Ep. 1778 - French President SUES Candace For Calling His Wife A Dude
The French president sues Candace for calling his wife a man, two homosexuals kill a baby they purchased, and Uber lets women reject male drivers.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1778
- - -
DailyWire+:
Right now you can gift Daily Wire plus for 40% off with code JULY at DailyWire.com/gift (https://www.dailywire.com/gift).
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
GET THE ALL-NEW YES OR NO EXPANSION PACK TODAY: https://bit.ly/41gsZ8Q
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code KNOWLES to claim $40 off + free meat for life!
Old Glory Bank - Go to https://OldGloryBank.com/Knowles to open an account and make the switch today!
Jeremy's Razors - Head to https://jeremysrazors.com/legend and subscribe today.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
French president sues Candace Owens over claims his wife is a man.
No, that is not a mad lib gone wrong.
That is yesterday's headline from CNN.
A foreign head of state is suing an American media figure for defamation for insisting that his wife is secretly a dude.
And the craziest part of the whole story is the French president is very likely going to lose, but not for the reason that some of you think.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Jon Stewart is not taking the news of Stephen Colbert's cancellation lying down.
He's very, very upset, and he is actually demonstrating why Colbert and likely Stewart and a lot of these guys are going to end up canceled in the coming months and years.
I have many, many more important things to say, but first, you need to go to goodranchers.com, use code Knowles.
Summer's here.
Nothing beats going out, taking the grill pill, having some friends over.
But what happens if you go to a grocery store and you spend way too much money on cheap meat?
It seems like a paradox.
I guess it is a paradox, and it's expensive, but it's cheap quality, 85% from overseas.
You don't know what kind of hormones and all kind of nonsense is in there.
Why would you do that when you can get good ranchers?
Good ranchers is 100% American meat.
Beef, chicken, pork, sourced, born and raised on local farms.
No antibiotics ever, no added hormones, no seed oils.
It's pure clean meat.
Most important part to me, it is delicious.
If you want my, well, you can get the Knowles box, you get all my favorites.
Specifically, you get that New York strip and you get the Wagyu Burgers and you're ready to roll, man.
They're so good.
It is better meat than you're going to get anywhere.
It is less expensive than you're going to get anywhere.
Comes right to your door.
It's American.
It's just great.
Right now, when you subscribe to any Good Ranchers box, and especially to the Knowles box, you get your choice of free meat for life.
That is free Wagyu Burgers.
You should stop right there.
That's the one you should get.
Or the hot dog's very good.
Bacon, good.
Chicken wings good.
In every single box.
Plus, you use my code Knowles at checkout.
You get an extra $40 off.
Go to goodranchers.com, use code Knowles for $40 off plus free meat for life.
Because the moments that matter deserve meat that's made rife.
Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
I also have to issue a correction.
I said previously after I read that headline, I said that that's not a mad lib, but it literally is a mad lib because President Macron is liberal and he's very mad because people are calling his wife a man.
You would be mad too if someone did that.
This lawsuit is fascinating.
It's a fascinating lawsuit because of when and where it's happening.
So I'm going to lay my cards on the table, all right?
And this is going to offend a lot of people.
It's going to irritate some of you.
I'm just going to tell you exactly on the substantive matter where I am coming from as I analyze this lawsuit.
I am of the opinion, controversial though it may be, that the First Lady of France is not, in fact, a man.
I think, I know opinions vary.
Listen, some of my friends hold different opinions.
I, however, believe that the First Lady of France is a woman.
And still, I am really skeptical that the Macrons are going to win this case.
And the reason for that is everyone thinks the case hinges on whether or not Brigitte Macron is a woman.
And it doesn't really hinge on that.
What the case hinges on is proving actual malice.
So yeah, you got to say, okay, the claim is false and the claim caused harm.
There are damages.
But I think what it's going to hinge on is actual malice, which is a legal term, which in this case would mean you'd have to prove that Candace knew that what she was saying was not true and said it anyway, which I don't think anyone believes that.
I think most people believe that Candace really believes what she's saying, even if you disagree with it.
I think most people think she really believes it.
So I put that one out the window.
That would be one way to prove actual malice, or that she's demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth or falsehood of the claim.
A reckless disregard for whether or not it's true, that it's totally preposterous.
She doesn't care whatsoever.
And I guess my question is, how do the Macrons prove actual malice, reckless disregard for the truth, in a culture that says that transgenderism is normal and has been around forever?
Because that's the issue.
If you said in a normal culture, like five minutes ago before transgenderism was a popular idea, if you made the claim that many decades ago, this person who looks very much like a woman had a secret, very effective sex change surgery that no one knew about and it's only coming to light now, most people would say, well, that's totally crazy and you have a reckless disregard for the truth and probably pretty easy to prove defamation.
But today, the most powerful institutions say that that's totally plausible, don't they?
There are really two ways to come at this.
One is you could say, well, it's not defamation because there are no damages, because there's no harm because being transgender is totally awesome.
It's great.
I've been told for years now that being transgender is possible, one, and two, really great.
So you could come at it that way and say, well, there's no damages.
But put that aside for a second.
I want to focus on the actual malice issue.
Because the problem is, our culture now says it is totally reasonable to wonder if an elderly woman 50 years ago secretly got a sex change that was convincing and she was able to keep it a secret.
It's so common.
Everyone does.
Transgenderism's been around forever, right?
That to me is the issue.
Because in this case, the reckless disregard for the truth comes from our popular culture.
It is all of our prominent institutions.
It is our prominent politicians.
It is our prominent business and entertainment leaders who insist that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man and transgenderism is just normal and what's the difference anyway?
And oh yeah, people get sex chain surgeries all the time and you couldn't really tell.
There's no way you could tell.
When a man goes under the knife to look more like a woman, oh, he could fool you.
And that's been true for ages, going back to classical antiquity.
So then the question becomes, how do you prove that when someone wonders something like that, which most people think is not reasonable, how do you prove that that demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth?
How do you prove that when your culture demands that you recklessly disregard the truth on this very matter?
It's going to be very, very difficult to prove this.
So I'm not, I mean, you understand where I weigh in on the substantive issue.
And, you know, I'm not persuaded.
Because she's too petite is one of my issues.
And the voice.
It's very hard to fake the voice.
The transvesta, the people who do the trans thing, they always have a weird voice.
So anyway, that's why I think she's a lady.
But actually, I'm not, I don't mean to be glib about this or anything.
I do know of multiple people who think that she's a guy.
And didn't this all start because some French journalists said that she was a guy?
And then, so they can be dragged to court.
But anyway, I just think it's going to be very difficult for the Macrones to prove it, especially in America, where there's a very, very high standard for defamation.
But in any case, it's a really funny headline.
It's a really funny, funny headline.
Who would have, 10 years ago, would you have expected this?
Just insert any head of state, any American media figure, and that claim.
That's very odd.
So anyway, I'm sure we'll be following it closely.
Not just because of personal relationships, but because this is now international news.
What a time that we live in.
Okay, speaking of men and women, big announcement from Uber.
Uber will allow women to avoid being paired with male drivers.
So they announced this.
It's going to be a new feature.
Female passengers are going to get a special privilege.
They're going to be allowed to toggle off male drivers so they don't need to be driven around by dudes, which is all fine and good.
But I have a more urgent question.
When can male Uber customers request not to have female drivers?
Is that in the works?
I'm just asking for anyone who might be interested.
And actually, before anyone accuses me of sexism, I want to, I'm going to lay my car.
I'm giving you a real insight into my personal, not only my personal views, but even my personal conversations.
It's not me.
When sweet little Elise and I go out and we have to call an Uber, it's not me who has the problem with the female drivers.
It's my bride.
It's my beloved, beautiful bride.
Because all stereotypes are true.
So when sweet little Elisa sees that it's a lady paired, Mac, could we cancel it, please?
Could we, please, can't, I want to get a, because I like the female drivers.
They're nice.
We chat.
It's okay.
But my bride points out, they do tend to miss the exits a little bit more than the men do.
They don't drive.
They're usually not the right speed.
It's either too slow or maybe it's too fast.
And they're not stereotypes.
They don't obtain with every individual of a given class, but they do.
They're stereotypes for a reason.
And so obviously the reason that the women here are requesting to not have a male driver has nothing to do with the driving.
It's because men can be creepier with women than women can be with men.
And men are physically stronger than women.
So I get it.
I get why there's a distinction here.
But this does seem to show a little bit of a tension in our current political order.
Because it comes down to the issue of freedom of association.
When the Constitution was ratified, we had a country with broad freedom of association.
You could exclude people from your business, from your club, from any organization.
You could associate with whomever you pleased.
And then over time, people complained that this was discriminatory, that this was foreclosing opportunities to people of different groups, be they racial or sexual or anything in between.
And so with the passage, notably, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we got rid of freedom of association.
We said, no, you actually don't have a right to exclude people from certain accommodations and certain organizations.
You don't have a right to do that.
You have to include people.
Except sometimes.
Except certain people get to exclude people.
So we actually do, in a way, we still have freedom of association for certain groups, but not for other groups.
The African-American society on any university campus, practically speaking, gets to exclude white people and can only have black people.
But of course, there is no such thing as the white society that doesn't let the black people in, or the Hispanic people, or any other people.
The women get to exclude men from their transactions.
The men don't get to exclude women.
When you go on Amazon, you can toggle little buttons to say, oh, I want to see black-owned businesses or women-owned businesses.
Not just Amazon.
You see this in a lot of services.
But of course, you don't say, oh, I want a man-owned business.
I want a white-owned business.
So the tension that we have, and this was a point that really came up in recent memory with Christopher Colgel's excellent book, The Age of Entitlement.
We have a tension, a tension between two parallel constitutions, which is the U.S. Constitution, we the people in order to form a more perfect union, and the Constitution of the 1960s, the Civil Rights Act.
This is why every government department, basically every government office, has a civil Rights Division to enact this parallel constitution.
But here you're seeing the tension.
This is where the tension comes up.
The ladies can request the female drivers, but the men who want to get to their appointments on time and not miss the exit cannot request the male drivers.
Now, speaking of sexual relations, a horrifying story involving two men and a lady and a baby.
I have a lot more to say, and I will say those things, but first I'm going to say something else, and that is that you need to go to oldglorybank.com slash Knowles.
Folks, the timing of this ad is pretty interesting because I've been dealing with an issue with a payment processor for over half a year now where I wasn't getting my payments.
And it seems as though we're working together now to resolve this issue.
It seems as though it was not intentional debanking.
It was rather an issue that came from an erroneous government administrative error, but there was no transparency whatsoever.
So I was not able, Stonewall, couldn't figure out what the issue was.
People get debanked, okay?
Because a lot of banks are pretty liberal.
There is one bank that supports what you support, that is on your side, where you don't need to worry about those kinds of things, okay?
And that is Old Glory Bank.
Now, I love Old Glory Bank.
When they told me, Michael, there's an alternative.
I said, great, how do I sign up?
How do I open up my account?
It's super duper easy.
The process is quick as can be.
This is a bank built by people who fear God, love the country, and still believe in right and wrong.
They don't fund evil.
They don't cancel people for standing up for truth.
They protect your money and your values.
I just love them.
If you believe stewardship matters, then put your money where your heart is.
It's also just a great bank, very easy to use.
It only takes minutes to switch.
Stop letting your money serve the wrong side.
Join me and tens of thousands of others.
Go to the right side of banking, oldglorybank.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, oldglorybank.com slash Knowles.
This is a horrifying story.
It's just horrifying.
I'll give you this short version of it.
Two homosexuals hired a woman named Brittany Pearson to bear a child for them.
I guess the child was conceived through in vitro fertilization.
They bought some lady's egg, and then they hired this woman to bear the child.
But the woman, very sadly, was diagnosed with breast cancer while she's pregnant with this baby for order.
And so the woman wants to receive treatment for breast cancer.
She can't receive the treatment while she is gestating the baby, so she delivers the baby early.
All very scary, all very dangerous.
Now there's good news here.
The woman delivers the baby at 25 weeks, which is very, very premature, but thanks to advances in medicine, babies can live at 25 weeks.
Babies can survive after 21 weeks, or maybe even a little bit less.
So you say, okay, well, there was this horrible challenge, even with this bioethically dubious situation, but there was this horrible challenge.
And okay, the woman can receive her cancer treatment and the baby can survive, right?
That's a great ending to it, right?
Except it's not because the homosexuals who purchased the baby decided to kill the baby.
So the two fellas who hired the woman to gestate the baby and bought the eggs and did whatever they did, they decided to intentionally withhold life-saving medical care from the baby who was delivered at 25 weeks.
They killed the kid they purchased.
Why?
Well, I don't know.
Because the baby was born premature, that can sometimes lead to health problems, longer-term health problems.
I don't know.
They wanted a baby to come out at 40 weeks.
They didn't want a baby at 25 weeks.
So they killed their kid.
And it is argued they have every right to kill the kid because they paid for it.
They ordered the kid.
They went to the baby store.
They got the eggs and the sperm and they hired some unethical scientists to combine them.
And then they hot paid some woman to gestate the baby.
And, you know, the customer is always right.
I mean, think about this in any other area of the market, in any other area of the economy.
If you're at a restaurant and you have your meal, it's a nice meal.
And then the waiter says, oh, did you save any room for dessert?
You say, yes, I did.
I want the chocolate cake.
It's, oh, very good choice, sir.
Very good.
And he goes into the back and he has the chef make the chocolate cake.
But you know what?
The chef screwed up the chocolate cake.
He took the cake out a little too early.
So it was a little too gooey.
It wasn't quite right.
I guess, you know, it comes out, starts cooling down.
You could put the chocolate cake back in the oven, but it's not going to be the same as if you did it just totally right the first time.
So you know what the customer can do?
Customer can say, get rid of that chocolate cake.
I want a new chocolate cake.
And any restaurant worth its salt would say, oh, of course.
You absolutely, monsieur.
I don't know why the waiter is French.
That's a French restaurant.
I've got France on the mine because of the macrons.
The chef would go there and they throw out the cake.
Get you a new cake.
The problem is a baby's not a piece of cake.
A baby is not food that you order at a restaurant.
A baby is not a handbag that you buy at a luxury store.
A baby's not a commodity.
A baby's a human being with rights to be treated as a proper subject.
But we, in order to advance, sometimes with the best of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, in order to advance a false conception of sex, a false conception of human nature, a false definition of marriage, we deny that the baby is a proper subject with rights.
We treat the baby like the handbag and the cake.
And so it should come as no surprise that the customer gets to treat the baby as such.
This is horrifying.
These men should be arrested.
I mean, I guess it's not against the laws.
You can't retroactively change the law, but the law should be changed immediately.
And men who do this should be arrested and left in prison for life or worse.
But this is the law as it stands now.
And what the revolutionaries, what the cultural and sexual revolutionaries will say is, well, look, this is just the cost of equal rights for LGBT.
This is just the cost of equality.
Yes, sometimes you got to crack a few eggs to make a cake.
Sometimes you got to kill a few babies to allow homosexuals and other people with deviant sexual behaviors and ideologies to pretend that reality is other than it is.
Do you think this is worth it?
I don't think it's worth it.
This is really, really dark stuff.
We haven't even touched on how many human persons were created and discarded to get the baby into the woman's belly in the first place.
We haven't even touched on that.
We're just talking about the men who say, ah, yeah, didn't come out right.
Didn't come out quite right.
I actually wanted blonde hair.
This one came out with brown hair.
Can we scrap it and start again?
There's no difference between what these guys did in that situation.
A lot of people starting to take bioethics a little more seriously, including even the New York Times.
So this actually begins, even before we get to the New York Times reporting, this begins with health and human services.
Health and human services under Bobby Kennedy proves me right.
And this is what, you know, sometimes I don't hate to say I told you so.
In this instance, I actually do hate to say I told you so.
I've mentioned for months, and I've caught some flack for it.
I said, you know, organ donation is a very dangerous thing.
And often it involves murdering people because brain death is fake.
It's not really death.
It's just a designation that people came up with in the 1960s to facilitate certain medical interventions and pulling the plug on certain people and organ donation.
But it's not really death.
And in the case of organ donation and brain death, what usually happens is that the actual immediate cause of the death of the patient is the retrieval and the removal of the organs.
That's what kills the patient.
Because the patient still has the signs of life before that happens.
Well, Health and Human Services under Bobby Kennedy did a big study on this.
And what HHS found is not shocking to me, is not shocking to people who've thought seriously about this, but is going to be shocking to a lot of people, including the New York Times.
Hold on one second.
We're going to get back to all this stuff.
But first, go to jeremysrazors.com slash legend.
Stop living like a myth.
It's time to start shaving like a legend with Jeremy's Razors, the politically incorrect razor for men, equipped with five barbigrade blades and a moisturizing aloe strip.
Jeremy's Razors are sharp enough for thick, beastly scruff, yet smooth enough for daily use.
Hundreds of thousands of abominable beasts agree.
Jeremy's Razors delivers barbigrade blades right in the palm of your hand.
While other razors snap or treat you like garbage, Jeremy's Razors offers a world-class shave without shame.
Try Jeremy's Razors today for only $7.99.
That's an amazing deal.
They ship right to your man cave.
For every Jeremy's Razor sold, a liberal loses a pronoun.
Think about that.
If you're a man who urinates standing up, go to jeremy'srazors.com slash legend Jeremy's Razors.
Don't tame the beast.
Just shave it.
HHS has found a systemic disregard for the sanctity of life in the organ transplant system.
It's so bad that even the New York Times is willing to admit it.
Here it is, New York Times.
Doctors were preparing to remove their organs, then they woke up.
Subheader.
A federal investigation found a Kentucky nonprofit pushed hospital workers towards surgery despite signs of revival in patients.
What else did they find?
People across the United States have endured rushed or premature attempts to remove their organs.
Some were gasping, crying, or showing other signs of life.
This is the New York Times.
There are very few issues where I and the New York Times are in total agreement.
And when that happens, it's going to be very hard to deny that there is an issue here.
I hate to say I told you so here.
But what this is about is what happens when you tell lies in order to achieve some greater good.
This is what happens when you cut little corners ethically because you think, oh, it's not going to really matter.
And it's going to make it a lot easier for us to, for instance, remove a patient who has very little hope of recovery from artificial life-sustaining technologies.
This is going to make it easier to save people who, who knows, maybe they need a liver or they need a heart.
And we have these patients who they're not, they were in a bad car accident.
They're not really going to survive.
And so if instead of waiting until they die, we just, because when you die, you know, the organs start to die and then we can't really use them.
What if we just take those organs like five seconds before they're really going to die?
That's the argument.
And they gussy it up in these other terms.
They say, well, the patient's brain dead.
They're not dead dead, but they're brain dead.
Even though in certain cases of brain death, patients have lived years or decades actually after brain activity is said to have stopped, going through puberty even in some cases.
We've talked about on the show before.
But what if we just, we're going to cut this little corner.
We're going to tell this little tiny white lie and look at all the good we can do.
We can save kids who have diseases.
We can save millions of dollars from our healthcare system, many, many, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars from our healthcare system.
We can just cut that little corner.
And then what happens?
Eventually the lies come to light.
Eventually all the bad stuff comes to light.
And we find out that people are fighting for their lives while they are being killed by medical organizations harvesting their organs.
Can you imagine a more dystopian system and way to go?
Hard to do so.
This is great stuff.
You know, I know that the Maha movement was all about taking dyes out of fruit loops or whatever, and that's the big victory.
To me, this is a much bigger one.
You have Bobby Kennedy really living up to, in this case at least, his Catholic bona fides.
Kennedy has taken political positions that are in conflict with the Catholic faith.
But here, he always considered himself a Catholic.
He actually went for many years to the same church in suburban New York that my grandmother would go to.
She'd talk about seeing him there.
And here he's really living up to it, putting true pro-life principles first, at least on this issue.
Good stuff.
Don't cut corners on ethics.
Don't tell little white lies.
They're going to lead to lots of problems down the road.
Now, speaking of the liminal space between life and death, Colbert's public life on CBS is over.
It has been announced that his show is dead, but it's still limping along.
It will limp along for some number of months before it is fully canceled.
Jon Stewart is apparently still on air, looking a little longer in the tooth, but I guess he's still hosting the daily show at least sometimes.
He's not taking the news of his former colleague's cancellation very well.
He responded, as any really sharp, satirical, brilliant cultural voice would, by screaming profanity for like 90 seconds.
Go f yourself!
Go fast!
Wait, wait, wait, bring it down, bring it down.
Let it bring it down.
Let it get quiet.
Go f yourself!
Just go f yourself!
Everybody!
Everybody!
This is the first time I've ever thought that Jon Stewart seems really old.
I grew up, I watched a lot of Jon Stewart as a kid, even though he was a huge lib.
I was kind of libertarian, so there was some overlap.
But he seems really old here.
The whole setup.
See, the thing that's supposed to make it funny is he said the F word.
That's the joke.
The joke is he's angry and said the F word.
And here's the second part of the joke.
He is doing something really vulgar and he is contrasting it with something that's supposed to be really virtuous and holy.
He's got a gospel choir, but he's saying the F word.
They're all saying the F word.
Isn't that funny?
Isn't that funny as a problem?
It might have been funny 20 years ago or 25 years ago, but it's not anymore because the culture's totally changed.
And he was part of that change.
Decades ago, George Carlin could say the words you're not allowed to say on TV.
And that was really shocking and naughty because you really weren't allowed to say those words on TV.
Then, I remember this.
I was around for this.
I remember the two big shows on Comedy Central in the late 90s and early 2000s were South Park and The Daily Show.
The Daily Show, initially hosted by Craig Kilbourne, then Jon Stewart took it over and became a darling of the liberal press.
And at the same time, even on cable, you couldn't say a lot of naughty words.
And then South Park came out and said a ton of naughty words.
But they still couldn't say certain words like S-H-I-T or the F-word or other words.
And then over time, even those taboos, even those standards started to break down.
And they could say S-H-I-T.
Then they could say basically anything.
And in those days, it was so shocking, in those days, if Jon Stewart came on TV or John Oliver or Colbert actually didn't really do this as much, but the two of them, they'd come out and instead of writing a joke, they would just read a headline and then read it again, but put the F word in it.
And that was the substitute for a joke.
And they normalized that 25 years ago.
And now they think that that's still really cool and shocking, but it's not.
So what would be subversive now is to be clean, to go clean.
What was subversive in the 90s was Dennis Leary singing I'm an A-hole or whatever, all those, Jon Stewart singing the F-word, but that isn't subversive anymore.
And Colbert is not really funny anymore.
He was funny on his Company Central show at the time.
He hasn't been funny in years.
It's not culturally subversive.
It's not culturally popular.
That's why it loses 40 million bucks a year.
And that's why he's getting canceled.
He's getting canceled because that show lost an insane amount of money every year.
So when Jon Stewart says, go F yourself, who's he really saying it to?
Is he saying it to Donald Trump?
Not really.
Trump didn't get him fired.
Is he saying it to the network?
Now he's saying it to you.
He's saying it to you because you didn't watch Colbert and you were supposed to watch Colbert because this was still supposed to be funny and this was still supposed to be relevant, but it's not really anymore.
So it's real, what is he saying?
F you two?
Go F yourself.
I don't know.
Is he saying it to Father Time?
Some combination of the audience and Father Time.
Father Time comes for us all.
Coming for the Colbert show and they're coming for you, Mr. Stewart.
Might already be here.
You know someone in your life that needs Daily Wire Plus.
They're getting all the wrong news from all the wrong places, Facebook videos, establishment media, that guy on TikTok who whispers the theories next to the ring light.
Then they're going to your home for dinner and they're saying dumb stuff and don't let them wallow in that misery.
Give them something better, the truth.
Real journalism, ad-free uncensored shows from the most trusted and handsome and chiseled voices in conservative media.
A community of people just like you who have good beliefs and common sense right now.
You can give that person Dailywire Plus for 40% off with code JULY at dailywire.com slash gift.
You're not just giving a membership.
You're giving America one less person who thinks the view is news.
It's not.
It's not.
Go to dailywire.com slash gift.
Use code JULY for 40% off right now.
My favorite comment yesterday, before I get to a delicious little clip of a Democrat admitting something Republicans have been alleging for decades, Democrats have been denying it for decades.
And now we got the proof.
We got the smoking gun from a sitting member of Congress.
Before we get to that, my favorite comment yesterday is from T.L. Catlett.
I knew I was going to get hit for this.
Ozzy's music was not satanic.
I know.
I know the argument.
John Cordinel O'Connor said the music was demonic.
Ozzy said, no, it's really, it's not.
It's Christian, actually.
And Ozzy would wear a cross, and he was called the Prince of Darkness, but it was all kind of tongue-in-cheek.
And it was deeply Christian.
And I knew all the Ozzy fans were going to, I know.
But what I said was, I wasn't saying Ozzy's horrible and he's a Satanist and he's burning in the pit of hell looking up at us right now.
I said, what I said was, Ozzy seemed like a nice enough guy and he was a kind of lovable, eccentric cultural figure.
But the stuff he was most known for was pretty bad and demonic.
And I'm sure he felt a great deal of shame for it.
In fact, I know he did.
All the drug stuff, all the crazy antics on the drugs and the women and all of this.
And the really famous incident, infamous incident, where Ozzy tried to murder his wife.
And not even just like in a normal way.
He did it by saying, we have decided in a reportedly totally calm way, we have decided that you must die.
And he strangled his wife.
And luckily she hit a panic button and the cops arrested Ozzy.
And he was asked about this.
I said, what do you have to say about that incident?
He goes, well, it's not the proudest achievement I've got.
You know, it was kind of a funny answer.
That was my point.
What a pity, because he seems like he's kind of a sweet guy.
I hope to see Ozzy in heaven someday.
But so much of what he's remembered for is genuinely terrible stuff.
We should all try to avoid that.
That's what I said.
That's what I said.
You can't.
Come on.
Come on.
Don't say I said something I didn't say.
Okay.
Speaking of bad liberal arguments, we move from Jon Stewart to Representative Yvette Clark, who is admitting on camera that Democrats rely on illegal aliens to boost their numbers in Congress and get more power.
I'm from Brooklyn, New York.
We have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants.
And when I hear colleagues talk about the doors of the inn being closed, no room in the inn, I'm saying, I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.
And those members could clearly fit here.
I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.
You catch that part?
Because understand, the number of representatives that a state will have in Congress is not based on the number of citizens in the state or the number of taxpayers or something.
It's based on the number of people in the state.
So if you flood a state with a bunch of illegals, you're going to increase their representation in Congress, which dramatically can shift the balance of power in the government.
And what Yvette is saying here is, yeah, I need those illegals to get our population numbers up.
You know, there are a lot of people leaving these blue states, going to the red states for better taxes, better business environment, better schools, more normal lifestyle.
And shoot, we got to make up the difference here so that the blue states don't lose their representation.
It doesn't matter if the illegals vote or not, as long as they're there in blue counties, then the Democrats will get more representation and we won't lose our power.
I've said for years, as have many Republicans, that the reason the Democrats open up the borders is because, well, one, the business community just wants slave labor, but the Democrats want to get a permanent electoral majority.
And then the libs, all the fancy libs, they say, that's ridiculous.
That's a conspiracy theory.
Well, here she is.
You heard it from the horse's mouth.
She's admitting it.
She's a sitting Democrat member of Congress.
Don't ever let them tell you again that the Democrats are not pushing open borders for purposes of getting them a permanent electoral majority.
That's what it's about.
Now, speaking of migration, some good news here.
You know, President Trump has that self-deportation app?
It's an app that says, hey, if you don't want to get Tom Holman's boot kicking down your door, you can choose to deport yourself.
And if you do it, we're going to geolocate you.
Once we find out you're back in your country of origin, we'll send you $1,000, which is the most efficient way and most humane way to deport people.
We have 11 to 16 million illegal aliens in the country.
That's a conservative estimate.
You're not going to get Tom Holman to personally chuck all of them out of the country.
It would be obscenely expensive and it would be practically impossible.
It costs a lot more than $1,000 to put an illegal through the whole process of deportation and ship them down to Bukele's House of Fun in El Salvador.
So if they can do it themselves, they handle all the costs to that, and then we give them $1,000, we are getting off cheap.
And it shows the humanity of Trump's immigration policy because, yeah, they're sticks.
They're the sticks that Tom Holman hit you with while he's kicking you across the Rio Grande.
But they're also carrots.
We're also saying, look, we understand this is a complex problem, mostly advanced by Democrats and the Chamber of Commerce.
So we're going to, I'm sorry that they rolled out the red carpet for you to break our laws.
You got to leave, but we'll give you $1,000 and not throw you in prison.
How's that sound?
This is great.
Because so far what we're finding out is that likely the app has saved millions for taxpayers in the deportations.
And also, we know it's been used by tens of thousands of illegals.
So then you're going to say, well, tens of thousands of illegals compared to 16 million, that's just not a lot of people.
But you have to pair that study on the app with the illegals who are not using the app, who are just self-deporting because they don't want to get a one-way ticket from Mr. Homan.
There was a Center for Immigration Studies survey that showed that 1 million illegal aliens have self-deported since January.
And the way we can know that is by looking at the labor participation numbers.
That's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
Again, it's a huge uphill battle.
But given all the headwinds that Trump is facing, the immigration policy is actually going pretty well.
A lot of panic cans, a lot of critics want to say he isn't deporting anyone.
The numbers are actually looking pretty good.
Okay, speaking of Trump issues, we get an Epstein update.
So remember, initially the Republicans said, we're going to release the Epstein files.
And the Attorney General Pam Bondi went on TV and said, I've got the Epstein list of clients on my desk.
And she gave the binders out to those social media influencers.
Here are the files.
And there was nothing new in the files.
And then she said, I got the list on my desk.
And then she said, actually, there isn't a list.
And you're not going to get anything else.
And I pointed out, I said, look, you're never going to really learn anything new about Epstein.
But this is a big political problem for Trump because he seems like he's not being forthright here.
He's, I think, underestimated how much this issue matters to a lot of his base because it's a symbol of corruption in the swamp.
Not that Trump is implicated in the files, really.
Not that they're covering up for a cabal of pedos necessarily, but that by not being more forthright on the files, you're creating a big issue that's not going to go away overnight.
So I said that Trump needs a better answer.
He's not being served well by this answer.
And then what did Trump do?
This is a brilliant idea.
He said, okay, I'm directing the Justice Department to go to the courts, to have the courts unseal the grand jury testimony so you get a bunch of info on Epstein.
And the reason this was brilliant is not that we're going to get a list of, you know, here's a leatherbound version of the top 10 pedos on earth, go get them.
It's not even really possible for that to come out of the files, but because it makes it an issue for the judiciary.
So what I predicted in the first place remains true.
Either Epstein is who the government says he is, in which case you know everything you're going to know, or Epstein is not who the government says he is.
He's who you think he is.
He's a super spy, he's whatever, in which case you already know everything you're going to know.
But in no instance are you going to get any serious, juicy stuff out of it.
I hope we get some justice, but you're not going to get a lot of transparency here.
And that's exactly what's happened because the DOJ went to the courts and said, give me the Epstein files, give me the Epstein grand jury testimony.
And the courts said no.
The court said no, it would be imprudent to release that.
You don't have the right to that and we're not going to do it.
Which is a win for the Trump administration.
Because now it means people can direct their ire to that branch of government, not to the executive branch, over an issue that long predates Trump, that Trump doesn't want to deal with, that Trump doesn't really seem to have much more that he can do with it.
Just say, okay, go focus on the judiciary.
That is a political win.
It's going to be unsatisfying for people who want the list, whatever the list even is at this point.
The list of people who were accused, the list of people who went to the Epstein properties, the list of people who are supposedly on video that the government says doesn't even exist, that even though there was video, but now they say the video doesn't include people, but it does include abused children, and the whole thing is a big mess.
But from a political perspective, now everyone's going to focus on the judiciary.
Trump can get on talking about the achievements that he wants to talk about.
Now, speaking of long-standing presidential scandals, this one is really bad.
This one is almost as bad as the issue with the two guys buying the kid.
The Biden administration set up a hotline for migrant kids.
The many migrant kids who were brought across the border by criminal cartels with the welcoming of the Biden administration and the Obama administration.
The Biden admins set up this hotline so that the kids who were placed with sponsors in other homes could report if there was any abuse.
65,000 calls went unanswered, which, certainly just by the numbers, is a much bigger child abuse scandal, even than Epstein, by orders of magnitude.
We don't have time to get to that right now.
So we'll have to get to that tomorrow.
Has that for a horrifying cliffhanger?
We don't have any membrane segmentum today because I'm out at the Napa conference.
This has been a lot of travel.
Poor sweet little Elisa is at home, like Steve Martin, just juggling a bunch of toddlers, plotting out ways to murder me.
I have been on the road.
It's been a little crazy with the timing and giving speeches and all the rest of it.
So we will have, there will be more membra segmenta.
That's the plural of membrane segmentum.
There will be more membra segmenta coming up, but not right now.
Sorry.
Save up all your good, juicy comments so that I can read them from the Chemdilachem when I get back.
