Ep. 1856 - The Right-Wing SPLITS Over Trump’s H1-B Legal Immigration Plan
President Trump’s administration defends expanding legal immigration, Michelle Obama says Americans need to be re-educated on what “Black beauty” really means, and Scott Wiener wants domestic violence victims to suck it up and get naked in front of trans women.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1856
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe to join now.
Finally, Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. Now available at https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire
GET THE ALL-NEW YES OR NO EXPANSION PACK TODAY: https://bit.ly/41gsZ8Q
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/KNOWLES to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
Neuro Gum - Get 20% off your first order by using code KNOWLES at https://Neurogum.com
Ave Maria Mutual Funds - Learn more at https://avemariafunds.com/MICHAEL
- - -
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
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
After winning an election driven largely by discontent over mass migration, the Trump administration is coming out in full force to defend H-1B visas and more legal migration.
The right is up in arms, understandably so, but everyone is missing a crucial little secret that shows us what is really going on.
And I will give you that secret.
I'm Michael Knowles.
the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Michelle Obama has just given a lecture on how her black beauty is so powerful that you need to be educated about it.
So we're going to get that education.
We're going to learn.
We're going to sit our, when Michelle Obama speaks, we are going to sit ourselves down and listen, okay?
First, though, I want to tell you about policy genius.
Go to policygenius.com slash Knowles.
We all know that costs have been all over the place.
Groceries, gas, subscriptions, you name it.
It is no surprise that we tend to assume everything is more expensive than it actually is.
Case in point, 72% of Americans overestimate what life insurance costs.
Turns out, it might be more affordable than you think.
Policy Genius makes finding and buying life insurance fast, easy, and surprisingly affordable.
So something happens to you, your loved ones have a financial safety net.
With Policy Genius, real users have gotten 20-year, $2 million policies for just $53 a month.
Looking for life insurance can feel overwhelming.
Policy Genius makes it surprisingly straightforward.
They let you compare quotes from top insurers in just a few clicks so that you can get the coverage that actually fits your needs and budget.
What really sets them apart is their team of licensed agents who walk you through everything step by step, answering questions, handling the paperwork, advocating for you throughout the process.
It's really, really important that you get life insurance to protect your family, to do the responsible thing.
Do it now.
Best day to get life insurance is yesterday.
Second best day is today.
And then you don't have to think about it.
You want to have that nagging feeling.
Secure your family's future with PolicyGenius.
Go to policygenius.com slash Knowles.
Compare life insurance quotes from top companies.
See how much you can save.
That's policygenius.com slash Knowles.
The right is not happy about some comments that President Trump just made.
I give them to you in his own words.
These are comments made to Laura Ingram.
Republicans have to talk about it.
And does that mean the H-1B visa thing will not be a big priority for your administration?
Because if you want to raise wages for American workers, you can't flood the country with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of foreign workers.
We have plenty of talented people.
No, you don't.
No, you don't.
We don't have talented people.
No, you don't have certain talents and people have to learn.
You can't take people off an unemployment, like an unemployment line and say, I'm going to put you into a factory where we're going to make missiles.
Okay, people really don't like this for two reasons.
One, because just the way the soundbite falls, it sounds like President Trump is saying that Americans aren't talented.
Now, I think the guy has enough grace on the issue over the last 10 years to know that he thinks Americans are very talented and he hugs the American flag and he's got more popular appeal than any president, probably in my lifetime, certainly in, I don't know, 20, 25 years.
He clarifies what he means.
He says, you don't have talent in certain areas or you don't have enough talent in certain areas.
And then he goes on in the interview to explain which.
So that's one reason people are miffed.
I get it.
They're really irritated, though, on the issue itself, because I think a lot of people want to reduce all migration.
The movement of people into the United States over the last 70 years is the largest movement of people in recorded history.
So a lot of people are saying, no, hold on.
Wait, we didn't vote to get more migrants coming into this country.
Why are you doubling down on the H-1B visa issue?
So was this just a gaff?
Was this just the president kind of speaking off the top of his head, maybe not totally getting the policy exactly right?
Secretary of DHS, Christy Noam, goes on Fox News and doubles down.
What is the administration's position on these visas?
We're going to keep using our visa programs.
We're just going to make sure that they have integrity, that we're actually doing the vetting of the individuals who come into this country, that they want to be here for the right reasons, that they're not supporters of terrorists and organizations that hate America.
And that's what I think is so remarkable is under the Trump administration, we've sped up our process and added integrity to the visa programs, to green cards, to all of that.
But also, more people are becoming naturalized under this administration than ever before.
More people are becoming citizens because we're not just streamlining and building some processes back into our immigration policies.
We're also making sure that these individuals that are coming into our country and get that privilege, that they actually are here for the right reasons.
The Biden administration let thousands of terrorists into this country.
They opened the southern border.
They abused our asylum programs, abused our protective programs and visa programs, and we fixed all of it.
It's remarkable what President Trump has done, and it's because he's a great leader.
He's a visionary.
And this man is going to go down as a legend in history as our greatest president ever.
Okay, so no ambiguity about this at all.
She says there at the end, we are naturalizing more people than have ever been naturalized before.
We're bringing in more legal immigrants than have ever been brought in before.
And in the first part, she says, look, we're going to keep using our visa program.
I think most people would agree with that.
It says we just need it to have integrity.
But there are two ways that a visa program cannot have integrity.
The one way is what she's talking about, which is when you let in a bunch of people who hate your country, who are terrorists, who are dangerous.
Obviously, you don't want those guys in.
But the other way that a visa program can lack integrity is if it's not being used for what it's supposed to be used for.
The purpose of these various visa programs is to bring people into the United States who have skills that are hard to find in the United States.
You can't find an American to do the job, so you got to go bring someone in from elsewhere, or who have some quality that would benefit our country that we don't presently have.
And she doesn't really address that part.
She doesn't address whether or not there are Americans who can fill these jobs.
She's just saying, look, we're going to make sure they're not terrorists and we're going to naturalize more people than ever.
So I think for a lot of people like me who think that we just simply have too much migration, who want to drastically reduce all migration, who don't have anything against the migrants in particular, I'm sure some of them are very nice people, but we just have too many.
Sometimes in American history, you need more migration.
Sometimes you need a lot less.
We're in one of the a lot less periods right now.
For people like me, you listen to this and you say, oh, yikes, this is bad.
This is not what I voted for.
Now, there are plenty of people for whom this is exactly what they voted for.
There are a lot of people who say, look, I want to stop illegal immigration, but I want more legal immigration.
There are a lot of people.
That's kind of like the boomer conservative point of view.
That was the dogma in the Republican Party for a long time.
But especially younger conservatives, more right-wing conservatives, we say, no, it's just we have too much migration.
We need to reduce it.
We're losing social solidarity.
There's strains on the welfare system.
Crime is going up.
I have to press three for English.
I don't want it.
I don't want it.
So are we all doomers here?
No.
The doomerism is not justified because of one dirty little secret, one actually beautiful little secret.
Here it is.
This is from the White House website, but it's backed up by reporting even from liberal journalists who are very upset about this fact.
We are on track to have net negative migration into the United States this year.
Net negative migration for the first time in half a century.
So that's the dirty little secret.
And it doesn't mean that the president is lying, certainly.
It doesn't mean that Christy Noam is lying.
They might be bringing in more legal immigrants than ever before.
They might be naturalizing more people than ever before.
But they're deporting so many people.
So many people are self-deporting that you're seeing net negative migration for the first time in half a century.
This is, and who knows, we're still in November.
There's still a month or two to figure out if we actually hit that number.
But that would be the greatest achievement for immigration restrictionists since the 1960s.
That is a major, major win.
And I wondered, I was talking to friends about this during the campaign.
When President Trump, even in 2024, was doubling down on illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good, I thought, why is he saying that?
I think people are just fed up with all the mass migration.
A friend of mine pointed out that might just be the most politically salient way to do it.
There are going to be a lot of people who, when you say you want fewer migrants generally, they're just going to conclude you're a racist, you're a this-ist, you're a thatist, and you're going to turn off those more independent centrist voters.
So I said, okay, maybe tactically that makes sense.
There are other reasons too.
Maybe it's because some of the donors, many of the donors to both parties, want more migration because they think that it will benefit their companies.
Maybe they have some patriotic feeling.
They think it'll benefit the economy generally.
But in any case, President Trump is trying to maintain a coalition, balance a lot of different powers that have interests in the government of the United States.
If the net effect of that is that we have net negative migration for the first time in 50 years, and the administration goes on TV and says, we love legal immigrants.
And that's it.
But the net effect is we are net negative migration.
Sign me up, man.
I love that.
We are supposed to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
I think it works out well.
And speaking of some of those donors, speaking of some of those industries, is a little bit of a terrifying headline out of the Wall Street Journal.
It was just a couple days ago.
The AI boom is looking more and more fragile.
AI stocks have swung downward as doubt rises about sustainability and payoff.
So a lot of the arguments for H-1Bs and bringing in these immigrants with highly specialized technical skills is to serve the defense industry, sure, but also to serve Silicon Valley.
And you might not like Silicon Valley.
Some people in Silicon Valley have been pretty good recently, and they moved a little bit to the right.
And frankly, it's a Silicon Valley guy, Elon Musk, who is probably responsible for the Trump victory because he bought X and freed up a medium for conservatives to have a say.
In any case, it is simply an economic fact.
Silicon Valley is propping up our whole economy right now.
The stocks that are propping up the market are the Mag 7, these big tech stocks, AI in particular.
People are pouring money into AI.
So if Silicon Valley fails, the economy is going into the gutter.
That is going to destroy Republicans in the midterms.
That very well could destroy JD Vance in 2028 or whoever the Republican nominee is.
Probably it's going to be JD Vance.
I know we love to focus on the Republican Civil War.
There's a Republican Civil War over neoconservatism and post-liberalism and Israel and social issues and this and that.
Sure, there is.
I gave a speech on this last night, actually.
If you want my complete, unvarnished take on the so-called Republican right-wing civil war, I gave that speech at Belmont Abbey.
We'll try to get it up on the YouTube channel and Daily Wire and elsewhere.
You get it there.
Let me tell you something.
Silicon Valley failing would be much more calamitous for the Republican Party and the conservative movement than any kind of civil wars or tweets or live streams or whatever.
And so I get it.
Trump is trying to balance all of these things.
I'm pretty good with this effect.
If we get, okay, we get some more tech workers, we get some whatever.
Net migration goes down.
We keep up that trend.
We fix the horrific migration problem.
We keep the stock market ticking along as best we can.
We keep the economy going.
That's not bad.
It seems actually pretty smart.
Now, speaking of intelligence, John Fetterman, the one, I guess, quasi-blue dog, moderate Democrat in the Senate, he just went on CNN and dropped some facts about the nastiness of the two political parties, about where the vitriol and the hatred in this country is really coming from.
We'll get to that in one second.
First, I want to tell you about NeuroGum.
Go to Neurogum.com, code Knowles.
Do you ever feel like you're running on empty?
Sometimes I feel like I'm running on empty because I've been traveling too much.
Well, if you're staring at your screen, you're hitting that afternoon crash, you're debating another coffee or energy drink that you know that you'll regret.
Enter NeuroGum.
NeuroGum and Mints.
Neuro's energy and focus gum and mints give you clean, focused energy without the crash, sugar, or sketchy ingredients.
This is the easiest upgrade that you can make to your wellness and energy routine, especially when you're reaching for the coffee, for the little zinnis, whatever it is.
You got your NeuroGum.
It's powered by natural green tea caffeine and Lthanine for calm focus plus mood boosting B vitamins.
It's functional wellness.
You can chew and go.
Perfect for long work days, tough workouts, or those chaotic carpool days.
Neuro fits your life.
It's discreet.
It's effective.
It's actually good for you.
Also offers caffeine-free options for all-day wellness support.
Neuro's Memory and Focus Gum are made with American Ginseng to support mental clarity minus the jitters.
Neuro's sleep and recharge mints offer melatonin and chamomile to help you unwind and rest without pills or sugary gummies for a limited time.
Get 20% off your first order at neurogum.com using code Knowles.
Neurogum.com, code Knowles for 20% off your first order.
You can also find Neuro at CBS and Amazon.
Choose smarter, not harder.
Who's meaner?
The right or the left?
Who's meaner?
If you listen to the establishment media, they'll tell you that Republicans are hateful and fascists and authoritarians and genocidal and whatever.
If you look at social scientific data, you notice that the left is meaner.
The left is more likely to unfollow people on social media, to disown family over politics, to justify political violence, to celebrate political violence.
There's no question.
It's not even close.
Here is John Fetterman, a member in good standing of the Democrat Party, U.S. Senator, goes on CNN, the left-wing news channel, to drop some facts.
You said, quote, I've drunk deeply of the venom of both the left and the right.
As a connoisseur, I can confirm that the most poisonous, the bitterest is from the far left.
That is pretty remarkable to hear you say that as an elected Democrat.
Why?
Yeah.
Yeah, no.
You know, it's just been my personal experience on this thing.
And when I asked my digital team, I said, you know, we're on all the platforms.
You know, really, what's kind of the harshest?
What's kind of the most personal?
And the answer was immediate.
They said, oh, blue sky.
It's blue sky.
And the difference is, I mean, the right would say really rough things and names.
You know, some names I won't repeat on TV, but on the left, it was like they want me to die, or that we're cheering for your next stroke, or that's terrible that Depression, why couldn't it Depression one?
And I hope your kids find you.
I mean, they even have like the graphic a gif.
They have a stroke, you know, in, you know, in your head.
There's no surprise here whatsoever.
You know, there are people on the right who make all sorts of nasty jokes about politicians, of course, and it happens.
That's politics.
However, do you ever see Republicans coming out just wishing death upon their enemies?
You really don't see that.
And you see that all the time from the left.
You see that from normies on the left.
And there are all sorts of cultural and religious reasons for that.
The fact that they're kind of nihilists or materialists and they deny the existence of a transcendent world order and so on and so forth.
But they do that.
And that radicalized John Fetterman.
It radicalized.
There's no question about it.
And we should never underestimate the persuasiveness of like just being charitable.
It's good to be charitable because if you don't have charity, you don't have anything.
But also, it's persuasive in politics.
It's so funny because the left, they love the word kind.
Have you noticed that?
They love the word kind.
They put kind every be kind.
I love kind people.
We have to be kind.
I don't know why.
It became a meme, but they all talk about being kind and kindness all the time.
And yet, in the aggregate, statistically, they wish death upon stroke victims of their own party.
And that kind of radicalized him.
Had the Democrats been nicer to John Fetterman, would he be going on these tours subverting their party interests?
Would he be siding with seven of his colleagues to end the government shutdown and prove that the Democrats own the shutdown and that they're useless?
I don't know.
People used to say in the first Trump term, they said, you know, if only Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi had been nice to Trump, he might have worked with them.
But they had to call him a fascist and try to undermine him every step of the way and really go after him in a vitriolic way.
And so he destroyed them.
He destroyed their party.
He destroyed their party.
He destroyed their agenda.
He survived all of their attempts on him, political and otherwise.
Not to be underestimated.
You know, I have a friend who says that facts don't care about your feelings, which is fair enough, you know, in as much as that's accurate.
But you know what cares about your feelings a lot?
Politics.
Politics cares a lot about your feelings.
And if we can win over a Democrat senator substantially, imagine what we can do to regular voters, to people who are not partisans, who are not super party political.
You know, I see a good example of this.
Just a brief little clip here.
This was going viral on TikTok the other day.
It's the Osborne family, Sharon Osborne, you know, all the kids, Ozzy Osborne's family, playing a voicemail that they received from President Trump.
I mean, should we play the voicemail?
Not saying who it's from.
Everyone will know.
Hi, Sharon.
It's Donald Trump, and I just wanted to wish you the best and the family of great.
Ozzy was amazing.
He was an amazing guy.
I met him a few times.
And I want to tell you he was unique in every way and talented.
So I just wanted to wish you the best.
And it's a tough thing.
I know how close you were.
And whatever I can do, take care of yourself.
Say hello to the family.
Thanks.
Bye.
Love him or hate him.
He didn't have to call and leave a voicemail.
Listen, when it comes to politics, we know nobody comes out a winner.
It's a great, I love this, this voicemail so much.
I love this voicemail so much because he didn't have to do it.
You can tell the Osborne family they're trying to thread a political needle and not seem like they're coming down on one side or the other.
But obviously the choice to play the voicemail is showing their gratitude for this.
And what I love about the voicemail is it's personal.
You can recognize it just like Jack Osborne says.
You know, you know who it is.
You don't need to intro it.
You can tell it's Trump, but it's not performative in any way.
One, he took the time to do it because he met this guy a few times.
This wasn't, he didn't blare this out.
It wasn't out there, you know, like giving long speeches about Ozzy.
He just gives a phone call to the family and it's pretty subdued.
Just, hey, hey, you saw the news.
He's great.
He was great.
I really liked him.
Met him a few times.
So sorry for your family.
Anyway, okay.
All right.
Bye.
It was it.
It was not over the top.
He was this amazing human being and America will never be the same.
He wasn't giving some artificial stump speech like plenty of politicians would do in that situation.
He wasn't promoting himself.
Sometimes people accuse Trump because because he gives a lot of stump speeches, they accuse him of he's always promoting himself.
Look, Ozzy, we love Ozzy.
We love, and you know who Ozzy loved me.
He loved me and he loved my policies and he loved my God.
Of course, it wasn't that at all.
Just, hey, hey, it's just a guy.
Hey, it's just Donald.
Hey, it's Donald.
I knew, yeah, you know, I knew Ozzy a little bit.
He was great.
He was a great guy.
So anyway, you know, my heart goes out to you.
Talk to you.
Bye.
You don't have to call me back, whatever.
Bye.
It's great, that personal touch that connects.
People still wonder, how does this billionaire from New York, big TV star, real estate mogul, guy who's flown around in a 747 for 40 years, you know, how does this guy have a relation to the common man?
It's that.
It's these intangibles.
It's these things that are barely perceptible.
It's just little movements of the face, little ways you talk, little tiny things you do, most of which will go unnoticed.
That's how you do it.
That's how you win John Fetterman over as far as I'm concerned.
Okay, speaking of beautiful things, a beautiful voicemail.
Michelle Obama wants you to know how powerfully beautiful she is.
And because some of you don't know that, she is going to educate you about it.
And we have to start educating people about all kinds of beauty.
Yes.
And our beauty is so powerful and so unique that it is worthy of a conversation and it's worthy of demanding the respect that we're owed for who we are and what we offer to the world.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I am so hot.
I'm sexy and people don't realize that.
And I'm uniquely sexy.
She actually says so unique, which is, this is a digression, but it's pedantic, but you can't, something can't be so unique.
Something can't, people say, oh, it's very unique.
Something can't be very unique.
Unique means one of a kind.
It either is one of a kind or is not one of a kind.
It's one of many, but it can't be.
So please, Michelle Obama.
Okay, that's the least of it.
She says black beauty is unique, uniquely powerful, and people need to be educated about this.
And here I'm really doubting her grasp of the English language because if something is powerful, it does not require you to educate people, to induct you into the secret mysteries of it.
If a thing has power in itself, then it imposes itself on others.
You don't need someone to persuade you of it exactly.
But this is about a lot more than how hot Michelle Obama is, okay?
This actually gets down to, I think, the heart of liberalism and modern leftism, which ultimately is Gnostic.
We'll get to that in one second.
First though, I want to tell you about Ave Maria Mutual Funds.
Go to AveMariafunds.com slash Michael.
I love Ave Maria Mutual Funds.
I am very proud to serve on their board.
I really support everything that they do.
It's very important that when you're investing your money, you have a say in what kind of companies you're investing in.
And you can avoid the kind of companies that you don't want to invest in.
Ave Maria Funds has been around since 2001, founded by George Schwartz.
Today they manage nearly $4 billion in assets with more than 100,000 shareholders.
What sets them apart is simple.
They will not invest in companies that are tied to abortion, porn, embryonic stem cell research, or those that support Planned Parenthood.
Simple.
Whether you're saving for retirement, your kids' education, or you just want to grow your wealth responsibly, I strongly recommend you go check out Ave Maria Mutual Funds, which offers a range of options so you do not have to compromise.
Learn more at avemariafunds.com slash Michael.
AveMariafunds.com slash Michael.
All mutual funds are subject to risk, including possible loss of principal.
Request a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, fees, charges, and expenses, and other information that you should read and consider carefully before investing.
The prospectus can be obtained by calling 1-866-283-6274, or it can be viewed at avemariafunds.com.
Ave Maria Mutual Funds are distributed by Ultimus Fund Distributors, LLC.
Michelle Obama comes out and he goes, black beauty is so powerful and we need to educate everyone about it.
That is Gnostic racism.
That is to say, look, there's this special power of black beauty, but you have not been inducted into the special mystery cult.
So let me do that to you.
And frankly, that's what a lot of our modern education is.
It's just libs inducting people into their weird mystery cults.
Certainly that's what transgenderism is.
That's probably the clearest example of Gnostic leftism.
To say, oh, you think he's a man, but actually, secretly, he's a woman.
Let me induct you into the mystery cult and all the ways.
Oh, actually, you don't understand.
Michelle Obama is the hottest chick on earth.
You think Sidney Sweeney's hot?
No, Michelle Obama is secretly the hottest chick in the world.
Let me induct you into my mystery.
There's this Gnostic element to liberalism.
And I guess the opposite of it would be, certainly would be traditional politics, traditional religion, especially.
We're talking about cults.
And I think the clearest opposite would be the Catholic Church.
Because say whatever you will about the Catholic Church, it is not Gnostic.
And in fact, the Catholic Church extirpated a lot of Gnosticism in antiquity and the Middle Ages.
And I suppose it has to continue to do that today.
You walk into a Catholic church.
It's not a lot of secrets.
You know, it's all kind of out there.
The smells and the bells and the colors and the garments, and it's all, it's public.
Big cathedrals, not secret little hiding places, you know, underground, unless the political authority forces you into the catacombs.
It's all out there.
It's big.
It's available to everyone.
You don't become a 33rd degree Catholic.
You have to do that in Freemasonry.
You don't have to do that in Catholicism.
It's all there.
It's open.
It's available.
This is why I've mentioned why Tocqueville predicted America would become Catholic.
This is actually the reason, because he says that it's the most amenable to democracy, because if people are going to subject themselves to a religious authority, they want it to be uniform.
Same for everyone.
There aren't really more advanced elite Catholics and, I don't know, hoi polloi Catholics.
Everyone's just a Catholic and you will be judged.
And the first will be last and the last will be first.
So whatever you think about Michelle Obama's supposed hotness, this is a much deeper problem for the left.
And I think it's why they're losing ground.
I think it's why common sense knocks down a lot of leftism.
Because you can just say, like to the Gnostic transgender thing, you just say, this man is really a woman.
We've undergone the ritual of transition.
And now we've undergone the ritual of coming out day.
And now he's a woman.
And you can just say, like, no, he's not.
Nope, he's not.
So it's not to say, look, maybe Michelle Obama is a perfectly fine-looking woman.
I'm not, please don't clip this as I'm, I'm not in any way insulting Michelle Obama's looks.
But this notion that black people are the most especially beautiful people and other people are not, and actually you need to be inducted into the great sexiness of Michelle Obama.
It's so ridiculous.
It's so totally ridiculous.
And I think it's lost a lot of currency.
Now, speaking of race, there's a big problem.
Have you heard of the big problem?
It's in podcasting.
You're watching or listening to a podcast right now.
You know, the big problem is that most podcasters are white guys.
That's a big problem.
We got to solve it.
We need a task force.
Got to stop all these white guys from podcasting.
I've said it for years, though.
I've said it.
Actually, I got this from Sweet Little Elisa.
Sweet little Elisa pointed out.
She goes, Mac, how come like every single white guy under the age of 70 has a podcast?
You know what we need is more podcasts, Mac.
It's true.
There's so many podcasts.
Well, now we have numbers to back it up.
This is from the rap.
Podcasting's diversity problem.
64% of hosts are male.
77% are white.
USC study finds.
The podcasting medium significantly trails the diversity.
This is some great defect.
White guys have their own shows on their own platforms, and this is like a major defect.
They trail the diversity of other entertainment avenues.
So what do we know about podcasts?
We know two things.
One is that there are a ton of white guys in it, disproportionate number of white guys in it.
And two, it's the least regulated broadcast medium in existence.
What are we to conclude from those two facts?
Yes, it's mostly white guys.
Also, it's the least regulated, most open to market demands, freest.
Perhaps that would suggest that the imposition of diversity, racial, sexual, whatever, in broadcast is artificial, is the product of social engineering, is a political program rammed down the throats of listeners who actually, they don't exclusively want white guys to broadcast to them.
Quarter of them are not white.
Look, this is a country that's still 60% white, so it's not that far.
Okay, quarter of them are not white.
And, you know, 40, sorry, 36% are women.
So, okay, it's not 50-50.
So it's not, but the audiences do want white guys a little bit more to be podcast.
I don't know what it is about white guys.
I am a white guy.
I'm a plausibly white guy.
And I don't know what it is about us that we gravitate a little more toward podcasting.
Maybe we're even just adept at it.
Maybe we have a special talent or skill for it.
I don't know what it is.
I'm not a geneticist.
I'm not a phrenologist.
I don't know what it is.
But you don't hear about the NBA's diversity problem, do you?
You don't hear about, I don't know, elementary school teachers' diversity problem, you know, too many women or something.
No.
Maybe it's the case that, you know, black guys are much better than other races and women at basketball.
Maybe.
Maybe women are much better than men at, I don't know, nursing or at caring for people or nurturing or early education or what.
And maybe white guys, maybe we finally found our niche, you know?
Maybe we were made for podcasting.
That's certainly what the market says.
It makes you wonder, you say, why is there this matter of social engineering clearly imposed from the top down that probably discriminates against white guys in other broadcast media?
Why is that?
It's weird.
Speaking of white guys, JFK's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, is running for Congress in New York.
We don't have enough Kennedys in the government.
Well, we do have one great Kennedy in the government, Bobby Kennedy, but we don't have any Kennedys in Congress.
It's weird.
I remember when the last Kennedy left Congress, it was bizarre because it was the first time in decades you didn't have a Kennedy there.
Jack Schlossberg wants to take over the Kennedy legacy.
And so he goes on MSNBC to announce his run and to smack down his cousin, RFK Jr.
Caged one and put it in his cabinet, a rabid dog in his cabinet, put a collar on my cousin RFK Jr. and has him there barking, spreading lies and spreading misinformation.
You were the first member of your family to come out and criticize him publicly.
What do you say to voters who now see the Kennedy name and associate it with your cousin's policies?
I don't think there's anything anyone can do to change what JFK, my grandparents, my mom, my uncle John stood for.
Nobody's that powerful.
But RFK Jr. is a dangerous person who has making life and death decisions as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
And you don't just have to take my word for it.
Now we have an actual record to go on.
He has cut a quarter of the people who work in his agency.
He fired all the vaccine experts on the panel and replaced them with anti-vaxxers.
He's cutting funding for life-saving research, cancer patients, giving them their last hope.
Okay, so he just right out the gate, he says there's this rabid dog in the administration, my cousin RFK Jr.
This is nasty.
This is ugly.
People don't like to see family members wage attacks on each other this way.
They certainly don't like to see young family members attack their older relatives.
Like this nasty, ugly stuff.
But it's an interesting attack.
I bet it was focus grouped.
I bet that isn't the first time he's waged it because he's trying to paint the Secretary of Health and Human Services as being sick and diseased, rabid.
He's a rabid dog.
So it's actually a pretty clever attack, but it's ugly.
It's really, really ugly.
Because it raises this question.
If this is what he thinks of his somewhat moderate Democrat cousin, what does he think about the rest of us?
What does he think about conservatives, Republicans?
How can you be a patriot if you treat your family this way?
Patriotism is just an extension of love of your family.
How can anyone be a patriot if he would treat his own family this way?
You know, I actually went to college with Jack.
I didn't really know him.
Maybe I met him once or twice.
I don't want to tell any tales out of school.
I don't want to make any personal observations or anything like that.
From just judging by this clip, how could you vote for this guy?
I don't know.
Maybe he's going to, this is his first time running for office.
He's clearly tried to run for office for a while.
He's been in magazines and things like that.
But he's a Kennedy.
basically have to run for office.
How could someone think that you could be a patriot if you're so nasty to your own family?
And then the question is, well, do you think Bobby Kennedy is destroying the Kennedy family legacy?
And what does he say?
He says, no one, no force is powerful enough, except for maybe black female beauty to take over.
No, he didn't say that.
He didn't go to Michelle Obama.
He said, no force is powerful enough to destroy what my grandfather stood for.
Can I just, I don't, what did John F. Kennedy stand for?
And he even goes on his other family members.
What did they, what do you mean what they stood for?
What did the, what did John F. Kennedy stand for?
He stood for stealing votes in Illinois and Texas and taking the election away from Richard Nixon.
That's no, no, allegedly, allegedly.
But what did he stand for?
He was a young president who got murdered.
That's why people like him, because it was sad when he got murdered.
And he was young and he was relatively good looking.
Inasmuch as he stood for anything, he stood for a moderate, patriotic, respectful Democrat Party that no longer exists.
I don't think Jack Schlossberg is running for Congress on that kind of a platform.
I think he's probably running on the new Democrat Party economic platform.
I think he's probably running on the new Democrat Party platform when it comes to domestic policy, foreign policy.
I don't know.
We'll see.
We'll see more from his campaign.
Just even the patriotism.
Could you imagine John F. Kennedy calling one of his brothers or his father or someone like that a rabid dog?
No.
So it's this kind of irony.
He said, no one could destroy what my grandfather stood for.
Every single Democrat has destroyed that.
In as much as John F. Kennedy has a legacy, it is completely destroyed.
And by all accounts, I'm not saying had he lived.
I'm saying had you taken John F. Kennedy and just put him in a time machine and dropped him from the 60s into 1925, or 2025, he would be a Republican.
He would be a conservative Republican.
There's no question about it.
Okay.
Speaking of Democrats seeking office, Scott Weiner, the aptly named Scott Wiener, Noman Est Omen, is totally destroying a domestic violence victim with transgenderism and leftism.
Our new live show, Friendly Fire, returns Wednesday night, 7 p.m. Eastern on Dailyware Plus.
Join Ben Shapiro Matt Walsh, Andrew Clavin, and your favorite, as we do what we do best, look hot.
Also debate, discuss, and disagree on the biggest stories in politics and culture.
Plus, we are premiering, world premiering, the very first official trailer for the Penn Dragon cycle, Rise of the Merlin.
Do not miss it.
Friendly Fire Wednesday, November 19th, 7 p.m. Eastern, only on Dailywire Plus.
My favorite comedy is from Sean Ataire, 72, says, only conservatives buy Nike, the left steals them.
You make a great point.
Michael Jordan said, well, Republicans buy Nikes too.
I don't want to get too political.
But you're right.
It's only conservatives who buy Nikes.
When the left gets Nikes, it's through their civil rights marches, you know, for St. George Floyd while they're torching cities.
They drop in and grab a pair or two of Air Jordans.
Yes.
Scott Weiner.
Scott Weiner, who is best known as the California legislator who reduced punishments for pederasts.
This is older men who rape young boys.
Statutory rape.
We want to be fair to Scott Weiner.
Older perverted men who prey on young boys.
He wanted to make sure, as a matter of justice, that he would reduce their punishments.
He also, what was the other thing he did?
He reduced the punishments for people who knowingly spread AIDS to people, HIV.
Yeah, that's his political legacy.
So Scott Weiner seems to have one particular obsession.
He's sitting doing a town hall kind of event, and a woman comes up.
And, well, I'll just let you listen to the interaction.
Senator Wiener, as the only black lesbian here, can I please ask you a question?
Because I flew here to do that.
Okay.
As a lesbian woman who was attacked in a woman's locker room at Gold's Gym this week by a self-identifying trans woman with a documented history of domestic violence, I'm deeply concerned about women's safety in female-only spaces.
What would you say to women who are seeking assurance that their safety will be protected from men who by California law can self-ide as women in women-only spaces, sir?
Please tell me.
Yeah, so we want, I mean, everyone to be safe.
And we also know that, you know, we have trans people, both men and women, who are men and women.
And so, you know, we, so if you're a trans woman or women.
Senator, you've done great things.
So this woman, listen, even that, I'll cut it off there.
Which goes, you've done great things.
I agree.
This is a liberal woman.
A liberal woman, a relatively solid Democrat constituency, lesbian, black woman.
It's not like it's, you know, big Bubba right-winger coming out there smacking down Scott Wiener.
This is one of his constituents.
And she says, hey, you know, I've, she's at least insinuating, I've experienced domestic violence.
There are women-only spaces for a reason.
And what if I don't want to have to, you know, get changed in front of a man?
What if I don't want to have to use the bathroom next to a man?
What if I, you know, can I have any, like the whole reason we have women-only spaces to begin with, can I have any protection?
And Scott Weiner comes out and he goes, no, you can't.
Suck it.
Sorry.
No way.
You're not.
We're forcing transgenderism on everybody.
You lose.
She goes, but I, look, I respect things that you've done.
Nope.
We're forcing dudes into your locker room and your bathroom.
And I don't care that some man has beaten you in the past.
Doesn't bother me.
Trans rights are the most important thing.
What we say goes.
So, sorry.
That's what he's saying.
Look, it might, in his race, it might work out fine.
This is what, this is the issue that started to unravel the entire Democrat Party.
That's it.
It was a major issue in 2024.
And it's also an issue where this woman, who's clearly very liberal, very much on the left, that's the kind of issue that makes her think, man, maybe I misjudged this Trump guy.
Because I got this deviant freak who's running for Senator or Congress or whatever he's running for, Scott Weiner.
And he, I got this freak out here telling me that he's going to force me to get naked in front of men.
And I don't know, Trump, like, I don't like everything about him, but he doesn't make me do that.
Now, there's an interesting point she's raised.
A lot of times, when you hear the arguments against the transgender ideology, it comes from this place of, well, some women have suffered domestic violence.
And so we don't want women to get beaten up in the bathroom or the locker room.
So that's why we can't have transgenderism in public life.
It's another version of when you hear, you know, well, we just love women's sports so much.
Women's sports, the most important issue to conservative Republicans.
We just need our precious women's sports.
So that's why we can't have transgenderism in public life.
And it's so ridiculous.
The reason that we can't have transgenderism in public life or that we should not is because it's false.
It's completely ridiculous.
A man can't be a woman and it harms everyone involved when you pretend that he can.
It harms the people who are confused.
It harms everyone around them.
It makes the society engage in lies.
It's ridiculous.
That's why.
And sure, women should have their own sports leagues if they want, I guess.
I don't care.
I don't care.
No one watches women's sports.
Sometimes women's tennis people watch.
I like female athletes.
If they like their sports, they can, sure.
And furthermore, yeah, we need to protect women from being beaten up by men.
Absolutely.
Which pertains to the women's sports in as much as we're talking about boxing or UFC or whatever.
But yeah, generally, we need to protect women from being beaten up by men.
But that's not the main reason either, because it's a relatively minor issue in the broader scope of trans-identifying people going into the bathroom.
When the left tells us that, oh, come on, they're not really that violent in bathrooms.
There aren't that many.
Generally, that's true.
It does happen.
In fact, Daily Wire broke the story of the Loudoun County rape because of a gender-neutral bathroom policy.
So it does happen for sure.
But yeah, I'll give it to the left.
You're right.
It's not happening 100% of the time, that's for sure.
Which is why I think we all need to be a little bit honest and say the reason that we don't want transgenderism in public life is because it's just ridiculous and fake and false.
And it creates disorder and lies.
But there was a great tweeter, Esther K., Esther C. Kraku, who made this point, said, why do women always have to cite sexual domestic violence to justify single-sex spaces?
Shouldn't I don't want to share a changing room with a man be enough?
Yes, preach, sister, preach.
That's how I feel about even like gender-neutral bathrooms.
Things that happen in bathrooms are gross.
And I don't want to be around women doing that.
And I don't want to do that myself around women.
That's gross.
A little mystery is nice between the sexes.
Yeah, it's gross.
That should be enough.
But the reason it's not enough is because of the feminists, I'm sorry to say.
It's because the feminists argued for decades, they campaigned for decades on invading men's only spaces.
For decades, they came and said, men are not allowed to have their own spaces.
You see this, especially with private clubs, but elsewhere too.
They said, no, wherever a man can go, women need to go to, except when it's inconvenient for us.
And so this is a problem.
Men have figured out a workaround, by the way.
The workaround to that rule is cigar lounges.
That is why, look, I go to cigar lounges because I like cigars.
I love cigars since I'm 15.
But another reason and a reason that I think a lot of people who are not as obsessed with cigars go to them is because it allows men to like hang out with each other and talk with relatively few women, if any, around.
That's why.
And it's nothing against women.
I love women, as you know.
But sometimes, to Esther's point, sometimes women want to spend time with women.
Sometimes men want to hang out with men.
Men and women are different, right?
Right?
Isn't that ultimately the objection to the transgender ideology?
Isn't that ultimately why support for same-sex marriage is declining?
Isn't that why people have turned against feminism, why feminism has made women unhappy relative to men and in absolute terms?
Yeah, maybe that's why.
Maybe the feminists should not have invaded every male-only space.
Because this is the chickens coming home to roost and they are hoisted by their own petard.
But that's fine.
We should stop it for sure.
We should chill out with that, no question about it.
But it's, guys, come on, let's follow these ideas to their logical conclusion.
Give men their private clubs back and give women their locker rooms and their spaces back too.
Speaking of the difference between the sexes, this is a story that's deeply unpleasant that I didn't want to get to, but I suppose I have to.
It's going all around an ABC news anchor, Gio Benitez, has been confirmed in the Catholic Church.
That in itself is a really good thing, and that's very exciting, and that's wonderful.
I want everyone to come into the church.
That's great.
There's a little wrinkle with it, though, which is that he was confirmed in the church as an openly gay guy.
Not just as like a, you know, a little bit gay guy, like the British or something, but as an openly gay guy who does not seem to have changed his views on that.
And his sponsor, you get a sponsor in the church, just like when you're baptized as a baby of a godfather, you have a sponsor when you come in.
His sponsor was reportedly his husband, quote unquote.
So clearly not a lot of change in their minds here.
Clearly not a lot of accepting Catholic teaching, perennial Catholic teaching on this matter.
And the guy who can celebrated the confirmation is this Jesuit, Father James Martin, who is obsessed with gay stuff.
I don't know how to put it more charitably than that.
He's just totally obsessed with gay stuff.
And he's like really, really into promoting gay stuff.
And he really makes the rest of the Catholics look bad.
I say respectfully, filial correction to Father Martin, but it's like really weird, man.
He even, when the Vatican came out and issued this ambiguous statement about blessing homosexual individuals, but not homosexual unions, and it was a little confusing.
What do you know?
There's Father James Martin.
And there just happened to be a New York Times photographer right next to him when he decided to do one of these blessings.
And it's weird.
It's weird.
And I don't mean to be too harsh on Father Martin.
Not sure one can be too harsh on Father Martin.
And I don't mean to be too harsh on this guy, Gio Benitez.
I hope that he's having a kind of religious revival within himself and he's asking these questions.
He wants to pursue the truth and pursue God.
This is a serious scandal.
It's a really serious scandal.
And it's a scandal because it confuses people about church teaching.
And it's a scandal because it leads the men themselves astray.
And it's a scandal because it turns other people away from the church.
You know the famous Millstone neck, you know, about, you know, whoever troubles one of these little ones, scandalizes one of these little ones.
That verse is not referring to like physically harming children or anyone.
It's about scandal.
The sin of scandal is a really big deal.
And it would be very helpful if Father Martin were corrected for this.
It would be very helpful if church teaching were clear.
You know, church teaching is clear on this.
And there are all sorts of ways, you know, it's not as though they were blessing a same-sex union or this or that.
It's just all kind of in between the lines.
And it's scandalous.
And that's bad.
You know, the truth above all things is to be pursued.
And this kind of stuff, it's a kind of soft fake niceness.
It's that kindness, you know, that the liberts are always.
Be kind.
Just be kind.
But at a time when, you know, so-called rigid traditionalists have been restricted, really put upon, had a real scrutiny applied to them, then you see this kind of thing.
You think that's not loving.
That's not teaching.
It's really not good.
It's scandalous.
And people need to take note of that.
And there has to be a correction, in my humble opinion, as a layperson.
Okay, speaking of religion, today is Theology Thursday.
And we have a very, very special guest for Theology Thursday.
