Ep. 1485 - Black Kids Don't Know What A Computer Is, According To Libs
The governor of New York says black kids don’t know the word “computer", Stormy Daniels takes the stand against President Trump, and a viral video claims not wanting to date fat people is bigoted.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1485
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the premiere of our new animated sitcom Mr. Birchum this Sunday, May 12th at 9 PM ET on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Introducing Emerson - A Premium Multivitamin for Men: https://bit.ly/3WlNWgs
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your own Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month! http://www.PureTalk.com/Knowles
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Knowles
Genucel - Mother’s Day Sale! Get an additional 25% off your order, 2 FREE gifts, and FREE shipping at https://genucel.com/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
I learned something new about black people yesterday.
This new discovery came to me by way of New York's Democrat governor, Kathy Hochul.
Young black kids growing up in the Bronx who don't even know what the word computer is.
They don't know.
They don't know these things.
And I want the world to open up to all of them because when you have their diverse voices innovating solutions through technology, then you're really addressing society's broader challenges.
Could we just get that one more time so I can make sure that I heard her correctly?
Young black kids growing up in the Bronx who don't even know what the word computer is.
They don't know.
They don't know these things.
They don't know these things.
They don't know big, big words like that.
Computer.
That's three syllables.
You expect those black kids in the Bronx to know that?
I know a fair number of black people, and I've spent a fair bit of time in the Bronx, actually, growing up, and even when I go back to visit New York.
And I'm pretty certain that every black person that I know, both in the Bronx and outside of the Bronx, knows the word computer.
You might have read recently, here, I have the articles right here, you might have read that a significant shift In the political orientation of black people and other minorities.
We hear it every election cycle.
I'm always skeptical.
It has not panned out yet.
But what makes this year different is that the headlines are not just coming from right-wing outlets wish-casting, this is the year the black vote is going to go to the Republican.
No, the warnings of a major shift in the minority vote, black and Hispanic, are coming from left-wing outlets.
These are two pieces from the Washington Post right here.
Left-wing outlets that are terrified that it's going to cost them the election.
If it happens, big if, It will not happen because black people don't know the word computer.
It will be because Democrats no longer know their constituents, don't care to know their constituents, and are confident that they can rule in perpetuity without any connection to the people that they are supposed to serve.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
We got a really important update on the subject of fatphobia, this by way of TikTok.
We'll get to that important news item in just a moment.
First, though, I want to stick on New York a little bit because there have been major breakthroughs in President Trump's trial in New York.
The New York trial is the first of four trials.
criminal trials where the libs are going to try to throw this guy in prison rather than let him make it to the White House.
The first one is about a supposed hush money payment to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign.
Well, anyway, yesterday during the trial, Stormy Daniels took the stand of porn actress testifying against the former president, current Republican nominee.
What does it mean for the trial?
I think it means a lot of great stuff for Trump.
We'll get to why in a second.
First, though, before we talk about that, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
Once again, PeerTalk is investing in their customers with their own money and without charging you an extra penny.
I am happy to announce that PeerTalk is now providing international roaming to over 50 5-0 countries.
As you plan your summer travel, make sure your wireless provider has you covered at home and abroad.
Pure Talk already puts you on America's most dependable 5G network.
Well, now they're offering coverage in over 50 countries as well.
Enjoy the freedom of unlimited talk text and ample 5G data for just $20 a month with Pure Talk.
This is a deal that's hard to beat, costing you less than half of what you'd pay with other networks.
Not only is their U.S.
customer service team ready to assist you with a seamless switch, they also have fantastic savings on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Are you ready to make a switch?
Join my cell phone company!
I don't own it, but I do have the service, and I got the phone, and it's fabulous.
Peertalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to explore their offers.
When you make the switch, you will enjoy an additional 50, 5-0% off your first month.
Do not miss out on the opportunity to save on wireless at home and abroad.
Stormy Daniels takes the stand at the Trump trial in New York.
How on earth could this be good for Trump?
It's so embarrassing.
I know, previously, Stormy Daniels had said she did not take this hush money payment, and so now, if she's testifying that she did, it makes her a liar, it means she can't really trust anything she says, but, you know, it's a porn star, and if Trump did sleep with her, it makes him, I mean, look, we know he's been a playboy for 40 years, and so it was part of his image already kind of baked in, but still, it's not nice, and no one wants to hear that about themselves, and so how could this be good for Trump?
This is great for Trump.
This is great.
Relatively.
It'd be better if the Democrats weren't trying to imprison the leader of the opposition, but given that as the bar, this is really great for Trump because it makes the prosecution look even worse than before.
And the reason for that is Stormy Daniels cannot add anything to this trial that is of legal substance.
Because Stormy Daniels has really nothing to do with the substance of this trial.
Because the substance of this trial does not hinge on whether or not Donald Trump slept with Stormy Daniels.
This trial hinges on whether or not Trump committed a federal crime, albeit, I think, a relatively minor federal crime, which is not filing the right paperwork when he made an in-kind contribution to his own campaign.
The supposed hush money payment that he gave to this pornography actress to try to shut her up before the election, allegedly, according to the New York prosecutors.
But wait, hold on.
Hold on a second before we even get to the Stormy Daniels of it all.
If it's an election crime, then that's a federal matter.
That's a matter for federal prosecutors to pursue, not for some New York prosecutors to pursue.
What does New York have to do with it?
Well, what New York has to do with it is there's an attorney general there, Letitia James, who got elected on the promise to throw Trump in prison.
So she's going to pursue that.
The New York AG really doesn't have very much to do with a federal election issue.
If the federal prosecutors wanted to take that up, they could.
And then the parts that do supposedly pertain to the New York trial, like the testimony today from Stormy Daniels, has nothing to do with the supposed crime.
Because the supposed crime is the failure to report this in-kind donation to the Federal Election Commission.
Has nothing to do—so the only thing that could possibly be served by Stormy Daniels' testimony in this trial is to embarrass Trump, which is all the prosecutors are after, because it's all they can do.
It's all that's possible.
So then, when you hear the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou Judge Mershawn saying, Mr. Trump, I will not allow you to turn this court into a circus!
You cannot go campaign!
And you cannot go speak about this trial where we're persecuting you and trying to throw you into jail for 700 years.
No, no, no!
You are not allowed to go and start blabbing your mouth while you deliver pizza to the firefighters or while you go visit that bodega and visit the worker who was unjustly prosecuted by us, all the crooked legal apparatchiks in New York.
No, no, sir.
This is a dignified courtroom and you will not besmirch the dignity of this courtroom.
Now, please bring in the porn star.
That's right.
Please bring in that sexy little porn star so she can give all of that completely legally irrelevant Scintillating testimony.
That's right.
You got any good dirt, honey?
Dish!
Dish, girl!
Enough of your circus, Mr. Trump.
I want to hear from the porn star.
Whose testimony has nothing to do with the criminal charges.
That's where we're at right now.
And so, I think it looks great for Trump.
There's nothing new in the allegations anyway.
It's not as though now some voter is going to hear the allegation that was denied by Trump.
It was once denied by Stormy Daniels, too, that they, you know, had this illicit, not only affair, but the hush money payment.
But none of that is new information.
That doesn't move any votes.
That wouldn't have moved any votes for the last eight years.
So the only thing you get from this is, oh, they accused Trump of something, they're doing it themselves.
And this has been the case since 2016.
Since 2015.
Donald Trump is colluding with the Russians.
He is colluding.
With Russian intelligence sources to rig this election.
Then we find out what happens.
Not only is Trump not doing that, the Democrats were doing that.
Hillary Clinton and the FBI colluded with this spook who made a dossier based on bogus Russian intelligence to try to rig the election against Trump.
Everything that Donald Trump, he's profiting off of his position in government.
Then we find out the Bidens have been raking in millions and millions of dollars by selling American influence overseas.
And then just anything they accuse him of.
Donald Trump's making a circus of our legal system.
You're making a circus?
You're bringing in a porn star whose testimony cannot have anything to do with the legal charges here.
Legally irrelevant, politically very relevant, because it buttresses the opinion of the majority of Americans, according to polls, not just Republicans, but Independents and Democrats as well, which is that this is an unjust political persecution of Donald Trump.
Works for me.
Now, also over in New York, there were some pro-Palestine liberation protesters.
Who decided that a great way to win Americans over to their cause would be to drape a Palestine flag over a World War I memorial and then burn the American flag.
We'll get to that in one second.
First though, go to preborn.com slash Knowles.
New estimates show that more than 1 million babies were killed by abortion in 2023, the highest number of abortions since 2012.
Despite the overturning of Roe v. Wade, this has only made the abortion pill more readily available.
When they shout abortion, we shout life.
We have to fight back against this evil.
How do we do that?
By joining hands with Preborn, the largest pro-life organization in the country that sponsors ultrasounds for clinics in the highest abortion areas.
When a mother considering abortion meets her baby on ultrasound, and here's the heartbeat, it doubles a baby's chance at life.
Every day, Preborn rescues 200 babies' lives, which is really magnificent.
By the time I finish this ad, two babies will have been taken by this tragedy.
So there's a lot of work to do.
One ultrasound costs only 28 bucks, could be the difference between life and death.
Please join the fight by sponsoring one, two, or even 300 ultrasounds.
All gifts are tax deductible.
Those pro-Palestine liberation people, they really know how to win friends and influence people, don't they?
keyword baby, or go to preborn.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, preborn.com slash Knowles.
Those pro-Palestine liberation people, they really know how to win friends and influence people, don't they?
They decided, be really smart, head on over to the 107th Infantry War Soldier Memorial in New York City, and then drape a Palestine flag over it.
Because I'm sure that's what their great-grandfathers, well, many of their great-grandfathers, I suspect, did not fight in World War I, probably were not in the country at that time.
But, But for some of our ancestors who did fight in World War I, that's what they were fighting for, right?
For the cause of Palestinian liberation, right?
I don't think so.
So that doesn't look great.
And then they thought, well, if this doesn't irritate enough people, let's burn the American flag.
That should be a good idea, right?
And just in case they don't get the point, let's spray paint Gaza and Free Palestine on the base of the memorial, just to make sure everyone hates us.
Maybe we're not quite odious enough yet, so that's what we're going to do.
And we're going to explicitly tie, it had already been kind of implicit, but we're explicitly going to tie this Palestine liberation rhetoric to anti-American rhetoric.
That's a good idea.
They did this on the day of rage.
They called it a day of rage.
And that phrase, For me, call to mind another leftist protest.
You remember, back on April Fool's Day, the Libs decided to hold the Trans Day of Vengeance.
Not the Trans Day of Solidarity.
Not the Trans Day of Peace and Prosperity.
It was the Trans Day of Vengeance.
I seem to recall reading that vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, and I will repay.
And, you know, his foot shall slide in due time, and all that sort of stuff.
So, okay, Trans Day of Vengeance, that's not very inviting.
And then this is basically the same thing, the Day of Rage, the Day of Vengeance, the Day of Pride, or Week of Pride, or Month of Pride now, whatever it is.
This is not, it's all the same people.
And it seems like it's totally disparate causes.
You've got the transvestites, and the homosexuals, and the Palestinian Muslims, sort of.
I don't know how many of these people are actually Muslim, but they're at least for Palestine.
And the feminists, and the liberals, and the socialists, and the communists, and the anarchists, and all these groups that seem like they don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, except that they all don't like America.
They all, to varying degrees, disrespect the American flag, and they all use this kind of language of the deadly sins, and they all partake of a radical liberationist ideology that seeks to liberate people from national allegiances, that seeks to liberate people from the family, from morality, from their bodies, actually, in the form of gender ideology.
That's what it's about.
It's the lips.
And this week, they care about Gaza.
Next week, they'll forget about Gaza again, and they'll move on to some other stupid thing.
And three weeks before the Gaza thing, they were on to BLM.
And three weeks before BLM, they were on to Occupy Wall Street.
And it's just all the same stuff.
And you might say, well, but the cause of Palestine liberation really is just.
Well, maybe it is.
I don't know.
You know, I don't, I don't.
Doesn't rank that high on my list of political priorities, but it doesn't matter if it's a legitimate cause.
That's not what these protests are about.
They're burning the American flag.
Believe them.
Believe them when they tell you.
They're using the exact same language as the radical transgender activists and all the other radicals who shut down our cities conveniently once every four years.
Isn't that so strange?
Now, speaking of the issue itself of the Israel-Gaza War, The National Security Spokesman for the White House, John Kirby, who would be the White House Press Secretary, except the Biden administration can't replace a black lesbian with a white man, a straight white man.
So even though John Kirby is relatively much better at representing the administration's views than whatever Christine Jean-Pierre, who Barely can articulate any points of view.
They just can't do it.
So he's the backup guy, and he weighs in specifically on national security, and he's weighing in now on the Israel-Gaza war, as Israel prepares another offensive.
Kirby was asked, does the U.S.
back Israel's intention to eliminate Hamas?
Kirby says, representing the Biden administration, we of course back their right and responsibility to go after the Hamas threat, to eliminate that threat.
Now look, Jackie, I've said many times here, you're not going to eliminate an ideology through military operations.
But does Israel have a right and responsibility to eliminate a threat that they suffered on the 7th of October?
100%.
Absolutely they do.
And we've been nothing but very steadfast on that.
Okay.
I hear this a lot from the libs.
And I've heard it for years, it's not just the Biden administration, but they're the latest to say it.
You can't defeat an ideology militarily.
Except you can, if you've ever read even like one page of a history book.
You can.
We have done that.
To use the only example that anyone uses from history, really, we defeated Nazism, the ideology, the German ideology of Nazism, we defeated that with a military.
Italian fascism, a somewhat related, albeit distinct ideology, we defeated that militarily, a third related ideology, also from the Second World War.
Japanese militarism, We defeated that through the military.
Moreover, you see a lot of other examples throughout history.
Want to go a little bit further back?
There was the ideology, really a heresy, of Albigensianism.
Also called Catharism.
And this threatened Christendom, we now call it the West, used to be called Christendom.
And so the Church, which was unified at that time and understood to be unified at that time, decided to defeat that ideology militarily and successfully did so in the Cathar Crusade.
You go back even further than that, you go back even before the Church.
At its visible form after the resurrection.
And you know what happened?
We found a very troublesome ideology.
It was called Carthaginian paganism.
And those Carthaginians, man, they got up to some bad juju.
You know, they were sacrificing babies to their Baals and their demons, and it was bad.
And then, do you know what the Romans did?
The Romans, which also, they had some pagan problems, but it was a little bit of a different and less severe kind of paganism than the Carthaginians had.
You know what they did?
They defeated it militarily!
At Carthago Dillende Est, okay?
It can be done!
It can be done.
I suppose you cannot abolish an idea.
You know, if everyone forgets the idea, you know, you can go a long way towards suppressing it, though it might even crop back up throughout history.
All of these sorts of ideas crop back up throughout history, including Albigensianism.
But you can very much stop the visible physical expression in time and space and history of an idea through a military.
In fact, that's really the grand purpose of the military.
We have a military to protect against direct threats.
That's a very practical and Elementary purpose of a military, but also we're protecting our way of life, and way of life is expressed often through an ideology.
And so, yeah, that's what we do.
We have our military to protect not only people, but institutions, and people and institutions are animated by ideas and ideologies and even by religion.
You can do it!
Speaking of ancient things only slightly older than the Carthaginians, Bernie Sanders is running for a fourth term in the U.S.
Senate.
Senator Sanders, take it away.
Let me thank the people of Vermont from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to serve in the United States Senate.
It has been the honor of my life.
Today, I am announcing my intention to seek another term.
And let me take a few minutes to tell you why.
As the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, as part of the U.S.
Senate Democratic Leadership Team, as a senior member of the Veterans Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have been and will be, if re-elected, in a strong position to provide the kind of help the Vermonters need in these difficult times.
In recent years working together, we have made important progress in addressing some very serious challenges.
But much, much more needs to be done if we are to become the state and the nation our people deserve.
So much more to do, that's why you must elect me again.
Bernie Sanders has been in politics.
So far, for 53 years, more than half a century in politics, Bernie Sanders has been in the United States Congress for 33 years, more than three decades.
Bernie Sanders has been in the United States Senate for 17 years.
What's he really going to do with another six?
That's it?
He's going to say, now listen here, I needed 53 years to get my bearings.
I needed just to get my sea legs for a little more than half a century.
But now I think I understand how the process works.
And so finally I'm going to accomplish anything in politics at all, whatsoever.
Has Bernie Sanders ever championed, really deserved credit for Any piece of legislation whatsoever?
I know he's been a leftist and the party's moved more to the left, though some would credit him as the cause of that.
I think maybe he's more a symptom of that.
Has he done anything other than just be liberal?
I don't see the evidence of that.
So, good.
Okay, give him another six years.
That's fine.
Give him another 12 years.
I don't care.
What all of this means is that Bernie Sanders, contrary to his publicists, contrary to the deeply felt desires of his supporters, Bernie Sanders is a status quo guy.
Bernie Sanders is an establishment guy.
He doesn't talk like one necessarily, he doesn't pitch himself as one, but he is that.
Bernie Sanders is, for all of his radical rhetoric, nothing but another warm body in the U.S.
Capitol.
And so he wants to be a warm body in the Capitol for as long as his body stays warm?
Okay.
Fine.
Doesn't really move the needle either way.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to Genucel.com slash Knowles.
If you are looking for the perfect Mother's Day gift that will make the women in your life feel pampered and appreciated well, My friends at GenuCell have you covered.
GenuCell is offering an extra 25% off in honor of their 25th anniversary.
This makes this already fabulous Mother's Day sale their biggest sale ever.
If you have not tried GenuCell, a great place to start is with their most popular package.
This package features their Gen 90 serum, which instantly results in visibly erasing the wrinkles around your eyes, forehead, crow's feet, and laugh lines.
It also includes their top-selling under-eye bags and puffiness serum, as well as their jawline treatment for a more contoured, defined jawline.
Janusel is so confident in their product that they guarantee you will see results in less than 12 hours, or you will get your money back.
So celebrate the special woman in your life this Mother's Day with the world's best skincare at a once-in-a-lifetime price.
Go to Janusel.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-A-S, for an additional 25% off Janusel's already fabulous Mother's Day sale right now in your order.
Janusel will include a free spa box with two bonus gifts and free shipping.
Do not wait.
The sale will not last long.
They have limited inventory available.
Genyacell.com slash Knowles.
That is Genyacell.com slash Knowles.
If you've not heard.
All episodes of my show, Michael &, are now on Spotify.
So, you got my show.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
This is The Daily Show.
It's great.
There are all sorts of little specials we do.
The Yes or No Game, Face Off.
Probably my favorite one is our long interview series, Michael &.
Well, they're all on Spotify now, especially as certain other big tech platforms decide to clamp down on us a little bit.
So, make sure you follow it on Spotify.
Hit the notification button so that you never miss an episode, like my episode with the former witch.
Witchcraft in general is control and manipulation.
It's something that you do to get something in return.
Do witches worship the moon?
Especially during Halloween, they believe that it opens up in the spiritual realm.
This was just accepted as commonplace.
What are the nuts and bolts of it like?
A demon came and the main witch, she just got possessed and she started to speak.
Someone in your family is going to die in one week.
My dad committed suicide and he was hanging there.
As always, you can also get all of my content on Daily Wire+.
Now, turning our attention to much more pressing matters than the United States Senate and the presidential election and the trial in New York, the war overseas, fat phobia.
that.
Fatphobia is a major social crisis.
We've heard about it before.
Well, our friends over at Lives of TikTok deserve some credit for exposing some of its more pernicious and recent and urgent expressions.
If you do not date fat people because you just happen to view fatness as neutral but not be particularly attracted to it, fine.
That's a preference.
If you don't date fat people because you think being fat means that they are gross, lazy, live an unhealthy lifestyle, or are embarrassing to be seen with in public, that's fatphobic.
But to insist your preference is for people who aren't lazy, sloppy, and disgusting and unhealthy?
Meaning that means you prefer skinny people because all fat people are those other things.
That's actually bigoted.
That's actually deciding that one group is all the same because of how they look.
Hope that makes sense!
Have a good day!
So it does not make sense, but I'd like to go back to make sure that I understand exactly how it does not make sense.
She's saying, as I understand it, she's saying to have a preference where you don't want to date a certain person because said person is fat.
That's a preference.
But if you don't want to date fat people, As a rule, that's very bigoted and fatphobic.
That is what I think I understood.
Can we play it again just so I can be sure that that's what she's saying?
If you do not date fat people because you just happen to view fatness as neutral but not be particularly attracted to it, fine.
That's a preference.
Okay, hold on, pause, pause.
So it's different than I thought.
If you don't date fat people...
Because you view fatness as neutral but you're not attracted to it, that's fine, that's a preference.
But hold on, if you're not attracted to something, that would mean you are repelled by that thing, right?
I guess I doubt that there's such a thing as neutrality here.
If I see a girl, On the street.
Well, not me, because I'm happily married to sweet little Elisa.
But before I was married, when I was a single guy, I'd see a girl.
I would very rarely feel neutral about the girl.
I would say, oh, I desire that girl, or I don't desire that girl.
I actively do not desire that person.
And so if you're saying, well, I'm not attracted to that person, I'm actually repelled by that person because that person is overweight or unhealthy or whatever.
She's saying, if you're neutral about it, if you're neutral, then you're not repelled.
It's very confusing.
Because she's almost being reasonable and saying, look, if you're not into fat chicks, it's okay, it's alright, it's a preference.
But then she goes on and she contradicts herself, I think.
You date fat people because you think being fat means that they are gross, lazy, live an unhealthy lifestyle.
Put a pause there.
That's all you need to say.
That's all you need to say.
If you don't want to date the fat girl because you find the fat girl gross, then that's very bigoted.
But hold on.
If I say I'm not attracted to that girl and I say I think that girl's kind of gross, those are semantically identical statements.
They are synonymous.
At least, I don't know, I can't speak for women, that's at least how men are.
We got a little active libido sometimes, you know, and so either you're drawn towards someone or you're repelled from someone.
There's no neutrality here.
So they're the same thing.
So then what she's really saying is, look, I want to sound reasonable and not force everyone to date me.
If you don't think that I'm attractive, you're not the sort of person who wants to date me, then you're a bigot, then you're awful.
And so really, despite what she says in the preface, what she concludes with is that preferences are not acceptable to her.
But it's actually very telling that she has to compliment and exalt preferences at the beginning.
Because this is what liberalism does.
Liberalism exalts preference.
Liberalism makes subjective preference the be-all and end-all.
Don't yuck my yum.
You do you, man.
You know, it's like, you do you, I'll do me.
You can't tell me what's good for you.
It's not necessarily good for me, man.
It's all about my preferences and my individualism.
So liberalism has to exalt preference.
But liberalism also paradoxically condemns preference.
Because when people express preferences that contradict the liberals' preferences, they don't like that.
That's no bueno.
You can't do that.
And this should be expected.
If we were to live in a normal, rational society, where we accepted objective truth and reality and standards, including standards of health and beauty, then we could all use our reason and come to conclusions that we all agree to.
But if we live in this radically subjectivist world, where it's all just about preference, and you do you, and nothing's normal, and nothing's abnormal, and nothing's good or bad, it's all just whatever you want, man, if we live in that world.
Then all of a sudden society ceases to be a reasonable discussion about objective truth, and it becomes a battle of wills, of preferences.
Because the fat girl, the self-identified fat girl, could say, look, I want to date the Super Giga Chad Sigma guy.
I want to.
That's my preference, and I'm going to do it if I want to do it.
Now, the Super Sigma Alpha Chad frat guy, he might say, I don't want to date the fat chick.
Well, now his preference is encroaching on the satisfaction of her preference.
And one preference has to win.
Her desire to date the Chad, or the Chad's desire not to date her.
And what she's saying is, he has no right not to date me.
He thinks I'm gross?
He thinks I'm unhealthy?
Well, how dare he?
He's a bigot!
He ought to be sent out of society.
He ought to be ostracized, thrown where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, if he doesn't satisfy my personal preference.
Because it's just preferences, and it's just going to be one group is going to win, or another group is going to win, or one individual is going to win, or the others.
That's all it is.
There's no more reason to it.
And in fact, it's right there in the phrase, because the liberal accusations are so often confessions.
I'm not the first to observe it.
Just as we were talking about at the top of the show, the Libs accused Trump of colluding with the Russians to rig the election.
Well, guess what?
It turns out they did the exact same thing.
The Libs accused Trump of using his position in government to enrich his family.
Well, guess what?
It turns out, actually, it was them.
They did that exact same thing.
And same here.
When they use this language of phobia, I don't use the language of phobia, because I think a lot of the things described as phobias are not irrational.
I don't think it's irrational to have sexual desire for people who are more beautiful than I am.
I'm not saying big girls can't be beautiful, they can be, but these angry, shrieking, entitled, feminist, body-positive people, it's not the most attractive thing in the world.
That's not phobic, it's not irrational.
But that accusation is a confession to because their politics is not only irrational in practice, it's irrational even in principle.
Because so much of it comes down to a denial of either objective reality or at the very least of our ability reliably to perceive and come to conclusions about objective reality.
Hence the line from Robert Frost, I mentioned it on the show yesterday, that a liberal is one who can't take his own side in a debate.
Now, speaking of liberalism and debates, actually, there's, I think, pretty good news.
The Trump campaign is not going to be debating RFK, which I think is smart.
But before we get to that, just to put a little bow on this, give you a little glimmer of hope as you think this world is collapsing into chaos and irrationality.
MIT has just become the first elite school to ban diversity statements.
If you have applied to college or graduate school or maybe even some jobs in the last 10 years, you have been required to write a diversity statement.
You have been required to state how your presence in the mathematics PhD will benefit the diversity of the school.
You might have a beautiful, elegant, mathematical proof.
You might have solved Fermat's Last Theorem.
But if you're a straight white guy?
As is the guy who solved Fermat's Last Theorem, actually, Sir Andrew Wiles.
If you're a straight white guy, you're not contributing to the diversity of the school.
You might be breaking new ground in the field of mathematics or physics, or you might be expanding and deepening humanity's knowledge.
But if you're a white guy, you know, too bad, you're out.
You can't come because you're not like a black lesbian pygmy Zoroastrian.
So, you know, what good are you at this school?
Well, MIT had these ridiculous statements.
Then on Saturday, an MIT spokesman confirmed in an email that, quote, requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT.
The students, I don't know, perhaps that's another story, but at least for the faculty positions, with the support of the provost, chancellor, and all six academic deans, it's out.
This is really, really important.
At the height of the diversity statement craze, there was a dean at Emory who said that the theory on hiring was diversity statement, then dossier.
I don't want to see your CV, I don't want to see your academic work, I don't want to interview you, I want your diversity statement first, then everything else.
So why is this?
There's a really good report on this in UnHerd.
This was in late 2023.
The University's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering sought an assistant professor in fields from fundamental nuclear science to practical applications of nuclear technology and energy security and quantum engineering.
Applicants were required to submit, quote, a statement regarding their views on diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past and current contributions, as well as their vision and plans for the future in these areas.
No, just not.
I want to get myself cancelled here.
The field of nuclear engineering is not the most.
I'm not saying there's no diversity in it, but it's not like maybe in gender studies or Africana studies or studies studies or any of all those critical or even literary fields.
There's a little bit more diversity.
Nuclear engineering, it's I mean, there actually are representatives of all sorts of different groups there, but those people, too, they're not really focused on race and sex.
They're focused on nuclear engineering, okay?
They've dedicated their lives to something that's complicated and difficult and worthwhile.
And so it was just the apotheosis of the whole DEI craze.
It was so crazy, and now it's gone.
And why is it gone?
Because what did that sound like to you?
What did that statement, even for a field that seems so outside the realm of DEI, what does that sound like?
That sounds like something that's actually pretty traditional, which is a statement of faith.
If you're going to go teach at a Catholic school, at least until recently, you had to sign a statement that you support the Catholic faith.
Maybe some exception could be granted here or there, but if you're going to take part in a kind of education, you're going to assent to the fundamental principles, and fundamental things always come down to religion, of that field, of that institution.
What's going on here with the academia turn against DEI?
This is not, I'm sorry to say, Well, I'm not even sure that I'm sorry to say it.
This is just what it is.
It's not the conservatives beating the left.
This is not about the conservatives won some victory on DEI.
The reason the diversity statements are going away is because some liberals are upset with it.
It's because the Bill Maher types of the world.
Some secular liberals are upset with it.
And so what you're seeing here is more akin to a kind of Protestant revolution for secular liberalism.
Not for Christianity, but for secular liberalism.
You're seeing this schism taking place, okay?
It's a schism on the left.
Between the hard left, intersectional DEI lunatics, and the slightly more reasonable liberal types like the Bill Mahers of the world.
Conservatives are really not even in that conversation.
In the same way that the Protestant Revolution wasn't really about Muslims or Jews or anyone.
It was about disputes within Christendom.
Largely political, but somewhat theological too.
That's what's going on here.
We can applaud this, we can be happy, but this is... Conservatives didn't really do this.
This is an internal debate within liberalism.
So, one way we can exploit that is by realizing it's a wedge issue.
Okay, good.
We'll use that wedge to divide the left.
But don't be mistaken about what this is.
This is because the left is having an identity crisis.
No surprise, they don't know what a woman is.
Now, some words from our friend, Adam Carolla.
Catch the series premiere of Mr. Bircham this Sunday, 9 o'clock, 8 central, exclusively on Daily Wire+.
Episode 1 is streaming for free, so no excuses, people.
Mr. Bircham is decades in the making, and now it's showtime.
Check out the Mr. Bircham trailer and see what the fuss is all about.
I found some really great school uniform options to avoid misgendering.
What about their allergies?
Maybe those days could be lactose intolerant.
No, we can't say intolerance.
We have a zero tolerance policy for mentioning intolerance.
When I was a kid, men were men.
Now everyone's wrapped up in feelings.
Real men stuff feelings down with red meat, cigarettes, and violence.
My name is Mr. Wolf.
I solve problems.
You know what it takes?
Balls!
Eyeballs!
Who's gonna say that?
We're too young.
Well, actually, I was gonna say you're too fat.
You and the geriatric Girl Scouts will be passed out in an hour!
Pass mommy the wine.
The bottle.
Don't make this a prison, honey.
Richard Bircham.
Bircham?
Bircham.
Mr. Bircham.
Bircham.
Bircham!
Let the record show I'm a dick.
Mr. Bircham, an all-new animated series from Daily Wire Plus.
Premieres May 12th.
Remember, Mr. Bircham's series premiere this Sunday, nine o'clock, eight central.
Stream it free only on Daily Wire Plus.
That's right, baby.
And you might notice I'm in L.A.
right now.
Why am I in L.A.?
For the premiere of Mr. Bircham.
That's actually what I flew out for.
So it's very, very exciting.
Looking forward to all of you seeing this excellent show as well.
Speaking of splits on the political left.
President Trump has been asked for some weeks now if he will debate Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Trump obviously plans to debate Joe Biden.
Joe Biden almost certainly does not want to debate Donald Trump, because Joe Biden can't say his own name anymore reliably.
But Trump has also been asked if he will debate the other Democrat now running as an independent candidate in the race, Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Here's Trump's answer.
RFK, I don't know anything about him.
Look, RFK is polling very low.
He's not a serious candidate.
They say he hurts Biden.
I don't know who he hurts.
He might hurt me.
I don't know.
But he has very low numbers, certainly not numbers that he can debate with.
And he's got to get his numbers up a lot higher before he's credible.
But the numbers that he's taken away, they say will be against Biden.
I don't know.
I'm not so sure.
It could be a little bit against me.
But I don't see him as a factor.
Okay.
I basically agree with all of that, especially including the last part he says.
You know, some in the media say Bobby Kennedy will take away more votes from Biden than from me.
I think that's true.
Trump says, I'm not so sure, maybe he'll take some votes away from me.
Yeah, maybe he'll take some votes away from Trump too.
I don't think very many.
I guess in that regard, I feel much more confident about the Kennedy candidacy than Trump does.
I think, and I've said it from the beginning, and pretty much all the polls have showed me to be correct so far, I hate to say I told you so, Kennedy hurts Biden a lot more than he hurts Trump.
I don't really see a Trump voter Turning to Kennedy.
I see Biden voters who realize that Biden's a complete failure, and he's underwater on every single policy issue, and the vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with his performance, and our money's worth a lot less than it was when he took office, and the border's totally open, and he's getting us into wars all over the world, and, and, and... I could see a disaffected liberal voting for Kennedy.
He said, because he's a Kennedy!
You know that Kennedy is a royalty in the Democratic Party.
So I could see that.
I could see a Bill Maher type, you know the kind I was just talking about, they're liberals, they're not conservatives, they're not with us, but they're liberals, but they're not totally bought in on radical, transgender, anti-fat phobia, wave the Palestine flag and burn the American flag kind of activism.
They're a little bit more reasonable.
I could see, given Joe Biden's radical leftist turn, Where he's now embracing transing the kids and continues to reaffirm his support for transing the kids, including through signing orders flanked by supposed trans kids.
I mean that kind of radicalism.
I could see them voting for Bobby Kennedy, but who's the Trump voter who votes for Bobby Kennedy?
Now you might say, well no, it's not the Trump voter, it's the Nikki Haley voter.
What?
Are you kidding me?
The Nikki Haley voter, and you know I really like Nikki, certainly personally, and I think she's got very good political jobs generally, but the Nikki Haley voter, the really, really passionate Nikki Haley voter?
You think that person's going to go for Bobby Kennedy?
In my experience, the passionate Nikki Haley voter wants a normal, calm, respectable kind of Republican.
And there are a lot of people who want that type of candidate.
They don't want someone who's kooky and fringe and all that colorful.
So they're going to vote for Bobby Kennedy?
I don't think so.
This is the guy who made his career on yelling about vaccines.
This is the guy who, he's had some colorful moments on the campaign trail.
This is a guy who's a, he's a liberal Democrat.
He's an environmental lawyer.
He's been ranting about, you know, the sun monster for his whole career.
I don't think so.
Who's the other one?
DeSantis?
DeSantis has endorsed Trump and now they're working together on the campaign.
DeSantis is a very MAGA-like candidate.
What, just because a DeSantis supporter is a little miffed that his guy didn't win the primary, he's going to now vote for Bobby Kennedy?
You got Trump who agrees with DeSantis on 95% of things.
You got Bobby Kennedy who agrees with DeSantis on like 15% of things.
So the guy is going to vote for no way.
In fact, the way I know that's not true is that DeSantis didn't win the primary.
There are a lot of people who really, really like DeSantis who just didn't feel it was his time to be the nominee.
And so they voted for Trump.
I just don't buy it.
But at the very least, I totally agree with Trump at what he says at the top.
He says, I'm not going to debate him.
There's no reason to debate him.
Of course not.
How crazy would it look if Donald Trump, who wouldn't debate DeSantis and Haley and all the other also-rans, Vivek, as Vivek's numbers were going up, but then also the Christies and all the also-rans, he wouldn't debate them because there was no reason to because he had greater than 50% support in the primary.
But now he's going to debate Bobby Kennedy, who's got, what, 5% support?
No way, man.
Doesn't make sense.
I love that Bobby Kennedy's in the race.
I think Bobby Kennedy being in the race helps us.
The best part of Bobby Kennedy being in the race is that it is a battle on the left.
And one issue that Republicans, especially in Congress, have been screwing up in recent weeks is, while our enemies are destroying themselves, we want to interrupt.
Oh, we Republicans, we can't take the anxiety.
We've got to interrupt and stop them.
From harming themselves?
No, man.
Let them tear themselves apart.
It is O-K.
It's A-OK, man.
Totally fine by me.
Kennedy can push for the debate with Biden.
Biden almost certainly won't take it.
Then Biden will look weak and there will be Democrats who are miffed.
Fine.
Totally love it.
Now, speaking of men who are seeking jobs, there is a very troubling headline out.
The headline is that men don't want to work anymore.
The story comes from Newsweek.
The first paragraph.
For many, it's not an issue of not being able to find a job.
They have simply opted out altogether.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics found only 89% of working-age men have a job or are actively looking for work.
In 1950, that number was 97%.
Whoa, so we're not just talking about guys can't find a job in a tough economy.
Guys are just not even trying to get a job anymore.
I have many thoughts on why this is happening, but you know me.
I'm a tease.
So, we're going to have to hold it there.
We'll get to it more later on this week.
I'm very sorry to say, I've been informed by Professor Jacob.
There is no member block today, because I have to get back to Tennessee, back to my beloved wife and children, and to my less beloved but still somewhat liked producers.
So there will be no member block, but we will have member block again tomorrow.
