.
They're cheering it over the taking of stock and intelligence.
They're cheering a lot of these things.
I do not cheer this stuff because the more you grow the executive branch, the more the left will have control when eventually they win the presidency.
And I'm old enough to remember when the right thought they would never lose an election again.
That was 2005.
And then next thing you know, Nancy Pelosi took Congress in 2006 and Barack Obama was president by 2008.
I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats thought they would never lose power.
That was about 2015.
And by 2017, Donald Trump was sitting in the Oval Office.
And so this idea by either political party that if you mess with the mechanisms of government in a major way because it is convenient to do so, it won't come back to bite you in the ass.
That has never been true in the history of American politics and it's not true now.
So on a moral level, you shouldn't fire people based on allegations specifically because you don't like their politics.
That is not the way that you're supposed to.
If you want to say the president should be able to fire anybody he wants at the Federal Reserve because he doesn't like their politics, I think that is actually a more solid case based on the unitary executive theory than the case that you should be able to sort of jerry rig an allegation, a criminal allegation to fire somebody.
That I think is ridiculous.
But then on a sort of pragmatic, practical level, the markets right now are looking for stability.
The markets right now are searching for any line of stability.
And they're not finding it.
They're not finding it here.
They're not finding it there.
And they're not finding it anywhere.
Right now, the president is about to get what he wants from the Federal Reserve.
He's about to get those lower interest rates.
The chances that Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve are going to lower the interest rates by 25 basis points in September are really, really high.
They're really good.
So why is he screwing around with this right now, other than a sort of petty revenge minded goal or the attempt to completely remake the FOMC, which by the way, undermines his agenda.
Because if you don't have an independent Federal Reserve, then what you end up with is a belief by the markets that the president is basically manipulating the money.
And if the president manipulates the money, that's bad.
It's bad when a Democrat does it.
It's bad when a Republican does it.
It's actually the case, the strong libertarian case, the laissez faire case against the Federal Reserve in the first place is the idea that you shouldn't have centralized banks that are manipulating the money supply.
In any case, President Trump yesterday put out a letter directed at Lisa Cook, quote, Dear Governor Cook, pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of nineteen thirteen, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve effective immediately.
The Federal Reserve Act provides that you may be removed at my discretion for cause.
I have determined there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position., as set forth in the criminal referral dated August 15, 2025 from mister William J. Poulty, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to miss Pamela Bondy, Attorney General, there is sufficient reason to believe you may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.
For example, as detailed in the criminal referral, you signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year.
Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating it would be your primary residence the next year.
It is inconceivable.
You were not aware of your first commitment when making the second.
It is impossible that you intended to honor both.
Okay, so first of all, I just want to point out here.
I also do not like the precedent of the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency digging up the mortgage records of various political enemies and then publicly putting that out there.
I don't know why Bill Pulte is doing that.
If you want to make a criminal referral, do it behind closed doors to the AG.
And if the AG actually has the goods, then go prosecute and then fire Lisa Cook, but I didn't like it when the Democrats kept trying to leak Donald Trump's IRS records.
And I also don't like it when the FHFA is now attempting to leak the records of a governmental official that they don't like via some sort of criminal referral, which doesn't mean anything.
Criminal referral from the FHFA has the same amount of actual content as me making the criminal referral to the DOJ.
The DOJ can take it under advisement.
They can do what they want with it, but that shouldn't be public in any case.
President Trump writes the Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks.
The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve in light of your deceptive and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter.
They cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.
Okay, again, the only reason people know about this is because Pulte made it public.
This does not seem like smart policy to me, either moral or smart.
Well, Lisa Cook said she's not going to leave.
She said, quote, President Trump purported to fire me for cause when no cause exists under the law, has no authority to do so.
I will not resign.
I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.
So we will see how the Supreme Court rules in this matter because it is not particularly clear that the Supreme Court is going to go along with all this.
Naturally, leave it to the Democrats to come up with the stupidest possible response to this.
Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, instead of saying the president is tyrannically attempting to expand his authority over the Federal Reserve by jerry rigging charges and firing people he doesn't like, instead, he makes it about the fact that Lisa Cook is black.
Quote, Dr. Lisa Cook is the first black woman ever to serve in the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
To the extent anyone is unfit to serve in a position of responsibility because of deceptive and potentially criminal conduct, it is the current occupant of the White House.
Okay.
Okay.
I mean, why is it always and forever for the Democrats about the race, as opposed to maybe just not like what he's doing?
Already coming up, we have a breaking story about the American Medical Association that's pretty damned shocking.
First, I love movies about real heroes who have the courage to stand up against evil to protect people.
We need those stories today.
That's exactly why the incredible story told in Bao Artist at War caught my attention.
The film opens September 26.
You can visit bowmovie dot com to see the trailers.
Bao Artist at War tells the remarkable true story of Joseph Bao, a gifted artist and forger who risked his life to save others during the Holocaust.
There he found not only the strength to survive, but unexpected love with Rebecca.
It's a gripping story of survival, love and courage.
It is incredibly moving.
It's exciting.
It's pretty harrowing.
It's not just another Holocaust story.
It's a film about how art and love can save lives literally and spiritually.
Joseph Bao was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp.
He forged documents to help others escape, but he was also a poet, an animator and a romantic.
His story, his love and his resilience.
It's like something out of fiction, but it happens to be real.
If you love Schindler's List or Jojo Rabbit films that show not just what was lost but what was fought for, you need to see Bao.
Artist at War opens only in theaters for a limited run beginning September 26.
Go to baomovie.com..com to watch the trailer, read about Joseph's real life journey and find showtimes near you.
Also, I have some exciting news.
Brick House Nutrition just launched their Labor Day sale.
The timing could not be better as we head into the fall right now.
You can save 25% on everything with code Labor Day 25.
And I mean everything, including their best selling weight loss formula, lean.
This doctor formulated supplement helps turn excess fat into energy while reducing your appetite and curbing those pesky cravings.
No needles, no prescriptions, just results.
Also, grab limited time discounts on Field of Greens.
That's the daily go to super fruit and vegetable drink.
Everyone knows and loves.
They're so confident in it.
They promise your doctor will notice your improved health or your money back.
And check out Radiance.
Their super collagen booster.
It's a total game changer.
Plus, they've got their new Brickhouse Way protein and so much more.
Producer Justin is restocking that Way protein this week because he needs to bulk up.
Listen, this 25% off deal is only for a few days.
If you've been thinking seriously about getting serious about your health this fall, now would be the moment.
Use code Labor Day 25, start feeling stronger and more confident than ever.
Had on over to brickhousenutrition dot com, use code Labor Day 25 for 25% off.
That's brickhousenutrition dot com, code Labor Day 25, brickhousenutrition dot com.
Unfortunately, there is yet more.
Bad Trump.
Again, it's a day of a lot of it's a mixed bag for president Trump.
So President Trump, of course, and the federal government have now taken a 10% stake in Intel.
I do not like bad.
The federal government should not be taking gigantic stakes in private companies.
When they do that, it makes them too big to fail.
It means that if the company starts to fail, the federal government is going to pour more money in.
And so essentially, you now have a federally subsidized business that is publicly traded.
And so if you're an investor, I suppose it's a smart idea to buy Intel because now the chances Intel goes bankrupt are extremely, extremely low.
However, this is a very bad predicate because once you have the federal government intervene, okay, if you don't like DEI, for example, if you think DEI is bad, what do you think happens to the the policies and procedures at Intel?
If a Democrat is elected president.
Now the federal government owns ten percent of Intel.
A democrat is elected president.
Do you think that they start ramming home DEI inside Intel?
You bet your ass they do because once the government is involved in policy making, political angles take precedence over business angles because they can always just subsidize with your taxpayer dollars and yet here is President Trump yesterday saying that he wants to do much more like we just did with Intel where the government is taking stakes in private companies.
What do you say to some who say this is a bit hypocritical and is this the new way of doing industrial policy?
Yeah, I sure it is.
I want to try and get as much as I can.
If people come in and they need something as an example.
For example, as a real estate person, if I have an agreement and I have a I have any form of a stop gap where I can stop somebody from doing something, right?
I have a covenant in an agreement and they come to me and they say, would like you to would like to do something but you have us restricted.
If I do that, they usually have to pay.
Now, in the case of Intel was interesting, but I hope I'm going to have many more cases like it.
Terrible case.
We should not do this.
Not at all.
The difference is that when President Trump was in the private sector, if he wished to subsidize a business by grabbing a piece of his equity, That's his problem because then if the company goes down the tubes, he's the one who pays.
But if Intel goes down the tubes, guess who pays?
The answer is you.
You pay.
So no, the government should not be involved in policy making at Intel.
It should not be grabbing stakes of gigantic American companies.
It is a problem.
And yet this apparently is the way that the Trump administration wants to do.
But again, if you even if you like what President Trump is doing because you like President Trump, understand when the shoe is on the other foot, you're not going to like it very much.
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans were very upset about Barack Obama subsidizing Salindra.
I'm old enough to remember all this.
And it was bad.
It was wrong.
And yet here was Kevin Hassett of the Council of Economic Advisers saying that, yes, we want more ownership stakes in America.
No, no, we don't.
I don't.
I'm a taxpayer.
I don't want it.
If I wanted to buy Intel stock, I could buy Intel stock.
I don't want to buy Intel stock.
I don't think it's good stock.
Why in the world are we trying to set up an American sovereign wealth fund?
We are not a Middle Eastern potentate.
We are not the country of Norway.
The idea that the federal government has to personally invest in various businesses is a violation of the basic free market principles of the United States.
It is a tremendous neglect of the very fundamental economic principles upon which President Trump ran.
This is not good policy.
It just isn't..
And Kevin Hassett knows that.
Okay, so we should expect the US government to be taking more equity stakes in businesses around the country.
That is something that if you're a CEO this morning watching us, you should say, okay, the sovereign wealth fund may be coming and trying to effectively buy in some kind of equity stake.
It's possible, yeah, that's absolutely right.
That if in the past the federal government has been giving money away liquidity split to companies and the taxpayers have received nothing in return.
And so now what's happening with the Intel deal is the CHIPS Act money is going to out as planned, but instead of just going out and disappearing into the ether, the US taxpayers are getting a little bit of equity.
I can really not see how anyone would think that's a bad thing, unless you thought that the government was going to go in and run the company.
But these are going to be shareholders that don't have voting rights.
The government's going to stay out of it.
Oh, yeah, the government's going to stay out of it.
Famous last words.
The government's going to stay out of it.
Name a time when the government has ever stayed out of it.
Seriously, if you get in bed with the government, you shouldn't be surprised when they that's the way that it works with the government.
This is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
Someone's getting screwed.
It's either the taxpayer or the company.
Somebody is.
And meanwhile, again, more on the bad Trump front.
Again, I wish not on the economic level.
This is the place where Trump should be the best, right?
He's a businessman.
He understands how business works.
And yet here we are still fussing around with China.
Why is TikTok still operational?
Why?
Congress passed a law.
Congress should stand up for its prerogative.
TikTok is a blight on the American body politics, is a Chinese propaganda outlet that gathers information on all of its users.
Why in hell is the Trump administration continuing to maintain TikTok alive?
But it's more than that.
It's more than that.
The President of the United States yesterday announced that he was going to allow 600,000 Chinese students to remain in the United States.
That's insane.
Why?
Why?
The vast majority of these people are going to go back to China, bring the IP of the United States along with them after having trained at American universities.
All that really is, these 600,000 Chinese students, is a gigantic subsidy to low-level universities because foreign students pay the full freight at these universities.
How is this a good thing?
This is bad.
It's bad immigration policy.
It's bad financial policy.
It's bad foreign policy.
Why in the world would we allow 600,000 Chinese students to come and study at our universities?
That's nuts.
I mean seriously, what what are we talking about here?
I hear so many stories about we're not going to allow their students, we're not going to allow their students to come in.
We're going to allow it's very important, 600,000 students.
It's very important, but we're going to get along with China.
But it's a different relationship that we have now with China.
It's a much better relationship economically than it was before.
Okay, so Laura Ingram yesterday had on Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, and basically she'll act him over this correctly.
How is allowing 600,000 students from the communist country of China putting America first?
Well, the president's point of view is that what would happen if you didn't have those six hundred thousand students is that you'd empty them from the top, all the students would go up to better schools, and the bottom fifteen percent of universities and colleges would go out of business in America.
So his view is he's taking a rational economic view, which is classic Donald Trump looking at higher education and saying, but why do you want to do that?
Until we modify that.
That just happens.
That's Harvard and UCLA and UCL Berkeley.
And I mean, you're all helping those schools.
Why?
They're like, you know, basically factories of anti-American propaganda.
Now they're getting a big lot of cash because of the Chinese students.
I mean, I know, I know, I know President Trump has always been very pro-Chinese student.
I just don't understand it for the life of me.
I, I, those are six hundred thousand spots that American kids won't get.
I mean, she has right about that.
Not only the six hundred thousand slots that American kids won't get, those are six hundred thousand slots that are going to Chinese nationals who will likely go back to their mother country with an American education in hand and all the connections they made in the United States in hand.
Some of those people, by the way, will get hired at major tech companies and many of those people will be canning information back to the Chinese because how do you think the IP moves?
What in the world?
like really, this sort of absolute inconstance in policy is maddening.
Are we trying to box China in or are we trying to let China out?
I mean, at the same exact time this is happening, the president is threatening more tariffs on China.
He's saying that maybe more tariffs are coming based on rare earth magnets.
If they don't give us their rare earth magnets, then we're going to tariff them at 200 percent.
So what's the consistent policy consistency when it comes to economic policy is the thing that allows investors to know that their money isn't just going to disappear or go away.
That policy is going to flip on a dime.
Inconstance in economic policy is a problem.
There were lots of problems with FDR's policy during the Great Depression, which lengthened the Great Depression by full on eight years.
Terrible economic policies across the board.
But one of the big ones is that legitimately every day, FDR would wake up in the morning and he would decide, spur the moment, to make decisions about things like the price of gold.
And that is bad.
That is not good economic policy.
Here's the president.
At the same time, he's talking about 600,000 Chinese students coming in, talking about maybe we need 200 percent tariffs on China.
That's after we negotiated a 35 percent tariff with China.
What's the actual through line here?
But we have a very strong relationship, Howard.
I would say you economically with China now getting much better.
They have to give us magnets.
If they don't give us magnets, then we have to charge them 200% tariff or something, you know?
But we're not going to have a problem, I don't think, with that.
I think that's perhaps behind us.
And nobody needed magnets until they convinced everybody 20 years ago, let's all do magnets.
There were many other ways that the world could have gone.
But so for it, it'll take us probably a year to have them.
We're heavy into the world of magnets now, only from a national security standpoint.
All right.
So, you know, I'm in.
favor of boxing in China.
I've said before that we did this ass backwards.
We certainly should have attempted to make better trade arrangements, solidify our supply chains and all that stuff before we got into a trade war with China.
Instead, it's kind of playing hokey pokey with China here.
You're putting our tariff foot in, our putting our tariff foot out.
We're putting our tariff foot in and we're shaking it all about while letting six hundred thousand Chinese students into the country.
Okay.
Well, it's not all bad Trump.
Okay.
I do have some good Trump.
I know.
I know.
I want to be in a good mood as well.
So we do have some more good Trump.
So some good Trump.
The President of the United States continues to push forward with his push to stop crime in major American cities.
Yesterday he said, listen, I'm not, I'm not violating the law.
And again, this is something that he's pointing out overnight.
He's not, he's not violating the law.
And when the judges make a decision, he actually is abiding by it.
So he said, listen, I'm not a dictator.
Like some people want me to be, but I'm not.
I'm thinking about, you know, when I have some slob like Pritzker criticizing us before we even go there, I made the statement that next should be Chicago, because as you all know, Chicago is a killing field right now.
And they don't acknowledge it.
And they say, we don't need him.
Freedom, freedom.
He's a dictator.
He's a dictator.
A lot of people are saying, maybe we like a dictator.
I don't like a dictator.
I'm not a dictator.
I'm a man with great common sense and I'm a smart person.
And when I see what's happening to our cities and then you send in troops instead of being praised, they're saying you're trying to take over the republic.
These people are sick.
Okay, now the president threatening this sort of stuff.
Again, it's designed to get Democrats to take the side of criminals and they have been doing that.
They have been basically taking the side of the criminals over and over again.
So this is the president wrong footing the left.
Is he going to be violating federal law?
No, he's not going to be violating federal law when it comes to this sort of stuff.
And here he was yesterday slamming the press when the press was saying, Oh, the crime rates are fine.
No, they're really not.
Everybody before me is happy what I'm doing.
Most of you won't say that because you're radical left.
The newspapers are so dishonest.
The press is totally dishonest.
But that's all right.
We've gotten used to it.
And we won in a landslide.
So they obviously lost their power.
I mean, it's impossible to imagine that when you get 97% negative stories, purposely negative stories, even though you've done 97% positive things, that they could that you could win an election in a landslide winning all seven.
Think of it.
All seven swing states winning by the popular vote by millions of votes.
We had it fantastic.
The best is your districts.
Out of three thousand districts, I guess we won three thousand five hundred.
We won two thousand seven hundred fifty and they won five hundred.
And that's to me the best of all.
And we had tremendous in every way the election.
And it's hard to believe you can do that when you have a corrupt media.
But you are.
Many of you are corrupt and there's nothing we can do about it.
But we keep winning and we're going to keep winning.
He's not wrong about that.
The president has been tossing over the table in a wide variety of the ways.
As I say, much of it good, some of it bad.
The reason for that is because so many of America's institutions have been hollowed out from the inside by the left.
We'll get to that in a moment.
First, when we started Daily Wire, we did it to bring truth to America without that leftist bend.
Then, Harry's Razors pulled their advertising from us because, you know, Michael Mull said that boys aren't not girls.
So we launched Jeremy's Razors to be the sole company in the industry to deliver a great shave that isn't afraid of biological reality right now.
You can try Jeremy's Razors for just $7.99 barber-grade blades, a moisturizing Alice strip, a weighted handle, and a damn good shave for only $7.99.
Behold it.
See you, this razor.
This is the very razor of which I speak and that $7.99 that is our lowest price ever join the hundreds of thousands of daily wire listeners who use jeremy's razors go to jeremy's razors dot com slash pen today join the fight for sanity that's jeremy's razors dot com slash pen so as I say so many of America's major institutions have been hollowed out from the inside we saw a lot of this of course during BLM summer we saw this during COVID and we know this about the American Medical Association so we here at the daily wire have now obtained damning exclusive footage
of a private hour-long meeting between the current president of the American Medical Association Dr. Bobby McCamala, Michigan representative Brad Paquette and former guest of the show Dr. Doctor Aton Haim, whom you may remember as the Texas Children's Hospital Whistleblower.
This material is pretty catastrophic for the AMA.
It proves beyond any doubt their support for trans health care is based on fake science, willful blindness, total abandonment of all evidence-based medicine, all of which are supposed to be antithetical to the existence of their organization, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Now, as many of you know, the Daily Wire has already landed a major blow against the trans industry by investigating Vanderbilt Hospital that culminated in a Supreme Court victory earlier this summer, and that allowed Tennessee and other red states to ban barbaric transing of the children procedures.
The British government has totally walked back their policies in the wake of the CAS review, the Trump administration's health and human services report and Michael Schellenbroger's WPATH files have exposed the medical experts' own admissions of doubt.
The FTC has begun examining gender affirming care, so called as a consumer fraud, which of course it is.
Confronted with all these defeats, the trans activist army continues to double down.
Gender ideologues continue to seek legitimization in law.
Teachers' unions, medical establishment, they all leave children across the country vulnerable to medical abuse.
So how are they still able to do this?
Well, because they have one gigantic pillar that they continue to stand on as the authority of the largest medical association in America, the American Medical Association or AMA.
So the AMA is supposed to be the gold standard for medical associations.
They preside over a quarter million dues paying members.
That is to say, physicians, medical students, plastic surgeons.
Basically, if you're a doctor, you have to be a member of the AMA.
They publish a comprehensive code of medical ethics.
They run public health campaigns.
They operate as a quasi governmental organization.
They issue the majority of their continuing education that doctors must receive in order to maintain medical licenses.
So back in 2008, the AMA adopted something called Resolution 122 in support of drugs and surgeries used today to quote unquote, treat gender confusion.
And they proclaimed that they would reject the myth that such treatments would be like hormone therapy and cutting the breasts off healthy youngsters, fake vaginas being made are experimental and declared them instead safe and effective treatment.
for gender identity disorder.
The AMA couched all this as a matter of non-discrimination, as if there was no difference between a mastectomy for a woman with breast cancer to save her life and cutting off a 16-year-old girl's breast because she is gender confused.
By 2021, the AMA dove in with laser focus on gender confused kids.
The AMA's then vice president and CEO, James Madera, wrote a letter to state governors urging them not to ban the castration, sterilization of gender confused kids, claiming empirical evidence demonstrates that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression, and that the science backed the use of hormonal sterilization surgery to prevent gender confused patients from killing themselves.
This idea has consistently been trotted out there for as their excuse essentially for medical mutilation that without these horrifying hormonal and surgical interventions, patients would kill themselves.
That was never true.
In the Supreme Court oral arguments regarding US v.
Scrumetti, a transgender ACLU lawyer and activist named Chase Strangio buckled under pressure from Justice Alito admitting suicides were, thankfully and admittedly rare among trans youth in 2022.
The then president of the AMA, Dr. Jack Resnick criticized all scrutiny of gender affirming care as quote unquote disinformation.
I'm angry.
I'm angry about how science and medicine have been politicized, about the flood of disinformation that seeks to discredit data and evidence, undermine public health.
No, we didn't pick this political fight, but we will stand up for our patience, for the policies of this House, and for our profession.
Thank you.
Moralize cloud our ability to care for transgender patients.
Drivers of disinformation say that gender-affirming care clinics are performing genital mutilation surgeries on teens, are not involving families in care decisions, are using medical treatments on young children who show up after wondering for one day if they're trans.
Of course, we know that these procedures have in fact been performed on gender confused kids.
Before we get to anything else, the AMA's blatant disregard, ignorance, deceit on this basis alone should disqualify them as an authority on the trans issue.
Unfortunately, the evidence that we've obtained indicates there's much, much more where that came from.
So let's dive in.
All right, up in Michigan, a former teacher turned Republican state representative named Brad Paquette decided to go straight to the source, a fellow Michigander and the incoming president.
of the AMA, Dr. Bobby Mukamala Paquette also invited Dr. Aiton Haim, who you may remember as the Texas Children's Hospital whistleblower.
The footage of their meeting, which we're bringing you exclusively here today, completely discredits the AMA.
For starters, AMA president Dr. Bobby Mukamala cites many statistics that are flat out wrong.
He declares puberty blockers are reversible only to be confronted with the facts about the real risks from Dr. Haim, who is not only an AMA member, but a doctor with experience surgically placing puberty blockers in pediatric patients with actual endocrine disorders like precocious puberty.
In response, Dr. McCamala demonstrates no alarm, dodges Dr. Haim's questions and even mocks Dr. Haim's concerns in one of the most unprofessional moments of the entire encounter.
Take a look.
Let me ask one question.
Okay, so you said that puberty blockers are reversible, right?
What they're recommending the time to use these blockers are Tanner stage two before the start of puberty when children are eleven, twelve years old, right?
WPATH, right?
Even, even, I'm not going to say this again, I'm just going to say it one more time, I'm not an expert at all.
I'm not an expert at all in the science that you're talking to me about.
I refer to the experts.
Basic.
If you'd like an opinion from an expert on this, feel free to talk to an expert.
So infertility is a result of puberty blockers being used in Tanner stage two, a micro penis.
Micropenis is an absolute.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on, hold on.
That's crazy.
If you can't see that, what he's doing with his hand is he's opening and shutting his hand like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Nuts faced with legitimate science challenging his position, the AMA demonstrates total neglect of duty.
Unfortunately, this was just the first indication of the stupidity and dishonesty of the AMA in response to Dr. Himes' point that medications and surgeries do indeed cause irreversible damage.
Dr. McCamala simply repeats long debunked claims that the patient regret rate for all of these interventions is supposedly only two percent.
Right.
Do you know what the percentage of people are that actually change their gender identity after identifying with a particular gender?
Yeah, it's very high.
No, it's not.
Yeah, according to what?
According to the people that see these patients, the, the, the, the people that regret pursuing a change in their gender.
Yeah.
So they say, you know what?
I shouldn't have done that is two percent at highest.
Okay, so that's not true.
The most off-cited study claiming that two percent regret rate is by Bustos et al.
Regret after gender affirming surgery at first.
That sounds great.
A systematic review, a meta analysis right there in the title., the keyword surgery indicates the study does not measure regret for the tens of thousands of American teenagers who took any measures up to the point of surgery, like, you know, puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, which still forever alters their body, their voices, their future fertility.
A criticism of that study published in the International Open Access Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons claims Bustos left out several relevant papers, inappropriately included another, and miscalculated the basic data.
Additionally, of the studies included, many lacked adequate follow-up, only tracking patients for a year or two.
Regret often takes an average of eight years to manifest.
In one of the studies Bustos reviewed, there was a 36% loss to follow-up rate, meaning we have no idea what happened to those patients.
But methodological negligence is just one part of the problem.
It's as always the case.
The whole notion of being trans doesn't have any internal coherence, of course, because the idea that a man believes he's a woman, therefore he's a woman, is totally anti science.
Here's what happens when doctor Haim presents doctor Bobby with the AMA's own statements, showing how the AMA has totally contradicted itself on whether gender identity is even alterable.
It's kind of an important thing to determine before you start cutting healthy body parts off children, you might think.
So they're saying that underlying the assumption is not based on medical and scientific evidence, right?
So in this, according to this brief, they're saying that gender identity cannot be changed, right?
That it's not based on medicine or science.
But then when you go to another one, it actually says that it can and should be changed.
I mean, you've led the so gender identity is something that goes on here, not here or there.
Yeah, yeah.
So, but according to this, it's saying the assumption that it can change is not based on medicine or science.
But here, it's saying no neither gender nor sex are stable objective categories.
And then in this one, it's saying gender describes someone's inner sense of being a woman, a man, another gender or gender's or no gender.
And the problem with these definitions is obvious.
They're self evident, right?
They're not I don't see it as self evident because I'm not understanding what your concern is because these are things that the gender identity is something that happens from somebody's brain.
But this says it can't change, right?
This is saying that the assumption that gender identity can change is not based on science.
In this one, it's saying it's not.
So I'm obviously saying objective measures.
These are obviously incompatible statements.
Either gender identity changes or it doesn't.
Dr. McCamwell has apparently sided with the idea that it can change, which is kind of a wild position to take when you're defending the amputation of a teenager's reproductive organs.
What the policy of the AMA is that gender identity is something that comes from something here, not the chromosomes, and what people think they are can change.
And wherever it lands, if it's causing them suicidal ideation because they think they're something something and that's not something that's accepted or getting them into trouble socially.
That's why the rate of suicide is at fifty percent or higher in this population.
So it's a mental thing.
I'm not sure exactly.
I mean, again, I'm not sure.
I can't read all the stuff you've highlighted, but I'm just telling you what the policy of the American Medical Association is.
So just to be clear, you said that the gender identity can change.
Yes.
Dr. Bobby is making up that statistic.
There's not even a random activist study from a blue hair gender fluid.
They them in Portland that claims that there is a actual fifty percent suicide rate.
When doctor Bobby has no incorrect claims to make, he then returns back repeatedly to his assertion that he's not actually an expert.
And he's not an expert in endocrinology or plastic surgery.
But as the president of the AMA, he's supposed to be an expert in the AMA's code of ethics and at the bare minimum, the Hippocratic Oath.
Doctor Haim points out the obvious problem.
If the AMA is not the expert on this, then who precisely is when confronted with the findings of the HHS report and W paths to seed, which doctor Bobby admits he has not read, he then becomes defensive and reflex.
As we've seen in the most recent HHS report, all those organizations have been implicated in concealing evidence that doesn't support their recommendations, right?
These people are hiding studies that don't support their conclusions.
That's what WPATH was doing with the data.
But you're telling me that the people that take care of these patients at the University of Michigan are hiding data?
They might be involved in it if they're in WPATH and we're responsible for making those guidelines, absolutely.
That's beyond doubt.
We have the data.
We'll go ahead and file a case against them and we'll see where it goes.
But that's not at all what they do.
This is a theory.
No, no, no, no.
There's no data.
All you have to do is read that report.
I can't believe you guys haven't read this.
I mean, you guys are the leaders of the AMA.
Ultimately, doctor McCamala connected, representing Paquette with one of the AMA's esteemed trans medicine experts.
He assured him that this expert would be able to answer his questions.
You'll never guess who they put forward for the job.
Doctor Jesse Krakoyin, a family medicine doctor who is trans herself.
On tomorrow's show, we bring you that call with doctor Krakoyin, which was in many ways even more disturbing.
Here's a quick look at how ideologically steeped AMA's expert really is.
So when we are seeing very young children, we're talking about social functioning.
We're talking about how they feel.
We're seeing whether it's consistent.
But, you know, when I. I had a seven year old patient in Marquette, for instance, who identified as transgender.
She had for years, her main concern was how to diminish any appearance of a bulge in her ballet leotard.
So our medical treatment was just how do we avoid rashes in this kid.
At the same time, mom was expressing that before they let her socially transition, before they let her grow her hair out and choose her own name, she had frequently talked about wanting to die and that that had stopped as soon as they let her start making those choices.
By the way, Jesse Krakowian is supposed to be a man.
What does that sound?
Noticed something about the voice there.
Remember, that's a medical doctor, not some activist on TikTok espousing how they've affirmed a child's confusion and strung along their parents in their activist crusade.
Routine way, something this insane exits the mouth of the AMA's apparent top transgender expert upon whose opinion the AMA's policies apparently will rely is absolutely astonishing.
We'll bring you the rest of the story tomorrow.
For today, Dr. Bobby Makamala and the AMA's feat should be held to the fire.
The AMA must be stopped from rubber stamping barbarism and experimental medicine.
Go over to ama exposed dot com dot That's ama exposed dot com to learn more and sign on to our petition.
Obviously, Daily Wire has been fighting this for a very, very long time.
Mentioned Vanderbilt.
Matt Walsh has done amazing work on this.
Our entire company has had a policy since the very beginning that we only refer to people by their actual biological pronouns.
We fight the fight here at Daily Wire.
This is just another example.
Okay.
Meanwhile, an immigration judge has now said, remember Kilmar Abrigo Garcia, that was the guy who very likely was a human trafficker.
Remember that guy?
And then you remember that the Trump administration deported him to El Salvador and they probably should have waited to deport him to El Salvador and then they brought him back to adjudicate what to do with him next.
And then they said, okay, well, we are now going to try him and then we're going to deport him and maybe we'll send him to Uganda.
Well, a federal judge on Monday said that actually the Trump administration is absolutely forbidden.
from removing him from the United States.
US District Court judge Paula Zinnas, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked Abrego Garcia's deportation to Uganda until she can hold a hearing to determine whether the administration will let him contest his removal to the third country.
She said, Your clients are absolutely forbidden at this juncture to remove mister Abrego Garcia from the continental United States.
That is the understanding that we have.
The government suggested that his deportation is not imminent.
Meanwhile, his lawyers say that he has been detained by ICE again as well as he should be.
He is an illegal immigrant who is allegedly involved with MS thirteen trafficking.
mister Abrego Garcia was taken into custody by ICE this morning.
As he was leaving the jail in Tennessee on Friday, he'd been given a notice requiring him to check in at 8 a.m. this morning.
The notice stated that the reason was interview.
Clearly that was false.
There was no need for them to take him into ICE detention.
He was already on electronic monitoring from the U.S. Marshall Service and basically on house arrest.
The only reason that they've chosen to take him into detention is to punish him.
Well, I mean, they're taking him into detention because they're going to deport him, presumably.
Hilariously, Abdulgarcia's lawyer then said they might send him to Uganda.
Why are they sending him to a place where they don't speak English?
The official language of Uganda is English.
As Kilmar Abrego Garcia was leaving the jail in Tennessee and was in his car on the way up to Maryland, the government designated Uganda as the country of removal.
It is preposterous that they would send him to Africa, to a country where he doesn't even speak the language, a country with documented human rights violations.
Uh, when there are so many other options.
Well, um, I mean, he might need another option for a lawyer.
This does not seem like a particularly good lawyer.
Meanwhile, Democrats, they have decided that the only way forward against President Trump is, of course, resistance.
The problem is they have no idea, like, at all, how to resist in any way that doesn't alienate the American people with their sanity.
So the DNC had its summer meeting yesterday, the Democratic National Committee, and I don't know what's wrong with these people.
They literally opened their Democratic National Committee with a land acknowledgement as Ken Martin head of the DNC.
What do they think they're doing?
Like, if you want to alienate more Americans, please.
Please donate more Americans.
Please do more of this.
Seriously.
Like, I'm happy the Democrats are doing this, but I have to say, it's one of the most moronic things I've ever seen.
Why are you opening a DNC meeting by suggesting that America is all stolen land?
Okay, guys, if you never want to win an election again, I suppose you can continue to do this stuff.
This is Lindy Somek, who is from the Saginaw Ojibwe Nation, and she's going to deliver our land acknowledgement today.
Indeed.
Hmm.
Boojoo.
Lindy Somek, Ninjinikaas, Omek Dotum, Saginaw Chipwa Dojaba, Anishinaabe Kwei and Dao.
Good morning DNC members, friends and relatives.
Let's talk about the land for a second.
The DNC acknowledges and honors the Dakota Oyate, the Dakota people, who are the original stewards of the lands and waters of Minneapolis.
The Dakota cared for the lands, lakes, and the Wakatonka, the Great River, the Mississippi River, for thousands of years before colonization.
This land was not claimed or traded.
It is a part of a history of broken treaties and promises, and in many ways we still live in a system built to suppress indigenous peoples' cultural and spiritual history.
Oh, good Lord.
Oh, good Lord.
You're going to win back men the middle of America by saying that America is all stolen land and that those systems of theft are perpetuated into the present day.
Happy New Year to you.
Oh, Ken Martin, who is a very inspiring speaker, the head of the DNC, he also says, It's time to fight.
And then he says the word damn.
Because if you curse, that means that you're really, really passionate.
Now look, folks, I'm sick and tired of this Democratic Party bringing a pencil to a knife fight.
We can't be the only party that plays by the rules anymore.
We have to stand up and fight.
We're not going to have a hand tied behind our back anymore.
Let's grow a damn spot and get into this fight, Democrats.
Hmm.
Hmm.
He said damn, but don't worry.
That was actually just the beginning.
Then Tim Walls came forward, you know, the governor of Minnesota who was the most horrifying vice presidential candidate I've ever seen.
And Tim Walls then proceeded to say the S word, not just damn, the S word, which means he's super, duper, duper passionate.
The privilege of my lifetime was stand beside someone we know was the most qualified and would have been a fantastic president in a president Harris.
And look.
We wouldn't wake up every day to a bunch of on TV and a bunch of nonsense.
We would wake up to an adult with compassion and dignity and vision and leadership doing the work, not a man child crying about whatever's wrong with him.
Yeah, it went great for them last time with this message.
Probably they need to do more of this, but don't worry.
They have another over white white man who they are going to trot out there to rip President Trump.
That would be Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who must be lowered into the state capital by Crane.
And he was also riping President Trump over the possibility of a National Guard deployment to Chicago.
What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted.
It is illegal.
It is unconstitutional.
It is unamerican.
This is not about fighting crime.
This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue state, to try and intimidate his political rivals.
This is about the President of the United States and his complicit lackey, Stephen Miller, searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our city.
cities and end elections.
Resistance, yeah, end elections.
God, they just can't, they can't stop themselves.
Meanwhile, the least popular mayor in America, Brandon Johnson, Chicago, he says that while he's protesting the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, he says, we have to stop sending people to jail.
Dude, it's because you want to stop sending criminals to jail that anyone is even talking about crime in your city.
Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a publicity stunt to invoke chaos and terror, the federal government should spend that money on proven solutions to crime and violence reduction.
We cannot incarcerate our way out of violence.
We've already tried that and we've ended up with the largest prison population in the world without solving the problems of crime and violence.
The addiction on jails and incarceration in this country, we have moved past that.
It is racist.
It is immoral.
It is unholy.
And it is not the way to drive violence down.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Good luck, Democrats.
I can't imagine why you keep losing.
Why?
Well, maybe because Barbara Lee, who is another person considered for Joe Biden's vice president before he picked the unbelievably charismatic and so brat Kamala.
Harris, Barbara Lee is the mayor of Oakland.
And here she is saying that the police in Oakland won't actually work with ICE.
This is the DNC meeting.
Now, Donald Trump, you know, he trashed Oakland.
He lied about us.
But Oakland is not afraid.
We embrace all residents, including our immigrant communities.
Our police do not cooperate with ICE.
We don't.
Good luck to you, Democrats.
My goodness.
And they've got like a target rich environment.
And the best they can come up with is that they are going to not cooperate with ICE, allow crime to spiral in their cities and say damn and at the DNC with land acknowledgements.
My goodness, they are truly terrible at this.
Truly, truly terrible at this.
Well, in cultural news, I just wanted to point out there's an update on the great story of our time, Cracker Barrel.
So Cracker Barrel has now admitted they could have done a better job with their logo redesign.
They said Uncle Herschel will still be on the menu.
That's of course the white dude leaning on the barrel.
Apparently the origin of Cracker Barrel for those of us who have never been to it, like I keep kosher, I've never been to a Cracker Barrel.
Apparently the origin of.
the Cracker Barrel logo is that when you would go to sort of an old country store, there would be a barrel outside filled with chips, like filled with crackers to keep them dry so they didn't rot and mold inside.
And there would be some old dude lying on it.
And that was basically the Cracker Barrel thing.
And then they redid the inside of Cracker Barrel as well to make it, I don't know, less kitschy or something.
And it all was a giant fail.
So now they have acknowledged that this was in fact a failure.
It's going to go over like New Coke.
And so there are a bunch of people who are, you know, basically not going to Cracker Barrel now.
But I will assume that they are changing course.
Apparently, according to the company, they've issued a statement, quote, If the last few days have shown us anything, it's how deeply people care about Cracker Barrel.
We're truly grateful for your heartfelt voices.
You've also shown us we could have done a better job sharing who we are and what we'll always be.
What has not changed and what will never change are the values this company was built on when Cracker Barrel first opened in 1969.
Hard work, family, scratch cooked food made with care, a place where everyone feels at home, no matter where you're from or where you're headed.
That's the Cracker Barrel you'll always find.
The things that people love most about our stores are not going anywhere.
Rocking chairs on the veranda, a warm fire in the hearth, pegg games on the table, unique treasures in our gift shop and vintage Americana with antiques pulled straight from our warehouse in Lebanon, Tennessee.
We love seeing how much you care about our old timer.
We love him too.
Uncle Herschel will still be on our menu.
Welcome back.
Uncle Herschel's favorite breakfast platter on our road signs and presented in our country store.
He's not going anywhere.
He's family.
So, you know, we'll see if they if they actually just go back to the original logo, probably they will probably they'll have they'll say it was an experiment.
It didn't work and they'll go back to their original logo, I would imagine because it's so generic.
What a terrible marketing move.
▲
Export Selection