Ep. 1450 - My Trip To Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Event
The Trump-endorsed candidate wins the Ohio Senate primary, more than 60% of U.S. abortions are now performed by pill, and I go to Mar-a-Lago.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1450
- - -
DailyWire+:
Take advantage of Jeremy’s March of Man-ness deals now! : https://bit.ly/3TqGI8N
Watch Bill Whittle’s An Empire of Terror only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/49JCJdl
Get your own Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Lux Blox - Get 25% off your order with promo code MICHAEL25 at http://www.LuxBlox.com
Pepperdine University - Apply now for guaranteed scholarship http://www.pepperdine.edu/knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Bernie Moreno, the Trump-endorsed candidate in last night's Ohio Senate primary, has defeated his two more establishment-friendly foes.
And despite a brutal campaign fight, the results were not even all that close.
Moreno bested his opponent, State Senator Matt Dolan and Secretary of State Frank LaRose with over 50% of the vote.
Moreno credited much of his victory to Trump's last minute rallying for him.
Which is just another reminder that Trump owns the GOP.
Coincidentally, I'm coming to you now not from Mar-a-Lago, but I was at Mar-a-Lago last night.
Now I'm staying at the much cheaper hotel near Mar-a-Lago.
I saw it up close and you don't need to see it up close.
You can just see it from the results in these elections.
Trump owns the GOP.
Trump did not just win the 2024 presidential nomination because of high name recognition.
He didn't just win his presidential nomination because he had a major head start over the other Republican candidates.
He started campaigning earlier than the other governors say.
Trump won because he controls the GOP.
His candidates win their primaries.
His issues occupy the minds of Republican voters.
It's not just that he's brash.
It's not just that he's funny.
He's the undisputed leader of the party.
And everyone other than the Republican Party elites seems to know it.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Really distressing report coming out of the Guttmacher Institute, which is the think tank wing of Planned Parenthood, basically, which shows that 60% of abortions these days are carried out by the abortion pill, and the pro-abortion movement is making it easier and easier to access that pill.
We'll get into what that means, because it has political implications even beyond the issue of abortion.
First, though, go to luxblocks.com, use promo code MICHAEL25.
Easter's just around the corner.
I'm sure you're going to put a lot of candy and stuff in your kid's Easter basket.
You know what else you should put in?
Luxblocks.
The other day, my little boys were feeling a little sick.
They were under the weather, and I said, OK, I'm going to give them a present that I'd been holding off on for a little while.
And it was...
Some new cylinders of cool Luxblocks, including their very cool American flag design, and the boys absolutely loved it.
They loved throwing the blocks at my head, but they also loved building the American flag.
It's just very, very cool.
It's not just Luxblocks' innovative design.
It's the story of its creators, Heather and Mike.
They wanted to create something that positively empowers kids to think, create, and dream big, so they invested their savings into this venture and their vision for a better future.
Whether you're looking for a gift for a child who loves to build, Or just a unique addition to your family game night.
That's the other thing.
I love these things.
I kind of get jealous if my boys want to play with them because I want to build them.
Luxblocks is the perfect choice.
Check them out at Luxblocks.com.
That is L-U-X-B-L-O-X dot com.
Promo code Michael25 for 25% off.
Luxblocks.com.
Promo code Michael25 for 25% off.
What were the Ohio Republican primary voters voting on?
According to CBS News, the top issue in Ohio was... Can you guess?
I probably would have guessed this, or it would have at least been in my top two.
It's immigration.
It's not the economy, it's not the war breaking out, it's immigration.
It's that open border, and it's all of the myriad political effects that come about as a result of a broken border and a system of mass migration, which we've had even legally in our country for 60 years.
A plurality of voters, 45%, say that immigration was their number one concern, then The economy only came in at 29%.
So there's that old line from James Carville, the famous Democrat campaign consultant, who said, it's the economy, stupid.
People vote with their wallets.
It's always about the economy.
I just don't think that's really true at this moment.
I don't think it's been true for quite a number of years now.
If that were true, then a lot of Tea Party candidates would have done a lot better because they were just focusing on economic issues at a time when the economy was terrible because of Barack Obama, the misery index was very high, and it didn't really matter.
Obama got re-elected, a lot of his allies got re-elected, and this poll seems to reflect that.
45% immigration, 29% say the economy, 13% said abortion, which is frankly probably good news for Republicans.
I vote on abortion.
It's not the only issue I vote on, but it's a big one.
I'm pro-life.
I'm going to be much more inclined to vote for the pro-life candidate.
There aren't all that many people who vote largely or primarily on pro-life, on the abortion issue, on the right.
There are, it seems to me, a lot of people, or at least as many people as there are pro-lifers, who are pro-abortion, who go out to the women's march and they wear the dumb pink hat and they scream about how important it is to kill babies.
If that number is very high, we're going to lose.
The Democrats keep saying that abortion is a major issue motivating Democrat voters.
And that's why, in the wake of the overruling of Roe v. Wade, Republicans are going to get shellacked unless they run away from the abortion issue and endorse infanticide and stop protecting babies, because Democrats vote on abortion.
And it's just not true.
A little bit they do.
A little bit they do.
What's the number?
13%?
Okay.
Nowhere near the degree to which people vote on the economy, and that itself is nowhere near the degree to which people vote on immigration.
And the Democrats are cartoonishly awful on immigration.
They call on illegal aliens to surge to the border.
They insist on giving illegal aliens not only the same rights as Americans, but even further privileges.
They're going to put them up in really nice hotel rooms in New York that you can't afford.
They insist on flying these people all around the country to politically convenient areas.
Crime goes up, drugs go up, you have a major mass, I can't even call it a mass drug problem, it's a mass poisoning problem through the fentanyl epidemic, all of which is coming across the southern border, all of which that's leading to all these awful overdoses.
They do nothing.
And the moment you object, they call you a racist.
And still, the Democrats win.
So I don't want to hear it.
I really don't want to hear it about abortion.
Oh, you Republicans, you've just got to stop protecting life.
Yeah, I don't know.
All the data show that it's not a major issue driving voters.
And even if it were, by the way, the biggest issue is immigration.
And you guys still keep winning some issues there.
So maybe what's going on in these races is a little bit more complex.
In any case, 73% of respondents in Ohio said that illegal aliens who have crossed Biden's wide-open border should be deported.
23% said they should be offered a chance for legal status.
So that's a scary number, too.
Almost three quarters say, yeah, deport these people who are unvetted, many of whom now aren't even coming from Latin America.
They fly in from places like the Middle East.
They fly in from places like China.
Then they walk across that border totally unvetted.
A number of them are committing murders and even larger violent attacks.
So three quarters saying, get them out of here.
But then you've got 23% of Republican primary voters saying they should be offered a chance for legal status, which is a reminder.
That if you are listening to this show, if you tune in to all the latest political news, you watch all of the speeches from the candidates, maybe you show up to some political events, you are so much more tuned in to American politics, not just than your average Joe blow on the street, but even compared to primary voters.
People who are actually going to go, register, show up, put it on your calendar, maybe research the candidates.
You are so much more informed on these issues, because the, well, they should maybe have a path to citizenship vote, is just the vote of, well, I'm kind of a nice person, I know illegal immigration is bad, but you know, come on, what's the big deal?
It's the gut reaction of people who have not reflected on politics.
It's the gut reaction of people who don't think about how second and third order effects work, how incentives work.
That if you give illegal aliens mass amnesty, then you're going to get a lot more illegal immigration.
The people who say, well, we got to stop this illegal immigration, but we don't want to be mean to the people who are here.
Yeah, no one wants to be mean to anybody, but You can't incentivize the very behavior that you're attempting to disincentivize.
Ronald Reagan tried that in the 80s, it didn't work.
He gave a mass amnesty, the Democrats didn't close the border, and now we have many, many multiples, probably over an order of magnitude more illegal immigration than we had all those years ago.
That's a quarter of the Republican primary vote.
So, we can't afford to get locked in our own bubble.
Yes, it's true.
If people paid attention to politics as closely as you do, and they were thinking totally logically about politics, they would say, oh my goodness, amnesty, that's crazy.
But they don't.
And so, Republican candidates, particularly as we move toward the general election, are going to have to keep that in mind and adjust the way that they're speaking.
There's that old line, as goes Ohio, so goes the nation.
The good news when it comes to the primary, I suppose.
But it's really only going to matter when we get to the general election.
That's it, because the winners go to Washington and the losers go home, to quote Cocaine Mitch.
Speaking of common sense issues, really sad case coming out of the Supreme Court.
Or not coming out of the Supreme Court, I guess.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of an Indiana couple whose son was taken from them because they refuse to believe a man can be a woman.
So, Indiana Child Services took Jeremy and Mary Cox's son from them at the age of 16 because they refused to lie.
They refused to lie to their kid, they refused to subject their kid to harmful medical experiments, they told their kid the truth, and the truth will set you free, and that's why the libs can't have that.
I discussed this case At Mar-a-Lago last night, in the context of parental rights, which are obviously very much under attack, what is the court doing here?
The court's not ruling and saying, yeah, it's good, get all of the kids out of their parents' homes so they can be indoctrinated in weird sex stuff.
The court just doesn't want to hear it.
Oopsie-daisy, Indiana Child Services took the kid away.
Because the parents think that men and women are different and one cannot become the other.
Ah well.
Sorry, we're a little busy.
We have a tea time.
This court decision, or non-decision, Seems to be quite contrary to a major Supreme Court decision that was almost 100 years ago, 99 years ago, which declared that, quote, the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in the Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.
Now, the court goes on and says, the child is not the mere creature of the state.
Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to educate him.
So that comes from a case called Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925.
It was a case that pertained to an Oregon law forcing kids into public education.
I'm not saying that these two cases are identical, but they pertain to the exact same thing.
Because education is not just reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Education means the raising of a child, the upbringing of a child.
It's everything.
You start being educated the moment that you become even somewhat conscious.
Probably even before you're conscious.
Human beings are memetic and, you know, little kids are like sponges.
They pick up all the behaviors and all the attitudes of the people and the things around them.
So, a hundred years ago, in Oregon, they had a law that said you got to send your kid to public education.
The court said, no, the state doesn't have a right to do that because the child is part of the family before the child is part of the state.
The family unit owing to subsidiarity and many other principles that we hold dear.
The child is part of the family first.
The parents have rights that the state cannot take away, because the child is not merely a creature of the state.
The communists might say the child is a creature of the state first, but the first political society he's a member of is the family, and that's why the parents have those rights.
And what's so absurd is today, we're not discussing some right of parents that was controversial for most of human history, I guess.
I guess now it is controversial.
We're asking, do parents have a right to tell their kids that men can't become women?
Do parents still have that right?
Supreme Court implicitly says, no.
Which then leads to the next question.
Do parents have any rights at all anymore?
We did for a lot of American history, and the court spelled it out in really clear, downright philosophical terms.
Legal terms, but downright philosophical terms.
Now, if a parent doesn't have the right to tell his kid a man can't become a woman, does a parent have any right at all?
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to Pepperdine.edu slash Knowles.
If you are passionate about pursuing a political career and want to take the next step, apply to the Pepperdine School of Public Policy.
Pepperdine School of Public Policy stands out among the 200-plus graduate policy programs in the country as one of the few that is based out of a Christian university.
This program equips leaders to apply America's timeless principles to today's policy issues.
The unique curriculum balances a rigorous study of history and philosophy with the latest tools of economics and research analytics.
By joining Pepperdine School of Public Policy, you'll become part of a powerful alumni network These alumni are making a difference around the country and the world, serving in diverse positions such as Capitol Hill staff, diplomats, think tank analysts, and charter school founders.
This is a testament to the program's effectiveness in preparing students for great political careers.
Pepperdine School of Public Policy sits at the top of Malibu, California.
In probably the most beautiful part of the continental United States, certainly in the top five.
Campus is nestled in the rolling foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains and overlooks scenic beaches along the Pacific Ocean.
For our listeners only, the School of Public Policy is offering a guaranteed $2,000 scholarship on top of normal scholarship offerings.
When you go to Pepperdine.edu slash Knowles, Pepperdine.edu slash Knowles to request more information and start your application.
The event that I was at last night where we discussed parental rights and a number of other rights was for a group called Catholics for Catholics, which I love that name.
It's a great blunt political name.
This is a political organization to advance a Catholic political vision, specifically in 2024.
Obviously, everyone in that room last night is supportive of Trump.
Now this is kind of weird, isn't it?
It's kind of weird because Joe Biden is ostensibly Catholic and our second Catholic president.
But in practice, Donald Trump advances a much more Catholic political vision than Joe Biden does.
Why is that?
It's kind of weird.
And why are Catholics all that involved in politics at all?
Well, there's a strange fact that's cropped up nowadays in American politics, which is it seems a president can't win the election without the Catholic vote.
The Catholic vote is notoriously not exactly monolithic, but it does sway here and there, and it seems to be decisive in presidential elections.
As goes Ohio, so goes the nation.
We used to say, now maybe we would say, as goes the Catholic vote, so goes the nation.
Why is that?
You'll notice, I've noticed this, especially traveling all around the country, a lot of young people who are kind of interested in that more traditional faith.
Why is that?
Why is that?
I think it's because, putting all theological and doctrinal points aside for a moment, just looking at the social and political phenomenon, why do Catholics seem to have a bigger voice right now?
I think it's because we are living in an age that's really wishy-washy and relativistic and subjectivist, where everything is becoming unmoored, where the most basic settled questions of society are now up for debate, apparently, where the settled rights that we've all enjoyed for so long
Apparently seem to be up to debate based on the sheer tyranny of will of the leftists and the lack of confidence and the lack of courage and the inability to articulate strong moral arguments on the right.
I think in that world people are going to be attracted to something that has some inertia, that has some weight, that has some historical permanence.
So I think that's why people are attracted to that.
Donald Trump articulates that view because he's just kind of old-fashioned, you know?
When Donald Trump comes out in 2016 and he says, look, what's my vision?
I want to make America great again.
And I'm running for president because I want good neighborhoods.
And I want the people who are weakening America, I want them to be weaker.
And I want the good people and the workers and the families, I want them to be stronger.
And I want to make America great again.
And all the smart set, all the Beltway people made fun of him.
This dumb idiot, he doesn't even understand that presidents aren't supposed to make neighborhoods better.
This dummy, this crazy nostalgic man, he wants to make America great again.
Why do you want to go make America great again when you could have it be weak and weird and creepy and falling like it is right now?
And they all kind of mocked him.
But that simplicity actually reveals some profound truths.
We know that The civil law derives from the natural law, which is man's participation in the eternal law, and we know the basic precept of the natural law is do good and avoid evil.
So all of a sudden, Donald Trump, who doesn't have three PhDs and hasn't worked in politics his whole life, when he comes out and he says, yeah, I want more good stuff and less bad stuff, which is basically what his politics comes down to, that actually reveals a profound political truth.
So, then, when you get to the practical aspects of the policy, you know, the bishops will sometimes say there are non-negotiable issues.
The right to life is a non-negotiable issue.
Pope Benedict XVI famously said that on a question such as the death penalty, there can be reasonable disagreement among Catholics.
The Catholic tradition obviously is pretty much totally in favor and defends the death penalty, but some people argue that now, because of the development of modern technology, we actually don't need in practice to implement it.
Okay, Pope Benedict says reasonable people can disagree.
On an issue like, can you kill babies?
Is it right to murder innocent little babies?
That's a non-negotiable.
Reasonable people can't disagree over that.
Look at that issue.
Trump, pro-life, most pro-life president of my lifetime.
Joe Biden, apparently fanatically in favor of killing babies.
So, I think that's in part why you're seeing the Catholic vote shift a little bit.
The second one, though, why Catholics are having this larger voice now in politics, it goes back to the greatest observer of American politics, probably in history.
That would be Alexei de Tocqueville, who wrote one of the most famous works on American politics, Democracy in America.
And everybody across the political spectrum quotes Alexei de Tocqueville, but they leave out an important observation he made, which is, he said, America, it's really religious.
It's one of our most charming qualities, actually.
Now, you know some of my ancestors who were some of the earliest people in the country and the Mayflower, they were fanatically Protestant, you know, very zealous Protestants.
The Pilgrims actually weren't exactly Puritans, they were Separatists and there's a whole, there's a whole long, long history to discuss there.
But then you had Massachusetts Bay Colony, you had a lot of Puritans in New England, you had all sorts of Protestant Church and political movements crop up around America.
So we say America is a Protestant country.
And in a certain sense that's true.
But you got to remember it was the Catholic Church that existed unchallenged in the West for over 1500 years.
So the wiring tends to have a Catholic aspect to it.
The very fact that natural law is so important in the way that we view our politics seems to come from some natural wiring.
The fact that we have this system of government with an executive and a legislature and a judiciary that balance each other out, that represent a kind of monarchical element plus an aristocratic element plus a democratic element.
That comes basically right off the pages of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Whether the framers of the Constitution read him directly or read him mediated through other philosophers.
It's kind of there.
And so anyway, all of that is prefaced to say, Alexei de Tocqueville, observing as a Frenchman, as a foreigner, just traveling around America, he said, okay, America's really religious, but the religion is going to change over time.
And America is either going to become more Catholic, or it's going to become more atheist.
It's either going to move in those two directions, though.
It's going to become Catholic or it's going to give up religion altogether.
So when you see this sort of stuff happening, it really shouldn't be all that surprising.
If you just read the surface level of the history, it might be kind of surprising.
What are these mackerel-snapping papists doing in Mar-a-Lago advocating for another Trump presidency?
But below the surface, I think that's probably been waiting there, certainly since at least Alexei de Tocqueville was writing, probably a little bit longer.
MSNBC is not so happy with all the people complimenting Trump.
They're not so happy with his positive poll numbers.
They're not so happy that he's looking stronger than Biden in all the swing states.
They don't like that.
So they've got to convince people that Donald Trump poses an historic threat to the country.
And it's not going to be enough to have their usual talking heads.
No.
They need to give their fanatical opposition to Trump some patina of scholarly, academic, historical legitimacy.
So they invite on one of the two or three liberal court historians.
He's a pop historian who goes on all the liberal channels.
Michael Beschloss.
And here is Michael Beschloss' take on the dangers of Trump.
I want to ask you about Donald Trump increasingly sounding like a fascist, a dictator, mimicking them and using words that are clearly out of the pages of some of the most powerful autocrats or dictators.
Absolutely.
That's how fascism and totalitarianism and, in Germany's case, the Holocaust came to Germany, which had been a country where there were big institutions of democracy until, as you well know, the early 1930s, when he tells you he'll be a dictator for a day.
We all know that dictators don't resign after a day.
When he uses the word bloodbath.
Yes, it was in the context of an automobile industry speech, but he knew exactly what he was saying.
We have never seen anything remotely like this in American history.
A major party candidate is saying, you elect me, there's going to be dictatorship, bloodbath, violence, retribution against my political enemies.
That equals what we saw in Italy and Germany and other places.
I'm bringing on Michael Beschloss now, the historian, very super-serious academic historian.
Mr. Beschloss, Trump is evil, super-duper Hitler.
It seems very much, much fascism.
What's your take?
Well, yes, Mika, thank you for having me.
Very, very Hitler.
Very, very.
Super-duper fascist Hitler.
He will do many war crimes.
He is very, very Holocaust, is Trump.
Hitler.
He is Hitler.
Thank you.
Do you have any other questions?
Yes!
Could you say Hitler again?
Hitler.
He's Hitler.
Yes.
Wow!
Boy, that historian, he really just presented a new idea.
I'm seeing Trump in a totally new light.
Thank you so much for shedding light.
On the Trump presidency, by pointing to one of the two historical events that most people have ever heard of, those two being the Second World War and the fall of Rome, neither of which compare to Trump.
If either of those two historical events, which tend to be the only historical events that anyone's ever even heard of, if either of them apply to Trump, I would imagine it's probably more the fall of Rome.
The fall of the Roman Republic, when Donald Trump crosses the Rubicon and establishes the Empire.
But I don't think he's going to do that, actually.
And I don't think he's Hitler, and I don't think he's Mussolini, and don't... The irony, too, when this guy Beschloss says, we've never seen anything like this, an autocrat, a dictator in America.
I think we have.
His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
He was actually the dictator.
And he, unlike Donald Trump who served one term and then the Democrats rigged the election and changed all the voting rules and he lost and he just left power and then they tried to destroy him and take all his property and imprison him and then he ran for election again and we'll see if he gets it.
FDR just stayed in office for four terms until he died and would craft policy totally out of keeping with the constitutional tradition on a whim.
As a dictator, like, he would just say things and they would happen, and then when the courts would try to stop him, he'd threaten to destroy the Supreme Court and they'd finally just kind of go along with him.
We had a dictator.
The dictator was from Mika Brzezinski's and Michael Beschloss's political party.
That same dictator interned Japanese-Americans.
You remember that?
It's actually kind of a complex historical circumstance because the Japanese admitted that they had spies in America and this was Reported many decades later in the mainstream press, and it came as a result of declassified CIA files.
So, I'm not even totally knocking Franklin Roosevelt for prosecuting a war when he was president.
But nevertheless, every single thing, every single thing that they are accusing Trump of, not only has some precedent, but was done by not only a president of their own party, but one of their very favorite presidents ever.
That all happened.
But you see Trump, super-duper Hitler, is what he is.
And I don't think that's going to play.
I'm not saying that never works.
Usually accusations of racism are extremely effective.
Usually accusations of a threat to democracy and being outside the pale of mainstream political discourse, usually that is effective and it works to cancel people.
They didn't cancel Trump, and then he became president, and we all saw that he didn't do a super duper Hitler, and then he...
Lost, after they changed all the rules, and we saw that he didn't cling to power and shred the Constitution and refuse to leave office.
He just kind of left.
And then they tried to destroy him and he ran for president again.
So, I just don't think that persuades anyone.
Not because their accusations of racism and thisism and thatism don't carry weight.
They do.
It's just, with Trump, we're already past that.
We're already past that.
They're going to need to get some better arguments from the fancy tie historians on MSNBC.
Speaking of President Trump and the ways they're trying to destroy him, there is a decision, a civil decision, in New York to take away a lot of Trump's money.
That was for 300 million some odd dollars.
It's now up to 464 million dollars in this civil business fraud judgment because they keep adding interest to it.
And the lawyers representing President Trump obviously are observing that he can't just come up with half a billion dollars.
Nobody can.
Elon Musk couldn't come up with half a billion dollars overnight.
Richest man in the world couldn't do it.
It's just not possible.
So to secure this bond, They're trying, they're going to all these different places, but they're just coming up short.
It's just not possible, which is exactly what New York wants.
New York wants Trump not to be able to come up with this absurd figure based on a ridiculous ruling saying that Trump misstated the value of his properties.
Let me tell you, they tried to argue that Mar-a-Lago is worth $17 million.
I've had the privilege to visit Mar-a-Lago twice now.
It is an amazing property.
It is absolutely beautiful.
It is one of, if not the most beautiful single piece of property I've ever been on in the United States.
Certainly in the continental United States.
Maybe Hawaii's got a couple legs up.
It is water-to-water property in some of the most valuable real estate in the United States, in Palm Beach.
The buildings are beautiful.
The art is beautiful.
The property alone is worth many, many multiples, probably an order of magnitude and then some multiples, of what New York was arguing it's worth.
And that doesn't factor in the business, which every year makes $25 million, which is significantly more than they're saying the whole thing is worth.
Completely absurd.
They want to accuse Trump of getting a little creative with the numbers of his property.
He never got anywhere near as ambitious as these guys are.
But what's this about?
This is about them wanting to take a piece of that property.
That's why they're going after it.
Letitia James said that.
Letitia James came out, he said, if he does not... Letitia James is the Attorney General in New York who ran on, I'm going to destroy Trump, and who has spent every waking moment in office on this jihad to destroy the man.
She says, if he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets.
We are prepared to make Sure, that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers.
And yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day.
40 Wall Street is one of Trump's buildings downtown.
I used to live right near it.
Beautiful building.
And she's saying, let's go.
So I'm going to go into court and I'm just going to, I don't know, throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall.
And I know that we got a bunch of liberal judges, so they hate Trump too, and they'll do whatever to destroy him.
And then we're going to come up with some ridiculous figure that no one on earth can possibly pay.
And then, you know what we're going to do?
Take his nice building that I like.
Yeah, that's right.
Give me that building.
All of the arguments that Letitia James is presenting in court, pretty much all the arguments around the country in the four prosecutions that are being presented against President Trump, are just flimsy facades over raw political interest.
That's what it is.
I'm not saying that there is no basis whatsoever for any of these prosecutions.
In the case of the documents, yeah, Trump had classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
He had classified documents that were in a place that I guess they shouldn't have been.
That's been true for most recent presidents.
It's true for the current president, who improperly stored those documents when he was not president, actually, and when he did not have ultimate declassification authority, so his version of the crime was much, much worse than anything you could accuse Trump of.
I don't even think you could call what they're accusing Trump of in the documents case even to be a crime.
And they let Biden off the hook.
And they try to destroy Trump.
That's what I'm talking about.
Sure, I get it.
In principle, it's true, one should not mishandle classified documents.
And in principle, I actually in principle don't think a president can mishandle classified documents.
But as a matter of political prudence and tradition, I suppose the president should work with this or that organization, the National Archives, to deal with them.
Oh yeah, okay, I guess I could go along with that in principle.
But that's not what this is about.
This is about selectively prosecuting one guy for a crime that you've really never gone after anyone for, in a circumstance where you probably don't have any right to prosecute it to begin with.
Did Trump inaccurately state the value of some of his properties?
I don't know.
They're saying he Undervalued them?
Did he undervalue them nearly as much as they did in New York?
I don't think so.
But even so, this is what we go after presidents for?
This is what we go after the leader of political opposition for?
No.
Like, maybe in principle you could say, well, you know, you actually, sorry Buster, you had a comma on form 372BZ5, and that was really supposed to be a semicolon.
Lock him up!
700 years in the can!
The most popular presidential can in America.
The people just can't vote for him.
Whoopsie daisy.
No, you didn't file your TPS report on time.
Off with his head.
That's what this is really about.
Very flimsy arguments, when they are arguments at all, to mask raw political interest.
And this is pretty ancient.
There were a number of really interesting people at this event last night.
General Mike Flynn was there.
Roger Stone was there.
It was a lot of fun.
Tim Ballard, Jim Caviezel.
So anyway, we're chatting with all these people.
But because General Flynn was there, there were a lot of people who had some national security expertise.
We ended up talking about Mexico.
We ended up just talking about how politics works in Mexico.
And one fellow I was talking to said, well, you know, in Mexico, it used to be the case that after you left office, you would leave the country.
I said, why is that the case?
Well, because your political opponents who took office would prosecute you.
So you just leave the country.
This is true in a lot of places in Latin America.
It's been true throughout history.
What they're doing to Trump right now, we say it's unprecedented.
It is in American history.
But in history history, it's quite precedented.
This is how a less civilized form of politics used to work, which is when you got beat, you would be exiled.
You would have your property taken from you.
You might be killed.
And I don't think we ought to return to that.
I thought we had a kind of a nice system here where we don't throw our opponents into prison.
Even Trump, you know, he had that line at the campaign rally, lock her up, lock her away, you'd be in jail if I got elected.
No one really believed it, though.
Least of all Trump.
He never lifted a finger to prosecute her, nor should he have.
She deserved to be prosecuted, but it's just bad for the American political order to throw Hillary Clinton, even Hillary Clinton, into prison.
Now we're there.
And so they'll take his property.
They'll try to throw him in the can.
They might try to kill him.
That's a return to a less civilized age.
Jeremy's Razors.
It's very civilized.
And it's doing the unthinkable.
This is a sale you cannot miss out on.
Jeremy's Razors is lowering all prices for every razor.
You want a trial set?
Lower price.
You want the starter set that comes with more cartridges?
Lower price.
Smooth 6?
Precision 5?
You guessed it, baby!
Lower price.
Take advantage of Jeremy's march of man-ness now.
You get it?
Not madness, it's man-ness.
Go to jeremysrazors.com.
Get your razor at a discount today.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Enkidu's Purpose.
Smokey Mike, you should hire Christine Gnome to promote Mayflower cigars.
That's a great idea.
What's she doing dentistry commercials for?
Why is she promoting insoles for shoes when she could be plugging Mayflower cigars.
We did all have... We'll tell some tales out of school.
Some of us who were at the event last night did end the evening with a delicious Mayflower cigar.
I realize I should have gotten pictures.
It actually would have been good to promote this, you know, get all these kind of cool political and film stars all have... but they all... I'm not... I am not making this up.
You can ask the speakers who had the cigar.
They told me.
It was magnificent.
They loved it.
They said things about it.
Some of them said it was like the greatest cigar they'd ever had.
Anyway, I think we still have some stock.
Not positive, because not only did we over-order, but we kind of secretly ordered more even than it seems that we had.
Most of it sold out, and I think some of the samplers and things are sold out, but there are still some to get at MayflowerCigars.com.
You must be 21 years old or older to order.
Some exclusions apply.
Speaking of dubious legal arguments, Washington State is ditching the bar exam requirement to practice law.
You know, usually if you're a lawyer, usually you would go to law, you'd take the LSAT, and based on your LSAT score you'd get into law school, then you'd take your law school exams and papers and things, and then really all of that was just the appetizer.
That's the amuse-bouche.
The one thing that matters for practicing law is passing the bar exam.
But this is a problem, and the problem is Diversity, equity, and inclusion.
According to Washington State, there is insufficient equity brought about by the bar exam.
And so, in a pair of orders on Friday, the Supreme Court of Washington approved, quote, alternative pathways to lawyer licensure in this press release.
Okay.
What does this mean?
It means that the white people are doing pretty well on the bar exam and the black people are doing worse.
Pretty much is what it means, and I'm sure there are different racial breakdowns.
Just judging by other standardized tests, probably the Asians are doing better than the whites, and the Hispanics are doing a little bit, they're somewhere kind of in the middle.
But in any case, it's true.
Different groups have different outcomes and different things.
That's true.
That's true.
So if you begin looking at the issue, With the conclusion, we need more lawyers of XYZ race, then you're going to come to the conclusion that, oh wow, this bar exam is not serving the purpose.
The purpose of the bar exam is to get us the exact racial breakdown of lawyers that I want, and the bar exam is not doing that, so we got to get rid of the bar exam.
Or at least the requirement to take the bar exam.
But is that really the purpose?
Is that the purpose of the bar exam?
Is that the purpose of law school and the legal profession?
Is the purpose of the legal profession to make certain racial groups feel good about themselves?
Or even to generate income for certain racial groups?
Is the purpose of the legal profession to have more lawyers?
Or, is the purpose of the legal profession to serve clients?
To give people the opportunity to defend themselves in court?
To give the state the opportunity to prosecute criminals?
To exact justice?
What's the point here?
Seems to me we're putting the cart before the horse.
And we do this in so many other places in life.
When I flew out to Florida yesterday, I had a female pilot, and some of my producers, including Professor Jacob over there, were making some jokes about this because of the DEI policies.
They said, uh-oh, get off the plane!
Get off!
Run!
This thing, man!
You ain't gonna make it to Palm Beach!
And the flight was just fine, and the female pilot was great.
But, even though it was a little bit delayed, actually, and we almost missed our connection.
Anyway, anyway, as I'm getting too in the weeds here.
That particular pilot was great.
But why did Professor Jacob have that reaction?
Is it just because he's a malignant, vicious sexist?
I'm sure that's part of it.
I'm sure that's part of it.
But the main reason is because the liberals tell us we now are implementing a policy according to which less qualified people are going to get these jobs.
And the reason we know they're less qualified is because the companies are saying, we are going to hire not based on merit.
We are going to prioritize something, be it race or sex or sexual behaviors or I don't know, whatever, the cut of your jib, over merit.
But the moment that you prioritize something over merit in a profession, That is supposed to serve me, the customer.
Well, I get a little bit worried, especially when that profession is keeping me in a tin can in the air at 30,000 feet long enough so that I can make it to whatever city I'm going to.
And the same principle holds in the legal profession.
If you are a client in Washington State, as a result of this ruling, you are going to be less likely to hire a black lawyer.
You just are.
Clarence Thomas wrote about this.
Many years ago.
And he wrote about this because Clarence Thomas, one of the great jurists and legal minds in our country, one of the great public figures actually, a graduate of Yale Law School, the best law school in the country, but he had trouble getting a job after law school.
And he writes about this in his memoir.
He says, the reason I had a tough time getting a job is not because I didn't have good grades, it's not because I didn't go to a good law school, it's because I am black, and people assumed I was just an affirmative action case.
And that's actually a decently rational conclusion to come to.
If you have a policy that says, hey, we're going to give unqualified black people access to this institution.
If you have a policy that says we're going to give qualified black people access to this institution, then that's great.
No one would have batted an eyelash about hiring Clarence Thomas.
If the policy at the airlines was, we're not going to prohibit female pilots, we're going to hire the best person for the job, maybe it's a female, then Professor Jacob wouldn't have made his vile, misogynistic comment to me on the airplane.
But that's not the way it is.
So just the practical conclusion of this is, if you've got your life on the line, whether we're talking literally on an airplane or we're talking legally, someone could throw you in prison for the rest of your life, You're going to be more likely in Washington now to hire a straight white male.
Or an Asian guy or something.
Whatever group historically does best on the bar exam, you're going to hire that group.
Because you're going to assume that everyone else is just there as an affirmative action case.
As a D-E-I hire.
Speaking of what things are for, Really troubling study out of the Guttmacher Institute.
More than 60% of U.S.
abortions in 2023 are done by the abortion pill.
We already knew this as of last year.
We knew that most abortions, it seemed, were done through a pill rather than through surgery.
I thought the number was about 51 to 53 percent.
It's 60 percent.
And the Guttmacher Institute, even though they are affiliated with just about the most evil organization in America, they actually have pretty reliable numbers.
60%!
This follows a dramatic decline in surgical abortion access after Roe v. Wade was overruled, where states then finally got to pass their own laws, and a lot of them restricted abortion, so now it's about the abortion pill.
This to me, put abortion aside for a second, this to me is similar to, in the 90s and 2000s, the proliferation of internet porn.
In the sense that, before the 90s and 2000s, if some guy wanted to look at pervy images or videos, he would have to go to that seedy block in New York City, you know, right around Times Square, 8th Avenue.
He'd have to go into some really gross little movie theater or something in Times Square.
He would have to, if he wanted to get his jollies off in a really immoral way, he would have to maybe go to a bar and pick up a woman and cheat on his wife.
Or he'd have to go drive down the street and pick up a hooker or something like that.
But he'd have to do something that involved public shame.
Then, the internet comes around, and internet porn proliferates, and the Supreme Court and other liberal judges gut the regulations on pornography, and all of a sudden he doesn't have any of that shame.
And so the engaging in that perverse act just spreads everywhere, becomes basically ubiquitous.
I think that's what we're seeing here.
Even today in our shout your abortion, kill your baby kind of culture, there is a great deal of just unavoidable shame involved in walking To go into the bad part of town and then walking into the abortion clinic and just seeing it, seeing the faces of the women and these demoniac doctors and actually going in and saying, yes, I'd like to kill my kid.
I'm going to sign this form.
That is a disincentive to do it.
But if you just, if you're a girl, and you're in trouble, and you are really scared, and you just want this problem, the baby, to go away, and you're getting pressure from your boyfriend, you're getting pressure from your family, and you can just go to a drugstore, and just get that abortion pill, and just, no big deal.
I mean, it could really harm your body.
It obviously kills your kid.
You're going to live with all that same psychological trauma.
But if you just feel that you can kind of do it in private, Now you can cheat on your wife in private, thanks to pornography.
Now you can kill your kid in private.
You don't even have to look at the abortionist in the face.
You don't even have to look at the women in the waiting room or walk down the sidewalk to do it.
That's going to greatly increase.
The likelihood that you will do that.
I'm not surprised at all that the number of pill abortions keeps going up.
So as with the other problem, as with porn, as with so many of our social pathologies, the key is to reinstitute a little bit of shame.
The key and the way you do that is by making the things that have been totally privatized Making them a little bit more public again, because when we see people and we recognize that we live in a society, we have some sense of the consequences of our actions.
The fact that it's not just a glittering screen, that it's not just a clump of cells that comes out of you as a result of a pill, but these are real people who are real proper subjects with real consciousness and real moral worth.
Then you're going to be less inclined to be so selfish.
