The Megyn Kelly Show - 20240205_disastrous-biden-poll-and-how-australia-cracks-dow

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Feb. 5, 2024 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:38:21

20240205_disastrous-biden-poll-and-how-australia-cracks-dow

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Super Simple Accounting Software 00:01:59
	Okay, so fantastic means that the ideal wandering stream flex 2.
	HBO Max, Prime Video, Sky Showtime, you name it.
	The foreigner or the funk network.
	Hele EU og EUS.
	Alt du trenger er nett.
	Åh, Alente da.
	Tre måneder, 79 kroner måneden.
	Null binding, bare TV og streaming akkurat sånn du vil ha det.
	Gå inn på alente.no og test det i sommer.
	Tilbudsprisen på 79 kroner får du i tre måneder.
	Deretter gjelder normalpris på 499 kroner per måned.
	FIKIN presenterer et superenkelt regnskapsprogram for alt det regnskapsgreiene til bedriften din.
	FIKIN, et superenkelt regnskapsprogram.
Trump Dominates Polling Numbers 00:06:18
	NBC releases new polling showing former President Donald Trump dominating President Biden on issues, and I do mean dominating, including the economy, the border crime, and more.
	Even the question of protecting democracy, the thing, you know, leading up to those 2022 midterms, the Dems pushed two things: democracy and abortion.
	And it worked, as you know.
	Well, guess what's happened on at least democracy?
	Now, Biden only has a two-point lead.
	Used to be double digits.
	Joining me now to discuss it all, Camille Foster of the Fifth Column podcast.
	And joining this show for the very first time, Inez Stepman.
	Inez is a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum and the host of her own podcast called High Noon.
	Camille, Inez, welcome.
	How are you doing?
	Very good.
	Great to be here.
	Awesome.
	Okay, so the big news is the border bill, so might as well start with that.
	I like I'm drowning in a sea of negativity as the Republicans weigh in on.
	I mean, this is like we can talk about it, but it's dead.
	It's dead on arrival.
	They're not going to get this thing through.
	Like, nobody seems to like it.
	It's like this one collection of senators that was told to go talk.
	They came up with something.
	You know, Stephen Miller, Trump's immigration guys, all over Twitter today or ex saying absolutely not, saying it's effective amnesty.
	Josh Hawley, senator from Missouri, saying it basically legalizes child exploitation.
	We could go on with the many, many problems, but one of the main things is it invests all sorts of discretionary authority in Majorca to just kind of grant asylum.
	He can kind of just do it if he thinks it ought to be done with his magic wand, is how it sounds.
	And there's not much anybody can do about it, which is effective amnesty.
	There's we, anyway, we can.
	I don't know how much time we should spend it because it's DOA.
	Camille, what are your thoughts?
	I incline to agree with you.
	certainly a piece of legislation that you take all of this time crafting and developing in back rooms only to have it arrive in a circumstance that makes it seem as though this isn't going to go anywhere is pretty frustrating.
	And the thing I keep thinking about as I've, as I've been contemplating this this morning is how we got here.
	You know, we've had consecutive presidential administrations who insisted they were going to take care of this problem, that they were going to fix immigration.
	I remember Barack Obama in particular coming into office, having both houses of Congress promising he was going to address this issue.
	And it's extraordinary just how broken the system is at this point.
	There's the actual infrastructure along the border, but there's also, you know, just the policy framework, the actual process for allowing people to come into the country legally.
	I mean, it is all a complete shambles.
	And it's pretty frustrating to imagine that we have what at this point is an undeniable crisis on the southern border that is having real ramifications in American cities and in the American people's lives every single day.
	And there just doesn't seem to be any real appetite to resolving it.
	No, there isn't.
	Even Biden's appetite, if it exists and as is politically motivated by the fact that this has become a number one issue or at least a number two among Democrats.
	So he's got to look like he cares.
	But I am convinced that no matter what, even if he were to shut down the border entirely and implement all Trump policies tomorrow, which he could, but he won't, they're still not going to buy it.
	Because at this point, we're so close to the end.
	The Democrats know too, he doesn't care.
	He likes open borders.
	Yeah, I mean, I really agree with Camille that this is a problem that has been administration after administration after administration.
	I would even push it back beyond Obama, think about the first real revolt before the Tea Party, before the Trump populist revolt was against George W. Bush for pushing comprehensive immigration reform.
	You know, this issue comes to the top of every poll, not just now.
	You're pointing out that it's coming to the top even for Democrats, but this issue consistently decade after decade comes to the top of every poll, issue poll, usually just behind the economy or maybe some other issue that's bubbling up at that particular moment.
	But immigration is consistent because it's something that people interact with on a daily basis, especially in the border states, but now really across the country.
	And it's sort of orthogonal to our politics in that it doesn't take up nearly as much space in our debates day to day.
	So that for that reason, I'm really glad to see the spotlight coming on this issue, even though it comes at the expense of a crisis in this case.
	But it really is the result of decades of mismanagement.
	Yes, our asylum law needs to be reformed.
	No, Biden doesn't need special powers granted by this bill to close the border.
	But furthermore, we have the Florida settlement.
	We have the courts entangled in this issue.
	We have decades and decades and decades of it basically being better for the political class not to address this issue when Americans are telling them all the way back since Ross Perot, this is a problem.
	So I really think this political gambit to start sending migrants to the Blue Cities, I don't like it.
	It's down the street from me now.
	I'm not saying it's bad for me personally, but I think it has been the most politically successful gambit.
	And I think it's probably responsible for that poll that you just cited as people actually interacting with this problem in the same way Texas, Arizona, and all the border states have had to for decades.
	Yeah, it was truly one of the most brilliant moves.
	If they did like the Time magazine year of the move political move of the year, this would have to be it.
	I mean, it's really made people feel the crisis in an acute way.
	And before it was just Texas's problem.
	Oh, well, just Texas is going to have to deal with it.
	And now it's, no, you're going to deal with it.
	Your kids are going to miss school.
	They're going to get kicked out.
	Migrants and crime is coming to a neighborhood near you and on it goes.
	All right, we're going to do much more on immigration our second hour.
	My pal Paul Murray of Sky News Australia, he's an Aussie, born and raised, is going to talk to us a bit more about this and something I've been wanting to get to for a long time, which is how they do it in Australia.
	I mean, in Australia, it's a hard no.
	You try to get into Australia as an illegal.
	Good luck to you, sir.
	They're going to put you in a detention facility outside of the country where you may sit for a decade with like prison-like conditions and no one gives a shit about you.
	Honestly.
Legal Risks for the White House 00:14:48
	And guess what?
	They have a very small illegal immigration problem in Australia as a result.
	It's amazing how that deterrence works.
	So we'll get into it a little bit more.
	Okay, but there's a lot to get to domestically here outside of immigration.
	And that includes this latest poll showing Trump v. Biden and this NBC poll.
	I just want to tell you something.
	So NBC has been bowling, been polling Trump v. Biden for years now, at least since 2019.
	See how they do.
	This is when Trump was still president.
	October 2019, Biden plus nine.
	August 2020, Biden plus nine.
	October 2020, a month before election day, Biden plus 14.
	June 2023, now we're well into the Biden presidency.
	Biden plus four.
	November 2023, this past November, Trump plus two.
	January 2024, Trump plus five.
	That's where we are today.
	Trump plus five.
	And the reasons are the economy.
	Trump has a plus 22 percentage point margin over Biden, 55 to 33.
	Note that poll was taken amidst positive economic reports, including consumer confidence up and the 300,000 jobs created last month.
	So it was taken during and after that.
	The border, Trump plus 35.
	Crime, Trump plus 21.
	These numbers are absolutely devastating.
	And if nothing else changes between now and next November, Trump will win the election, Camille.
	Yeah, I mean, Democrats really have to be kicking themselves at this point.
	I mean, I'm trying to understand how you get to the point where Joe Biden is going to be your guy again for another go-round, considering his age, but also just considering the perception of this particular presidency, which is, I think, generally regarded as a bit feckless on the issues that matter.
	We just talked about immigration.
	A lot of the American people are simply not satisfied with what's happening.
	Democrats are not satisfied with what's happening when they think about the person who's likely to succeed him if something were to happen to him while he's in office.
	And given the age of these two candidates, it's not an impossibility.
	No one is particularly impressed with her.
	There was a period of time here where they might have been able to find someone different.
	They didn't do that and now appear to be completely stuck with a candidate that cannot move the needle, even when the news seems to be moving in his particular direction.
	And just given the vicissitudes of the election, I have to suspect that this is probably going to get worse for the Biden administration in a lot of ways.
	And I think if it were anyone but Trump that he were up against, he might have an even more difficult go.
	The reality, however, is that Donald Trump has his own pretty dicey situation from a legal standpoint and various other ways that may in fact come in and take away the advantage that I suspect plenty of other Republican candidates might have versus this particular White House.
	His day is his own dicey situation.
	You are the master of understatement, my friend.
	Thank you.
	Very well done.
	So he's got a few dicey situations over there that Trump does.
	It is interesting.
	Once again, Haley polls better than Trump versus Biden.
	She's up nine over Biden, 45 for Haley, 36 for Biden.
	And Trump's up, as I said, five over Biden.
	But that doesn't get you very far if Republicans don't want you.
	That's exactly right.
	Yeah, you've got to be able to talk the language that the base is going to understand.
	And Republicans have at this point made it pretty clear that they prefer Donald Trump to anyone else who's been out in the field.
	And if that's where it is, there's not a great deal that you can do about that.
	Again, unless something changes so profoundly that he simply cannot run.
	Okay.
	And it might.
	I mean, let's be honest with Biden.
	That really is potentially true.
	And even with Trump, that is both men.
	It's potentially true.
	So, Inez, these percentage point advantages on the economy, on immigration, on crime are huge.
	I mean, double digits is being the border plus 35, plus 35.
	It's 57 to 22 in terms of the approval ratings for these two men.
	And the border, as we just discussed, is moving up in importance with Democrats too, and independents too.
	It's always been one or two with Republicans, pretty much always second to the economy.
	And in some instances, now we're seeing number one.
	So my feeling is, because I say in that last question, if nothing else changes, Trump's going to win.
	Okay, that's nice, but we're nine months out now and things do change in an election year.
	However, this much, the economy, even with the better numbers we're getting, you think it's going to change so much that he's going to close a 22 percentage point gap, that he's going to close a 35 percentage point gap on the border, thanks to a deal that we all know is not happening, right?
	Like it just, to me, today, it feels insurmountable.
	Yeah, and that's really all we can do, as you point out.
	We can't predict black swan events.
	But I think Trump has a really good case.
	And that case is, were you better off in 2019 than you are now?
	Laying aside the pandemic, 2020, I mean, and the rioting in 2020, January 6th, all of those things, right?
	But for the first three years of his administration, people made more money.
	And for the first time, we saw that boom actually, you know, extend to blue collar Americans, right?
	To working class Americans.
	He has a really good case.
	He actually did start to address the totally open border.
	Although, again, I'll point out from the last segment, there was a limited amount that even the Trump administration could do because our system itself is so broken and has been so broken for decades.
	But that's really the fundamental Trump case.
	And I think it goes up against the fundamental Biden case, which I think is just way weaker this time around than it was in 2020.
	Because in 2020, as much as those of us who have followed Joe Biden over a longer period of time and thought that it was a crazy case to make, he was supposed to be the adult in the room, right?
	His case was, let's return to normalcy.
	Well, looking back over the Joe Biden presidency for the last three years, it's really hard to do.
	You can say a lot of things about the Joe Biden presidency, but it has not been a return to normalcy.
	And I feel like that actually strikes at the heart of his case, much more than what Camille called diciness strikes at the heart of Trump's.
	You know what, though?
	I have to challenge you on the fact that the suggestion that no president has really done much.
	Donald Trump, yes, he could have done more because he controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.
	But in 2020, it was something like 400,000 came into the country illegally, the encounters, 400.
	Now we're at almost 3 million.
	It's absurd.
	Like there actually are a lot of things you can do and that he did.
	Could he have done more?
	Yes.
	Could we have a wall?
	Hello?
	Yes.
	You know, people have been pointing out that the wall in Egypt, it's beautiful.
	It's the thing Trump led people to believe that we were going to have here that we don't.
	So he does deserve credit for what he did on this issue.
	He didn't do it as perfectly as he could have or as well as he could have, just ask Ann Coulter.
	But it's not fair to say he's the same as W or Biden or anybody, you know, other than himself.
	Stephen Miller's the guy.
	Yeah, my critique is not actually of how the Trump administration handled the border.
	I think they used the executive powers that they had within the range of what they could do.
	But my point is rather that we have decades of bad law in the immigration system.
	Our asylum law actually does need to be reformed.
	We need to actually fund some of these structures that are designed to process people.
	Yes, Congress has to fund the wall, right?
	We had that huge fight in the Trump administration as to whether or not he could move monies from other pots.
	There's only so much the executive can do.
	And now, yes, we can see the difference now between an executive who wants to use all of the limited tools he has to try to slow down these crossings at the border, these legal immigration crossings at the border, and we sent between an administration that clearly doesn't want to do that, is in fact going to go so far as to go down in Texas and actually cut razor wire in order to prevent Texas from stopping people from coming across that border.
	So I'm not downplaying that difference at all.
	All I'm saying is that this is not a new issue, and there are structural legal reasons why the U.S. immigration system has provided the incentives around the world that it has.
	And no single administration right now, even Donald Trump, who I'm again, nobody could accuse Donald Trump of not wanting to enforce the border.
	But even under him, you know, yes, the crisis was lesser, but don't forget we had those caravans under Donald Trump.
	We had millions of border crossings under the Trump administration.
	So yes, it was better because he did the best he could with the tools in front of him.
	But that's really what I want to highlight: immigration in this country has been broken for decades, and it does require a seriousness about the most basic thing of national government.
	Biden had control of both houses in the White House.
	Trump had control of both houses in the White House.
	They didn't do it.
	They did like there could be a law passed.
	There could be more funding for asylum, you know, claims to be processed.
	It's all bullshit because most of the asylum seekers are not seeking asylum.
	It's a lie.
	They could have sought asylum in Mexico.
	They went right through Mexico because they want to be here.
	They want to go to Lowe's Theater and watch our movies.
	They don't want to actually go to Roosevelt Row and Manhattan.
	They want their government check.
	They want, you know, a driver's license.
	They want to do all the things that American citizens without doing any of the things that people who immigrated here legally and jumped through all the hoops had to do.
	It's not about bullshit asylum claims, except for a very small number.
	And those people should be processed and we should figure out who genuinely needs our help and shares our values.
	But we don't do any of that.
	And now they want to give Majorca the magic wand to say, ID me asylum seekers, welcome to America.
	That's not how it works.
	Okay, pausing there.
	Protecting democracy, Biden now with just a plus two percentage point margin.
	Now, what's interesting about this is this is, there are some Republicans who care about this issue for sure, but this is a Democrat issue, Camille.
	You know, protecting democracy.
	And the Democrats were winning thanks to Jan 6th.
	Like they were winning and they were winning big on this issue.
	As recently as the summer of 2021 and summer of 2022, I remember like following it in the summers.
	And I would submit to you that the reason it's now almost tied is the criminal prosecutions against Trump.
	I think that's entirely possible.
	It's certainly for me, one of the things that I find most striking about the present moment when you hear people say openly, you know, if Donald Trump wins, he's going to use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies.
	And I think to myself, you know, it's kind of odd, but the guy is facing multiple criminal prosecutions, some of which are far more dubious than others.
	I think the documents case in Florida, for example, is disconcerting for him and probably the most difficult one that he faces.
	But a lot of these other things, the odd case in New York where he is apparently being prosecuted for defrauding companies that he actually paid back the money on time because the paperwork isn't quite the way it ought to have been.
	I think this is a civil matter, but outrageous.
	Openly political.
	It's very hard, I think, for anyone who takes democracy seriously, for anyone who takes the rule of law very seriously and expects impartiality with respect to the way that justice is delivered to look at this and say, oh, yeah, this is totally above board.
	This is completely fine.
	I think Donald Trump as a president, perhaps as a human, has plenty of defects and things that are worth being concerned about.
	Had he been a bit more careful, almost certainly wouldn't be facing some of these prosecutions.
	But others, on the other hand, like are far more dubious.
	And I do think it weakens your overall case if you want to talk about the protecting democracy, whatever that means as your fundamental case against the opponent.
	It's a bit hard to do against that backdrop.
	And I don't know how many Americans are keying into that, but it's certainly not something that's lost on me.
	That's the irony, Inez, is obviously they've tried to get him bounced off of several ballots as well.
	Talk about depriving democracy, right?
	That's failing and it's going to go up to the Supreme Court and it's going to remain a total failure is my prediction once the Supreme Court has the final say on these nonsense efforts to get him booted because of insurrection.
	But the irony of this whole thing is that the Democrats, in order to bring political advantage to what he did on J6 and leading up to J6 and denying that he had lost, are themselves compromising their democratic principles in doing things we've never done before by going after someone criminally, trying to get them bounced off the ballot in a way that we've never done before in the history of the union.
	All those things undermine them as the Democratic champions while they try desperately to bring attention to what they think is a good electoral issue for them, which is his undermining of democracy.
	It's a kamikaze mission.
	In so many ways, that's the story of Donald Trump all the way back from 2015, right?
	It is this response from the supposedly the institutional mechanisms of democracy in which Americans once had a lot more trust than they do, reacting.
	Essentially, these institutions reacted to Donald Trump and the American people, you know, pulling out a wild card and picking Donald Trump, reality TV star, to go and change things in Washington.
	The way in which they've reacted has been so illegitimate that it really bolsters Trump's case.
	Trump's best case is that they don't want they, right, being all of these institutions in Washington, don't want you to be able to vote for me because I am going to bring actual change to not only to immigration, on the economy, but fundamentally, I'm going to flip this relation between the people and the elites in Washington.
	And that has been his case.
	And I'm not here to say that he's done the best, you know, he's sort of argued that case the best he could in his actions and his words, but they keep legitimating that case, right?
	He says they're coming after me in an illegitimate way.
	And then you look at some of the cases that have been filed.
	As Camille says, I think the documents case is probably the strongest one, although I think that it's very, very unwise, again, to overturn 250 years of norms of not prosecuting your political opposition over what is essentially a documents dispute, but that has the most legitimacy legally.
Democrats Pay Temporary Price 00:15:18
	Some of these other cases, right?
	And Megan, you've covered these extensively on your show.
	They're illegitimate and they're clearly politics in the guise of law.
	And that entire case for quote unquote our democracy relies on the legitimacy of the people and the institutions that are making it.
	And they're losing that legitimacy fast.
	That's why I think this issue is flipping for Donald Trump.
	It's because the people going after him seem less legitimate than he is.
	And you know what's interesting, guys, is that it now looks like the very first and possibly the only trial that's going to take place between now and November is the Stormy Daniels hush money payment BS case in New York.
	The one that was being fast-tracked was the January 6th federal prosecution in D.C. in front of Judge Chutkin, who's not a Trump fan, prosecuted by Jack Smith, former, now, you know, a federal prosecution.
	That's now off track.
	It was supposed to start March 6th.
	It's officially been postponed now with no new date because he argued that a president should have immunity for the acts that he takes, criminal immunity, for acts that he takes while president.
	And that case is working its way up through the appellate courts and up to the Supreme Court, probably, potentially.
	And so she can't try the case yet.
	So she was forced to postpone it and actually indicated to counsel that just because I've postponed it does not mean that when and if we get it back, you know, if the court says you don't have immunity, you got to go sit for trial.
	I'm not fast tracking it when it gets back to me.
	I'm not going to like put the pedal to the metal and make sure all the motions get heard super fast so that we can get a resolution of this case quickly.
	That's an interesting promise because it makes her look less political and better.
	And it's the right thing to do as well.
	There's no reason for an expedited treatment of this case other than politics.
	So yada yada, it looks to me very much like that case is not going to go off before November.
	Because think about it.
	Let's say it's all resolved by July because SCOTUS goes on vacation at the end of June.
	She's not going to want to start this case in August while the Republican national convention's going on.
	They're officially probably naming Trump the nominee.
	And now we have three months to go, you know, before the actual, that's truly election interference.
	So I think that one doesn't make it.
	I've long said I don't think the one down in Florida, the most problematic one on the documents is going to make it.
	There's too much to decide when it comes to classified info.
	What can the jury see?
	What can they not see?
	What are the clearances we need?
	How long is that going to take?
	We have to investigate each juror.
	We haven't even chosen jurors.
	All that stuff needs to happen.
	And that leaves us with the Georgia prosecution, which you all know is in serious jeopardy thanks to the sex life of the prosecutor.
	It's not exactly correct.
	Oh, Fanny.
	Yeah, Fanny.
	And then New York.
	So New York is pedaled to the metal.
	Alvin Bragg, you know, they want Trump and they are going to.
	And so, Camille, the thing about that is that's the best case scenario for Trump.
	It's the most BS case.
	It basically says you paid off a porn star to not tell anybody about your alleged affair.
	And then you failed to write down in your company ledger, paid off porn star to make sure she didn't tell anybody about our alleged affair, which is not, as I understand it, how hush payments generally work.
	That's what he's being prosecuted for.
	I mean, we've been through this before.
	Like everyone knows the ins and outs of that situation to the extent they care about it at all.
	This prosecution has zero consequence.
	And it's funny that the volume of cases against him may actually work in his favor.
	I don't know that most people can differentiate between these different cases in these different venues with these different judges and the different lawyers.
	It all just begins to look like the same ridiculous thing.
	And if it doesn't have any ramifications, like him actually going to jail, then I don't think most people will actually care.
	And it's funny, Megan, as you were talking earlier, I'm remembering a conversation I had with my mom, who is a staunch Democrat, who has never had a polite or kind thing to say about Donald Trump.
	But not too long ago, we're talking and she is just going on and on about how unfair she thinks it is that he's being removed from various ballots.
	And I'm asking her.
	So wait a minute, are you telling me you're going to vote for the guy?
	She says, no, I don't think so, but I don't like it.
	I don't like it.
	It just doesn't seem fair.
	It doesn't seem right.
	Let people vote.
	And is that what's happening in most people's minds?
	Is my mother a bellwether for the American voter?
	I don't know about that.
	I suspect probably not.
	But I think it matters.
	It's consequential when someone who is so vehemently opposed to Donald Trump is willing to acknowledge that this seems wrong.
	That's going to be a problem, I think, for plenty of people.
	You've got people like Camille's mom.
	You've got people like me.
	I'm a registered independent.
	I voted for Democrats in the past and Republicans too.
	I'm open-minded.
	I really want to see who a person is, what their principles are, and what their policies are.
	Independents going for Trump right now, plus 19, Inez.
	Honestly, you can't over if he brings home the Republican Party, which he will, he's more acceptable to the Chamber of Commerce National Review guys today than he was in 15.
	Way more.
	They don't like him, but they've seen his policies.
	They will, in the end, it being essentially a binary choice, come home for Trump.
	I'm very clear in my own mind on that.
	And then he gets plus 19 with independents.
	That's it.
	It's ballgame.
	And you look at young people, Inez.
	This is the NBC poll.
	Young people, 18 to 34-year-olds.
	You guys both know as well as I do.
	That's a Democrat group.
	I mean, it just is.
	Like it's not even, it's not, it doesn't reflect the rest of the electorate in terms of percentages, Republican, Dem, independent.
	They're all Democrats, almost all of them.
	Right now, they're split, Trump 42, Biden 42.
	My God, the whole thing is terrible news to the point where Kristen Welker of NBC was talking about their own poll, talking about what a disaster this is for Donald Trump, saying one of our pollsters tells us, not for Trump, for Biden, one of our pollsters tells us we are looking at a quote, presidency in peril.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that really does sum it up.
	Obviously, again, we always have to put in this caveat.
	There's a lot that can happen.
	And in particular, these polls, only a small percentage of them are factoring in the third and potentially fourth candidates that are going to be on the ballot.
	And especially when you look at young people, I think some of that, some of that reluctance to say that they're in favor of Biden may also be that they're coming at it from the left, right?
	He has a lot of pressure on his left flank, which is also why I would expect between now and November, some other illegitimate action on student loan debt, by the way, because that's what the Democrats did to pull their irons out of the fire in the midterms was jazz up young people by putting forward an obviously, you know, obviously illegitimate and unconstitutional debt relief program for students that was then smacked down by the Supreme Court as they knew it would be.
	But it did drive young people to the polls.
	So I encourage everyone to look out for that because if there's one prediction I'm comfortable making, it's that we'll see some kind of attempt from the Biden administration to move on student loans before the election.
	Well, he already is.
	I mean, he's already trying to bet for a different form of relief for them.
	But I don't know.
	If you go to the polls on election day, hoping that the young vote is going to take you over the top, don't bet on it.
	You know, unless you're Barack Obama in 2008, it just, it's not a good bet.
	Young people, they like to bitch and moan, but they don't actually like to drag themselves to the polls on election day.
	The old people do.
	You'd think it'd be exactly the opposite.
	They're old.
	They kind of want to drag themselves out of stand in the weather, but they do it, you know, because they're from yesteryear, a time where voting mattered and America was loved no matter your partisan stripes.
	Okay.
	So I will end with these two points.
	Since Inez says, like, slow your roll a little, and she's not wrong.
	There was a Corner Piak poll just the other day showing Biden with a six-point lead over Trump.
	And these voters, even though they're favoring Trump by a net of five percentage points, Camille, say if Trump is convicted of a felony, it's a different story.
	Then Biden goes up.
	It's a seven point, no, it's a, yeah, it's a seven point swing.
	Instead of Biden being down five, he's up two over Trump.
	So, you know, the Democrats may be willing to pay that temporary price of people thinking they're not all that pro-democracy as they try to get him kicked off ballots and criminally prosecute him out of either the nomination or the win.
	But if they can actually land the plane and secure a conviction, they are being told by the electorate right now, that will make the difference for us.
	Do you believe it?
	I'm not sure.
	You know, I don't know what the consequence, for example, of the actual decision with respect to the amount of money that he has to pay out in this most recent decision.
	Like, I'm not sure that that factors into most people's thinking about this particular election.
	And again, it seems to me that the things that might actually be really, really meaningful in most people's minds, it's the international situation with these various conflicts that are happening around the world where we're involved, which are particularly unpopular on the left and that the president is insisting on being involved in, despite the fact that it's unpopular with his party.
	I don't expect it to get more popular with his party.
	And I also don't expect those things to go away.
	They're complicated, intractable conflicts that have been going on for decades in some cases and have only just gotten a bit more hot.
	That seems consequential.
	The economic situation seems pretty consequential.
	There are plenty of things that might make a meaningful difference in the outcome of this election.
	And I just don't know that any of these cases are going to get resolved quickly enough to work in favor of the Biden administration.
	And I just, I have a real tough time believing convicted of not documenting your hush money payment is going to make somebody vote in a way they think is bad for their pocketbook and bad for the border and bad for their safety, which is the, these are the issues they're saying they care about.
	Like he should have written down that hush money payment.
	God damn, like I'm, I am voting against him.
	You know, like I just can't convince myself there's that voter out there or at least enough of them to sway the election.
	So Joe Biden is, he just released a campaign ad attacking Trump as the confused one.
	He's trying to sort of take control, take back the issue of mental acuity in the following ad.
	This is not Donald Trump of 2016, guys.
	What?
	What is if he is off the teleprompter?
	He can barely keep a cogent thought.
	I mean, that's just fact.
	We are an institute in a powerful death penalty.
	We will put this on.
	I think he's declining.
	I stumbled and mumbled purposely.
	If I just make it long, complex sentences and have a lot of material in each sentence.
	Okay.
	I mean, good luck with that.
	Anyone feel like this is going to turn the tables on Biden, on Trump?
	Absolutely not.
	I'm not going to take that bet.
	Yeah.
	Okay, good.
	Just making sure.
	Same.
	Having settled that, let's move on to my next topic, which is SNL and Nikki Haley.
	I don't know exactly what audience she's courting.
	I don't know any Republicans who are still watching SNL.
	And once again, she's running for the Republican primary nomination.
	She's not, she's Nikki.
	You're not the general election candidate.
	I like you.
	You just seem like a nice person, smart lady.
	But you have not secured the primary nomination.
	Now is not the time.
	So she goes on SNL.
	And I'm not sure this skit hurt Trump, but you take a look and tell me top five.
	My question is, why won't you debate Nikki Haley?
	Oh my God, it's her.
	The woman who was in charge of security on January 6th, it's Nancy Pelosi for the 100th time.
	That is not Nancy Pelosi.
	It is Nikki Haley.
	Are you doing okay, Donalds?
	You might need a mental competency test.
	You know what?
	I did.
	I took the test and I aced it.
	Okay, perfect score.
	They said I'm 100% mental.
	And, you know, I'm confident because I'm a man.
	That's why a woman should never run our economy.
	Women are terrible with money.
	In fact, a woman I know recently asked me for $83.3 million.
	Nikki Haley, Joel Osmond, we call her six cents.
	Remember that one?
	I see dead people.
	Yeah, that's what voters will say if they see you and Joe on the ballot.
	Oh, boy.
	The last thing is pretty good, but here's part two where they brought up her recent popas, a stumble, whatever.
	It was a dumbass answer when she gave it.
	She tried to clean it up here.
	Sat 6.
	I was just curious.
	What would you say was the main cause of the civil war?
	And do you think it starts with an S and ends with a lavery?
	Yep, I probably should have said that the first time.
	And live from New York, it's Saturday night.
	Like, I've got serious questions about whether this is a good idea.
	I really do.
	What?
	What's what next?
	The Daily Show?
	Why don't you swing by there?
	How about Scarborough?
	Tiptoe through those two lips.
	Rachel Maddow.
	Joy Reed, why don't she go on her show?
	Like, I don't get it, Camille.
	I like the vivaque Ramaswamy philosophy is like, of like going everywhere and trying to get as many votes as you can.
	Just not sure SNL is one of the venues where there's any potential votes available.
	Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you.
	I do think it is a good idea to go wherever you can, find an interesting audience, if not a friendly audience to try and talk to.
	But these do not seem like the kind of places that are actually going to help you with Republican voters, which is the principal concern, or at least ought to be the principal concern if that's what you're, if you want to try to win them over.
	But maybe that's not what she's doing.
	Maybe she's playing a long game here, wants to continue to try to make herself as palatable as possible to independents and to Democrats in the event that something happens that makes it impossible for Donald Trump to run.
	She's perhaps there around and people still have fond feelings about her.
	But I don't know that that appearance is going to make the difference for her.
	Well, it is true, Inez, that if she keeps her popularity up beyond the Republican electorate with independents, with Democrats, maybe it's a VP play.
	You know, maybe she's making herself look shinier and more attractive, as is number two, because you don't want to do any harm in choosing a VP.
	And if you could actually do some help in getting yourself across the finish line, especially if you don't make it, you're going to be prosecuted to the end by two federal prosecutions.
	So you really need to win.
Boys Revolt Against Agenda 00:11:38
	Maybe it's a play towards burnishing those credentials.
	I mean, maybe.
	And Donald Trump has, you know, as personally as he seems to take a lot of things, he does forgive people as long as they come back and kiss the ring in a self-humiliating way.
	He has a history of doing that.
	So maybe that is the play she's going for.
	I do want to make a distinction because I agree with you, Megan.
	I think it's great for, you know, conservatives, for Republicans to go into hostile territory and argue their point to an audience that hasn't heard it before.
	Too often, what we see is, I think it's completely on display in this SNL episode is the Republicans who go into hostile media or go into left-wing media, they go into it just to sort of yuck it up at their own base.
	And in this case, at Donald Trump.
	And so we see Republicans essentially ingratiating themselves to liberal media, to liberal hosts, and trying, they're not really bringing.
	Nikki Haley isn't really bringing a conservative message to SNL.
	She's become a prop in allowing SNL to hit Donald Trump.
	And I think Republican voters are really sensitive to that.
	And I don't think this is going to help her at all.
	That's a very good point.
	I mean, you're, again, trying to win over Republicans.
	Did they like SNL better or do they like Donald Trump better?
	And by the way, the woman who was asking her the question about does it start with S and end in Lavery is some Democratic socialist of America.
	She's one of these hardcore activists.
	It's like, okay, good job helping her advance her agenda.
	Not so sure you did a great job of advancing the agenda of Republicans.
	Separately, by the way, Shane Gillis, you know, comedian Shane Gillis, he's going to host SNL February 24th after SNL fired him before it actually hired him back in 2019, because they said back then he was a racist.
	He was inappropriate.
	He had made jokes about Asians that they found deeply, deeply offensive.
	But I guess four years have passed and he's no longer offensive.
	I don't like, I'm not sure.
	And I'm actually not sure what he's doing either, because not only is he going on SNL, but he's partnering with Bud Light, which is basically a slur in Republican circles.
	He went from doing slurs the left finds upsetting to issuing one out of his mouth the right finds upsetting, which is Bud Light.
	Camille, what do you make of that?
	Well, I think, well, first with the SNL thing, I mean, this has got to be one of the more remarkable things that I've seen like in our culture in a very long time.
	You know, cancel culture being what it is, certainly a thing, whether or not you like that name.
	It's remarkable to see him going back to this place, being the center of attention and having the opportunity to just kind of dominate an episode of SNL before he didn't even get to appear on any of them.
	So that's pretty cool to see.
	The Bud Light thing, I mean, he is, it's clear that Bud Light wants to try to shake off the reputation that they've developed for themselves.
	And they imagine that Shane can help them with that.
	Shane, I'm sure, is happy to take the check and will be interesting and funny and smart.
	Yeah.
	In these particular ads.
	So, you know, will that work for him?
	I imagine it will.
	Probably won't hurt him at all.
	Will it help Bud Light?
	I don't know, but it certainly won't be worse for them than the last spokesperson who they hired.
	Yeah, right, exactly.
	As I see these, you know, these celebrities bend the knee to Bud Light.
	What all I can see is money, pay, right?
	UFC, right?
	It was, what's his name?
	Dana White was paid $100 million a year, a year to kiss the ring and take Bud Light back into his stadiums and his UFC matches.
	Kid Rock is very aligned with them.
	I don't know what money, if any, transferred there, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear there was an endorsement deal of some sort where he got paid.
	Shane Gillis is getting paid.
	And it's up to conservative audiences who are deeply offended, not just by them hiring Dilly or whatever, partnering with Dylan Mulvaney, but saying the audience was too fratty and then never apologizing, never too afraid of the trans lobby to actually own the mistake and just say, we're really sorry.
	That was really offensive.
	We screwed up.
	They've never said that, never, because they're too beholden to the trans lobby and not enough to their core customer base.
	Does it persuade you?
	Will you go buy Bud Light because they gave $100 million to Dana White?
	Does that help your life?
	Will you go buy Bud Light because Shane Gillis got paid a bunch of money to go speak for them?
	Does that help your life?
	Okay.
	People are going to have to make that decision.
	I know where I fall.
	Okay.
	So moving on, I have got to ask you, Inez, about one of my favorite stories as we went to the weekend.
	And I saw you tweet about it too.
	Post on X, whatever.
	The Connecticut public school that pursuant to Connecticut state law posted a tampon dispenser in the boys room.
	And how long did it take for the boys to react?
	And why don't you tell us what they did?
	Well, the boys were boys.
	The boys will be boys.
	I think this is really a cute story of a sort of boys' revolt.
	I think there's a larger context to it, even globally, let alone just this little town in Connecticut.
	But yeah, so they ripped the tampons out.
	I mean, honestly, I'm shocked that they didn't just flush hundreds of them into the toilet and cause a problem.
	I mean, these are little, you know, these are the boys we're talking about.
	These are 10-year-old, 13-year-old boys.
	It's like they knew that there'd be TV pictures of it.
	That's an amazing picture right there.
	Good for you, boys.
	It took them less than 20 minutes.
	They ripped it right out of the wall by the studs.
	It was down to the studs.
	No, but I do think there's sort of a deeper context here.
	And we see this.
	This is now in polling showing up in country after country after country.
	When you pull young people of both sexes, you see that young women are turning very, very, very sharply to the left.
	And boys, sometimes in some countries, a little more, in some countries, a little less, but are trending more conservative.
	We're seeing that gap really open up between essentially young women and young men on politics.
	I think that's has a lot of worrying, maybe potential consequences for our ability to settle down, have families, love each other, really learn from each other, men and women, in a complimentary way.
	However, I do think we're going to see more revolt of the boys.
	I think we're going to see a lot more young boys and then into young men really revolting against a stifling culture that controversially you could say is longhoused or matriarchal, right?
	And they just want to rip those tampons off the off the bathroom.
	These boys are starting to feel our pain.
	You know, as upsetting as it might be to see a tampon dispenser in your bathroom, why don't you see what it's like to see a penis in your little girl's locker room?
	That's what that's what the girls are having to experience.
	It's bad enough to see a tampon dispenser.
	I get it.
	I have two boys.
	Try seeing an adult male penis coming at you in the locker room like our friends up in Canada, where they're swimming against some 50-year-old dude who goes by Melody Weishart and is changing in front of the girls.
	These are barrier breakers that matter, that are important.
	They're significant culturally.
	They can be jarring to the young person.
	And I say, good on you boys in Brookfield, Connecticut.
	I'm cheering you on.
	And you know what?
	I hope I realize that your superintendent is beside himself.
	The principal, Mark Ballada, said the dispenser.
	It was installed at 9.30 Wednesday morning and by 9.52, tampons were on the floor.
	The newly installed distribution box was ripped off the wall along with the masonry anchors and the distribution box itself was destroyed.
	But he says we will reinstall the box in the boys' bathroom per state law.
	I say to you boys, they can't throw you all out.
	You go together, get a group of you, go in there, 50 boys, all of you, pull it down and pull the next one down and the one after that.
	And the one after that, get the girls to go in there and rip it off the wall and bring it over to the girls from where it belongs.
	And here's another post script for you.
	Any girl who's posing as a boy, but actually still getting her period because she's a girl, can go through the extra hassle of shoving a tampon in her back pocket.
	She doesn't need to have a tampon dispenser in the boys' room.
	And if emergency strikes and she forgets a tampon, she can meander for two seconds into the girls' room to get one to inconvenience, to make boys stop and pause to ask themselves, oh, gee, why would a boy need a tampon while they're just doing their business in the middle of the school day is wrong, Camille.
	It's wrong.
	Well, I don't want to support or endorse any kind of vandalism in school, you know, tearing it apart down to the studs and everything.
	Guys, just take it a little easy.
	I know Megan just gave you some direct instructions.
	I'm asking you, maybe take it a little easy.
	But it is, it is bizarre that this is the world that we live in now, where everything has been so thoroughly politicized, where inside of the school, inside of the boys' locker room is politicized, inside of the girls' changing room at the swimming pool is heavily, thoroughly, completely politicized.
	It does feel like the sort of thing where I have to imagine wherever you stand on these particular issues, you can't be thrilled about the state of affairs, the state of our public discourse broadly, and the state of our bathroom politics.
	It's all just become so very bizarre.
	And I'm, I, for one, am thoroughly exhausted by most of it.
	Um, so it's not surprising to me that they decided to take some direct action and remove this particular thing from the bathroom wall.
	I just, I wish that they would do it in a little more constructive way.
	Oh, stop it right now.
	They did the right thing, and the next one should go too.
	All right.
	In the minute we have left, Inez, the New York Times takes a shot at the transgender thing.
	Again, Pamela Paul, who's actually one of their more fair writers, does a piece on D-Transitioners, which was compelling and awful, talking about 15-year-olds getting double mastectomies and what it's like to be a detransitioner, how you get kicked out of the club.
	It's a lot of bullying and so on.
	And of course, on cue, Glad and the other groups attack her as full of disinformation and, you know, try to undermine her credibility.
	So, what does it say that the Times aired this piece, that it ran this piece?
	And what do you make of the backlash?
	Yeah, first of all, I want to say I do agree with you.
	Pamela Paul is one of the fairest people at the New York Times.
	I think that's a really short list, but she's on it.
	So I don't want to attack her personally, but there is this sense with this piece, although I'm glad it's going in front of a New York Times audience.
	In many ways, that's what needs, that's the audience that needs to see this message.
	I mean, there is a little bit of an annoyance, I think, shared by a lot of people on the right that, you know, five years after we're called horrific names and crazy and bigoted and right-wing and transphobic and insane, that the New York Times can print basically what we've been saying for years and years and years and something as basic as there is such a thing as a boy and a girl and they're not interchangeable.
	And that, you know, applying medical, really radical medical procedures to minors in the quixotic attempt to change their sex is a bad thing, will be looked back at with horror.
	With no annoyance in the framing of like, well, the right-wing bigots are still wrong, but maybe we went a little too far.
	So I find that tone very irritating.
	Well, I don't care what the backlash is.
	Pamela Paul, keep writing, keep writing, keep researching because there's many, many more out there.
	And the money behind this industry needs to be exposed to.
	Camille Inez, thank you.
	We'll be right back with Paul Marie.
Australia Immigration Backlash 00:15:24
	I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.
	It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.
	You can catch the Megan Kelly show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.
	Great people like Dr. Laura, Flynn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.
	You can stream the Megan Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.
	No car required.
	I do it all the time.
	I love the SiriusXM app.
	It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
	Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.
	Go to seriousxm.com/slash MK Show to subscribe and get three months free.
	That's seriousxm.com/slash MK Show and get three months free.
	Offer details apply from the border crisis in America to what's happening down under.
	I've been looking forward to talking about the Australia laws when it comes to illegal immigration and quote asylum seekers for quite some time.
	You see, here's the story.
	Every week I go on with my friend Paul Murray of Sky News Australia and we talk about what's happening here with him because we have a lot of Aussies who are interested in America and who are expats from here and so on.
	And it's made me very interested in the country and what's happening there and the parallels between their country and ours.
	And one of the ways in which we are very dissimilar, at least presently, is when it comes to immigration policy.
	You see, the Australians aren't having it.
	It's a hard no, or at least has been for the past 50, 60 years there if you try to get in there illegally.
	And they don't much care if you don't think they're particularly friendly about the way they keep people out.
	It's exactly the opposite of the way we are now.
	And I was thinking about it because there was a report in the New York Times last week where President Biden, when he took over as president, reportedly styled his immigration policies around the need to appear more humane when it came to our southern border.
	Well, let me tell you, my impression is Australia doesn't give two shits, forgive me, whether you think they're humane.
	They want to protect their country from bad guys, from people who want to exploit the system, from people who don't want to assimilate.
	And while there is a rigorous process for those who would like to assimilate and actually move doctors, lawyers, whatever to Australia and add to the economy, they are damn sure that's who you really are before you can get in there.
	So my friend Paul Murray is with us today, and he's going to walk us through some of what I just outlined.
	He's a broadcaster for Sky News Australia's Paul Murray Live.
	Paul, so great to have you.
	Welcome on.
	It helps.
	G'day, Megan.
	Lovely to see him.
	You're such a good friend that you woke up at, what is it, 5.30 in the morning there?
	What is it?
	What time is it there?
	It is 5 o'clock in the morning right now, but I'm going to break some news for you straight off the top.
	I've done an all-nighter.
	So who knows what's about to happen?
	It's an all-nighter.
	I did my show last night and I went, bugger it.
	I'll just walk around the streets and I'll turn up here full of energy and end my career before our very eyes.
	Well, I thought maybe like you went to a rave or something.
	Or were you just studying up for the hit?
	I'll be honest, I was smoking an awful lot of cigars.
	Okay, we'll get to that later.
	You need to live a long and heavy life.
	So we'll have to put those aside eventually.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	So Australia is not messing around when it comes to illegal immigration.
	And can you just like give us the broad view?
	Because one of the things that got me interested in this was back in 2022 when they kept out Novak Djokovic, who wouldn't get the vaccine.
	And then it just led to an in-depth look at Australia in general is no stranger to saying, no, keep the hell out.
	They don't really care.
	And so what, how did they get that way?
	Has it always been thus?
	Well, the over the past sort of 20 years or so, about 20 years ago, there was this sort of great difference between Australians who believed, oh, I've got to be compassionate and anyone who can sort of float their way here should be able to become a citizen.
	But the reality was that people were dying in that journey.
	Now, most likely the path was to go from Indonesia, hop on a boat, pay $10,000 to a people smuggler, and then you eventually float your way towards Australia.
	You get here close enough.
	Oh, well, thanks for the effort you're in.
	But thousands of people died while this was taking place.
	So the country was very clear where they turned around and said, no, yes, we're an island, but we don't care how you get here.
	You've got to come through the front door.
	So put simply, if you came here illegally, our position was that we will turn the boat around and we'll send you back.
	And if you try to sink the boat, we'll use our Navy and we'll get a, you know, a sort of special lifeboat or something and turn that around and send it back.
	If you did happen to get here, you went into an offshore processing center.
	And put simply, you stayed there until you either decided to go home or you decided to go home.
	Exactly.
	So it does have the advantage of being an island, right?
	I mean, it's this huge island right in the middle of the water.
	But you, as I understand it, were facing, you know, trouble with people from Indonesia, people from China, elsewhere really wanting to come live in the beautiful Australia.
	So while the problem is smaller in nature than ours, which unfortunately we are connected to, you know, on the on the top and the bottom, it was significant.
	And so as I understand it, the main purpose of the harsh policies was deterrence.
	And therein is the most important lesson, I think, for America, because it being perceived as inhumane is kind of part of the point.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, the whole idea is that there's a front door.
	And in the same way that you don't cut the line when you go to Disney, if you still go to Disney, you don't cut the line when you're going to a diner or you're sitting down to a restaurant.
	You don't cut the line when it comes to immigration.
	If you fill out the paperwork, if you are, you know, this amazing to be able to become a citizen, it'll happen.
	If you've got a skill for our country, that's fantastic.
	But otherwise, no.
	And you needed to send a message.
	And this is sort of the key message that I want to get to Americans is you've got to have the idea that you have a country worth protecting by having a border.
	And you have to draw the line to say it is a privilege to be here, not a right that will be afforded to you if you can find a way to get here.
	The way it's described, including in long pieces I've been reading in advance of this by detractors of the policy is Australia, this is from a piece in the Diplomat magazine from 19.
	Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all unlawful arrivals.
	It's like you come here illegally, you're going into mandatory detention, including those seeking protection as refugees.
	Australia has one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world and says Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
	Now, this is somebody who doesn't like the policy, but I'll tell you, most Americans will be reading this right now, Paul, and being like, good.
	Yeah.
	Well, also, don't forget here, the actual rules of being a refugee is that you go from, let's imagine that there's a problem, particularly for you.
	And I don't know why I'm floating around in the background.
	I apologize.
	But you're in this scenario where.
	Correct.
	You're in this scenario where if you're a refugee, the country you are being persecuted in, the place where you can claim your refugee status, is actually the location of the nearest safe country.
	In Australia, there are multiple countries before you get to us because we're an island, which means none of that counts.
	So the people who are turning up here are not refugees.
	They are people who are trying to shop for better access to welfare.
	Because the reality about Australia is, while a lot of people would like to think that Australia is sort of one big version of Texas, the reality is, is that we are, you know, Canada or the United Kingdom in terms of social welfare, but just with a lot more desert.
	So what happens?
	Because I'm very interested in these detention facilities that are offshore.
	And by the way, what you just said is it aligns perfectly with the United States on a number of fronts, because most of the people seeking asylum in the United States are not Mexicans.
	You know, they're from Venezuela.
	They're from other points south.
	And this is one of the policies of the Trump administration, which was if you have not sought asylum in a country before you got here and you're claiming you need asylum here, you're not eligible.
	Like you have to prove why do you have to have it in the United States?
	Why'd you just pass right through Mexico without asking?
	So there are parallels, but let's, yeah, go ahead.
	Well, what I was going to say, exactly right.
	But also, another one of the fundamental issues that we cleared up in our political language and in and around our debates 20 years ago was there is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration.
	But if I turn on MSNBC, they refer to people that are crossing the southern border by their millions as migrants, as if they're exactly the same as the people who came from World War II to the United States to build the country.
	This is part of the problem, which is about how you view these people.
	Now, are they human?
	Should they be treated humanely?
	Of course.
	But there's a front door, and that's the only thing that matters about the system.
	So the offshore processing is about having a deterrent.
	Now, obviously, the numbers we're talking here are nowhere near the millions that you're dealing with in the United States, but it's very simple.
	If you end up in Mexico and you're trying to come from somewhere way back, you know, down the map, well, guess what?
	Mexico is the safe place to go.
	America's not the safe place to go.
	So America has every right to say, well, bugger off, you can go back to the nearest safe country.
	So how does Australia make sure that the people who are trying to come on by boat in this way, who haven't sought asylum at another island, another country before they got to you, or who aren't even really pretending to be asylum seekers?
	They're just trying to get into Australia.
	How do they do it?
	Do they have patrols all around?
	Is the coast all around Australia heavily patrolled?
	Well, put simply, in terms of the, you know, it's our west coast and sort of our northern west coast, which is what is most susceptible to the boats coming from Indonesia because of the land masses.
	The Navy is actually constantly flying up and down to see whether anything's there, satellites, all the rest of it.
	So as soon as they start to see something that will look like a boat, it's pretty obvious it's not going to be an official fishing vessel or something like that.
	As soon as they're able to work out that, geez, there's an awful lot of people on that boat.
	Well, then you intercept it as soon as possible by literally sending someone from the Navy at speed to meet them as physically close to the Indonesian side of the line than the Australian side of the line.
	Now, just how close it gets to the Australian waters, well, again, if you make it that far, you're off to a place called Nauru, which is an island country off to our west.
	Our government gave a lot of money to that country, or you move up to a place called Papua New Guinea, which is just to the north.
	But again, the whole point being that you'll never physically get here.
	But it's basically using the military.
	So in the same way that the southern border has some sort of protection, the idea that it is semi-federalized agencies and these confusions about whether the Texas National Guard can do something.
	No, no, it's the Australian Defense Force that is in charge of this one.
	And that's presumably what I would suggest you need in the U.S.
	So it's basically not only are you not coming into Australia, but we're going to send you off to this other little island that we're paying a bunch of money to to process you people.
	And you're really not going to be able to enjoy the fruits of Australian living while we adjudicate what to do with you.
	That's what, I mean, as you well know, what we're seeing right now is even today, there's a report about the illegals in New York who are about to get food cards so that they can basically have a little credit card waiting for them.
	So they can go to, and they say, oh, well, as long as you don't spend it on anything other than food or I think school supplies, then you can continue to have it.
	Like someone's actually going to be auditing these people and they're spending.
	I mean, we don't even know where they are or who they are.
	In any event, we make such a lure, right?
	We're like, come on in, we'll get you papers, we'll get you a job.
	They have several blue state governors advocating for an expedited work permit permitting process for these people.
	We're giving them free lodging in Manhattan in three-star hotels.
	It's literally the opposite of what you were doing on the islands.
	And let's be honest, where they stay on these islands, it's not exactly the four seasons.
	No, I mean, particularly Nauru.
	Nauru is basically an island of phosphorus, otherwise known as bird poo.
	And literally, it's sort of it's fossilized over the years and that's where it is.
	It's not a pleasant existence.
	It's not a hotel.
	It's not inhumane that you're sleeping in tents and exposed to the weather and all the rest of it, but there's not a great life there.
	There's, you know, the social life of the other people that are sitting there.
	But I do have to point out that there have been moments where, yes, a court here or there or, you know, a certain series of activists have been able to pierce a hole in it.
	But the Australian public is so definite about this position.
	Now, sure, the far left and the far right might be somewhere else, but the sort of 80% bulk, regardless of whether you're team red or team blue, believe in this offshore processing system.
	So essentially, whenever there's a hole that's exposed in the system, laws are passed to make sure that that system can continue and be re-fortified.
	So, I mean, but again, the thing that I'm amazed by the US, and again, there's nothing more arrogant than somebody from another part of the world telling you how you should do things, but allow me, which is when you've got a better social welfare system for the people who arrived here illegally than the people who, for whatever reason, end up on the streets of San Francisco, you've got a problem.
	Now, you would think that all of the social justice warriors would see this, but instead they have this sort of infantilized idea that every single person who's crossing the border is somebody who's on the bones of their backside and is doing this so that they can make a better life for their family.
	But the reality is, is that there's an awful lot of people who know that there is a better life in the United States with greater protections in the United States and even the minimum wage in the United States that is better than the life that they have in other parts of Latin America, which means they are economic migrants.
	They are not refugees.
	They are economic asylum seekers.
	So what is it about Australians that make them 80% committed to maintaining the integrity of their borders in their country?
	You know, that's, as you know, in the United States, it's almost divided right down the middle, left, right.
	Liberals think, oh, Statue of Liberty, it's the same as 1900.
	It's completely discounting the last 125 years.
	And I don't, yes, we were, we are a nation of immigrants.
Layers of Detention Security 00:12:39
	That's kind of how we started.
	But it's been a long time since that's been necessary to build our cities and get our economy roaring and lead to invention and so on.
	And so, like, what do you think the difference is?
	Why are 80% of Australians united in this?
	And the US is very much more political about it.
	Well, let's take it, say, from the right-wing view, which is everyone else had to queue, so should you.
	Let's take it from the left-wing position, which is people are dying when they take this perilous journey.
	But it ends up in the same place, which is to try to prevent the journey, which is to create these series of disincentives.
	Now, again, we have a growing far left.
	They're the Greens party in this country that desperately believe like many of the crazier people that are in and around your politics, which is that essentially the country isn't something to be proud of, so there's no need to defend it.
	There's no need for a border because, you know, if you happen to be lucky enough to be born in the United States, then why should you be afforded any more rights than somebody who's unlucky enough to be born in Nicaragua?
	Well, again, the joy of the logic of being an island people, and I know that's odd being a continent and all the rest of it, is that you're used to the idea of not being interconnected to other countries.
	It's an effort to get to another country.
	So I think sort of there's something built into the psyche of Australians that you know there's a certain level of isolation around where we are, but there are different ways that people get to the same conclusion, which is either don't cut the bloody cue, fill out the paperwork like my grandparents had to or their great grandparents had to, or we don't want people to die on a journey of floating, which is a lot longer to float from Indonesia to Australia than it is, say, from Cuba to the south of Florida.
	There have been more and more reports about these facilities.
	Some on the left say they're not humane enough.
	The New York Times is saying, oh, we saw, you know, pictures of food with maggots on it.
	And, you know, there's sexual assaults in these facilities and so on.
	They're not perfect, but they're not allure either.
	It's not a place that anybody would think, gee, I'd love to go there and spend 10 years.
	And you can.
	It could be several years in one of these things before the Aussies resolve what to do with you.
	Well, as well, look, I'm not going to pretend that every single moment and every single supplier to government has done the best thing.
	There's no question that there has been plenty of problems along the way.
	And often it's because you're relying upon sometimes sort of the local populations of places like Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
	No disrespect to those that are watching us right now on YouTube.
	I'm not sure they've got Sirius XM.
	But anyway, hello to all of those people, which is that the reality, got all my plugs in for you, mate, is that the reality is that, yes, okay, there's occasional problems with some of the service, but the reality was the assaults or the sexual assaults, they weren't happening from guards on the people inside.
	They were from the fellow detainees.
	But what became or what has become a bit of a problem in a sort of legal way through these detention centers was, as you would say in America, the anchor baby phenomena, which is, well, there's a very famous case where there was a couple that I think had come from Sri Lanka.
	Both were ruled not to be refugees.
	They lost every single appeal.
	But oh, surprise, surprise, they fell pregnant.
	So is the kid technically on Australian soil?
	Therefore, they're Australians.
	So that should that be the reason they come to Australia.
	Now, they were prevented from coming to Australia for the best part of 10 years, but we had a recent change in government.
	It's a little more Trudeau-like than I would prefer, but still.
	So they turned around and basically picked them out of these detention centers and dropped them back into the community.
	But there are still plenty of people inside those things.
	And my issue that I would talk about on my program is that if you put any sugar on the table, it starts the trade again.
	So even if you find a scenario where, you know, two people have a kid and then they're Australians.
	So this is the problem for America.
	If you put the sugar on the table that one day you can end up in New York City and somebody will pay for your entire life, guess what they'll do?
	Cross the freaking Rio Grande.
	Yeah, they'll come by the millions as they have.
	So there is a, I read that in December of 2023, so just a month ago, there was a landmark ruling from the High Court in Australia ruling Australia's practice of indefinite immigration detention is unlawful.
	So does that mean this ends?
	Or does that just mean the claims seeking asylum or admission need to be resolved faster?
	It is a big hole that was blown in it just a couple of months ago.
	Ironically, well, not ironically, amazingly, the person who was making these claims about indefinite detention was a person who was accused of quite horrific sex offenses against children.
	But for some reason, this person was the champion case that made it through to the high court because we've got two parts here.
	There's the offshore that we talked about, but then there are people who end up in domestic detention centers because they're the people who may be given a thing called a bridging visa.
	Now, a bridging visa is not full citizenship.
	It is just the right to stay in the country.
	But essentially, it's like a tourist visa where you're allowed to stay.
	But as soon as you committed a crime, well, that visa gets torn up and then you got put into these detention centers and basically the legal process starts again.
	So we did have a scenario where about 150 people who had been all ruled to not be refugees had been able to be pulled out of the system because of this lawfare.
	But perfect example of how the Australian system works.
	Within a couple of weeks of that high court decision, we had both sides of politics rushing new legislation through to try to limit anyone's access to that system.
	Such is the relentless resolve.
	Now, we don't have the numbers that were coming to us like even 10 years ago, but because we saw what happened 10 years ago when you put the sugar on the table, you constantly have the resolve to take it off the table.
	And again, I've been watching the debate in the past couple of weeks where I hear constantly, oh, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are close to some sort of deal and Biden wants to sign it, but Trump's telling everyone, you know, don't sign it because the issue is going to be one that he still wants at the election.
	No, no, I'm sorry.
	Joe Biden doesn't get to pretend that he can be the solution to his own problem.
	His election and Kamala Harris's language around trying to dismantle the disincentives that Trump put in place are part of why you ended up in the scenario that you are right now.
	So I don't believe that Joe Biden is going to start to move towards the idea of removing the incentive and increasing the disincentive.
	I think that he's just trying to come up with some sort of solution to deal with the polls.
	Yeah.
	And allowing Majorkis, the guy who's being impeached right now for not enforcing the border, to have some sort of a magic wand to decide ultimately, well, yeah, you all have asylum and you don't, is like amnesty.
	I mean, that's really, that's as close as we're going to get to amnesty in today's day and age.
	And the people don't want it.
	All right, one more minute.
	And I do want to talk about American politics too and our policies, but a couple more questions about you guys.
	So as you know, we have sanctuary cities here.
	They're all Democrat run.
	They're all a disaster right now.
	They're all complaining about all the immigrants.
	It's like, well, gee, what do you talk about sugar?
	Needless to say, there's nothing close to that in Australia.
	No, there is not a sanctuary street.
	There is not a sanctuary cul-de-sac.
	There is not a sanctuary housing development.
	There is no legal territory in Australia that will give safe harbor to any of these people.
	There will be certainly sort of governments that lean a little more to the left that will try to find ways to increase the amount of support services or something like that.
	But the idea that you have, and again, this is the layers of idiocy here, where you have one part of the country fighting against another part of the country about the integrity of the border of the country is insane.
	These are people who are actively undermining their country.
	And isn't it amazing?
	Once the problem moves out of Texas, oh, when it's on the front page of the New York papers, suddenly it's a real issue they want to deal with.
	But when it was out of sight, it was out of mind and they could all sit around in dinner parties saying, come on in, just don't live next to me.
	Right.
	I mean, the best example, of course, is the Martha's Vineyard crew who, you know, give us, you're hungry, you're tired, you're poor.
	And then as soon as they got, they were like, oh, God, get the hell out.
	And then when they didn't even stay on the ground for, I don't know, it was 48 hours, they actually had the nerve to say, we missed them.
	We're going to go visit them in the detention centers to which they've been.
	Sure, Jan.
	But again, these are all the people who live in gated communities.
	The idea that the metaphor of how they choose to live is how your country should take care of itself that is completely lost on them shows you how empty vesseled some of these people are and their compassion is about as shallow as a thimble.
	So in a sanctuary city, if you are an illegal and you commit a crime, they will not call the feds.
	They might prosecute you for the crime.
	They might not.
	I mean, in New York, we've seen example after example where they don't.
	But they definitely will not call the feds if they see that there's a detainer on you.
	You know, you were supposed to show up for your asylum hearing and you didn't and now you're just roaming the country.
	So they're supposed to call ICE and say, yo, I found one for you.
	Come get him and deport him.
	They won't if it's in a sanctuary city.
	So what happens in Australia with somebody who's there on like, quote, a bridging visa where they're trying to figure it out, it's like a temporary work visa or a student visa if you commit a crime?
	Well, obviously, if you end up going to jail for a certain amount of time, and we're talking about the particularly serious cases, like exactly, like say if that scenario of the people who sat on the police officers in New York happened, well, firstly, you wouldn't be out of jail the next day.
	But secondly, if found guilty and sent to jail, then visa ripped up.
	And if you can be deported from the country the second that you leave prison, that's exactly what happens.
	We'll book a plane.
	We don't care what the seat is, what the airline is.
	And if we've got to have a private funded one, we'll do that too.
	But see you later, you're going home.
	They will spend money.
	You spend money in Australia on these illegal immigrants or these wannabe refugees slash asylum seekers.
	It doesn't, it's not cheap, but you do it because of these principles.
	So it's, I mean, as I understand it, it could be up to $250,000 per person to keep them at these offshore facilities.
	Yeah, look, it's the same cost as basically, you know, I can't put it any other way, incarceration.
	I mean, in the same way that that costs a certain amount per person, that's exactly what happens when it comes to these offshore processing centers.
	But again, because in our DNA and now in our politics and the way that we want to present ourselves to the rest of the world, we want it to be a privilege for you to be afforded citizenship here.
	Now, I always talk about this on tele, which is I was lucky enough to be born into the greatest club in the world, which was to be an Australian, right?
	I am absolutely welcoming of anyone who wants to come from any other country.
	I've already filled out your paperwork, by the way, Megan.
	You know, I've got a nice place for you just by the harbor.
	You'll love it, right?
	The whole family, all the rest of it, right?
	You're more than welcome.
	The internet will work.
	Nobody will see anything different.
	It'll be you hanging out on Bondo Beach each and every night that you want to, right?
	But we're going to have a scenario here where we want people to be able to fill out the paperwork, to add something to the country, to commit to the laws of the country.
	And if you choose to go against those things, well, the punishment is the privilege of being able to live in this lovely, peaceful little island at the other end of the earth.
	Well, that'll be taken away from you because citizenship is a right that has responsibilities, regardless of whether you're born here, flew here, or you've been able to get here some other way.
	So what about just one final note on the hotels that are inside the country?
	We talked about the offshore facilities, but I remember when Novak Djokovic got in trouble because he didn't get the COVID vaccine.
	They weren't going to let him play in the Australian Open, but he came anyway.
	They stuck him in, you know, for lack of a better term, a hotel.
	But everyone in there was an unlawful migrant of some sort, and he was one of them.
	And it was like, oh my God, the number one tennis player.
	How's he being treated?
	What's the story with these quote hotels on Australian ground?
	How do you get into one of those?
Wall Funding and Hotel Stays 00:03:05
	Well, in the same way that we, you know, that again, the incarceration system would work, that there's prison farms or there's home detention.
	There are layers of security and layers of unpleasantness.
	Obviously, Australia wanted to take him out of the community, quarantine him to make sure that he wasn't going to, you know, jump the rules or try to find a place to hide.
	So he ended up going into one of these hotels, hotels where people had been there for some for a few months, some for a few years, but you weren't able to sort of come and go.
	It's not an Uber Eats festival.
	You know, everyone eats well.
	I'm sure it's not the way that he was used to it as a global sporting sensation.
	But basically, he was there until they could work out on what flight he would go home.
	So again, like the gradients of the prison system, there are gradients of comfort in the immigration system.
	And it goes from, you know, Burpoo Island all the way through to the three-star hotel.
	This is like so smart.
	There's so much we can learn from the way you guys are doing it.
	If only we had the will.
	And of course, we don't.
	So that brings us to the United States and this fig leaf of a bill that they're debating right now.
	It does seem DOA, the Republicans are not going to vote for this thing.
	At least it doesn't look like that.
	I mean, they never underestimate their ability to disappoint us.
	And I understand the argument by some, which is half a loaf is better than no loaf.
	Trump might not win.
	Biden could stay the president.
	There's some border enforcement.
	There's some improvements in this bill, but there's a lot of, there's a lot of carrots for the Democrats too.
	Lots of debates about what we should do, what we shouldn't do, and what Trump should or shouldn't do.
	Like what did he drop the ball when he had control of both houses of Congress and not pushing something through?
	Joy Reed, who I know you know, we've talked about her before on your show.
	She went on our other favorite, The View.
	I mean, come on, it's a clash of both of our favorite targets.
	She went on the view.
	Let's go.
	And she had some thoughts about Donald Trump and how he really fell down on the job.
	Take a listen.
	Did he finish the wall?
	Did not build a wall, which is why there's barbed wire at the border because it's water.
	You can't build a wall over water.
	It's a whole Rio Grande.
	You can't build a wall over there.
	So he can't build a wall.
	None of it was true.
	Yet people, they had this missed memory of the Trump era as this great era.
	It was the opposite.
	Bullshit.
	Trump was the problem, Paul.
	Trump was the problem.
	But of course, again, very selective memory, right?
	Which is this, she's out there pretending, oh, Trump couldn't build the wall.
	Congress wouldn't fund it for the second two years.
	Now, very obviously, did he get it built in the two years where he had full control?
	No.
	But again, could you come up potentially with a system to have been for all of that to be built in two years?
	Probably not.
	So it was a four-year presidency with the plan of building the wall in as many places as possible.
	Well, if halfway through the Democrats turn around and don't give you money for it anymore, guess what doesn't get built?
	The freaking wall.
	Yeah, exactly right.
Woke Activism and Backlash 00:09:54
	So now you've got to yelling at you, by the way.
	It's Joy Reed.
	She gets me nuts every time.
	No, I'm with you.
	I'm with you.
	So you've got no wall.
	You've got millions coming in in record numbers and you've got crime.
	And that's the other thing.
	There's crime rampant now in all these cities that have the illegals.
	We talked briefly about those migrants illegals in New York.
	Do you know in New York City, they passed a law that says if you use the term illegal immigrant and you have hate in your heart, you can be arrested.
	Like there's somebody's going to go figure out what's in my heart.
	Illegal immigration, illegal immigrant, illegal immigrant.
	Good luck.
	Come get me.
	That's it.
	Two genders, illegal immigration, legal immigration.
	That's right.
	Suck it.
	So Alvin Bragg now is trying to respond to criticism that they're receiving in New York because what happened was those illegals beat up two cops, kicked them in the face, all sorts of damage to these two guys just trying to enforce the law.
	And then we let them out with no bail and then they fled.
	They only got one of them.
	I think there's eight total.
	They've gotten five or seven and they're still looking for one.
	And now in the midst of all this blowback, Alvin Bragg comes out and he's shocked.
	He's shocked that there's a problem with the illegals policy.
	He can't believe that they fled New York.
	Take a listen to the DA.
	In Manhattan, we do not tolerate or accept assaults on police officers.
	I watched the tape this week.
	Despicable behavior.
	It sickened me and outraged me.
	In a court of law, and our profound obligation is to make sure we have the right people charged with the right crimes.
	I don't think any New Yorker wants us to charge the wrong person.
	My response is that we have an obligation on the court of law to prosecute the right people with the right charges.
	That's what we're doing here.
	We have more information now than we had on Saturday.
	I predict we'll have more in a few days than we have now.
	Oh, as if it was a mystery that they beat up cops.
	But also, it's a series of things that lead to the current problem, right?
	If you're going to turn around and say that somebody can walk into a CVS and pull $999 worth of stuff off the shelves and then walk off and you can't even intercept them as the person who owns the shop, well, then are you surprised that the level of what is acceptable eventually gets to the scenario where police are assaulted?
	And also, save me this garbage about, oh, we're not going to accept, you know, the assault of police officers.
	I'm sorry, there are how many examples of the assault of police officers that obviously get a very soft hand when it gets to the judiciary.
	But remember, these people got out of jail after being on video assaulting police officers the next day.
	Yeah, under his administration, and he's been one of the softest on crime, unless your name is Trump, in which case he's very, very interested in your hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and how you didn't totally pay back to it.
	That too, that's another problem in New York.
	I want to ask you about wokeism in Australia because that is something that the lovely status as an island has not protected you from.
	And wokeism has infected Aussies the same way COVID infected Aussies.
	You may have been immune.
	Look at the fun backgrounds going on.
	Thank you for the funny thing.
	I don't know what's happening.
	I'm so sorry.
	We sent a million emails and said, hey, can everyone just, you know, let's all get up here and maybe because it's very early in the morning.
	But anyway, I've apparently moved rooms while you were talking.
	Oh, now it's perfect.
	Stop changing the background.
	Stop changing the background.
	Bloody hell.
	We are a professional outfit, I promise.
	It's kind of fun.
	It's kind of fun.
	It's a mosaic of options.
	So you are infected by wokeism.
	And we know this because we talk about it all the time.
	But also, just last week, there was that story about Rip Curl, an Australian brand, kicking off Bethany.
	God, what's her last name?
	It's not my world of surfing.
	This is Hamilton.
	Yeah, she'd been, she'd been, she lost her arm at age nine from a shark attack and went on to become everybody's favorite surfer.
	She was amazing, the resilience, and so on.
	They booted her a couple years ago because she spoke out against men participating in women's sport in the transgender lane.
	And I mean, in the women's lane, but who say they're transgender.
	And they replaced her with a guy claiming to be a woman.
	But there was backlash to it.
	But every week goes by, there's another story of wokeism in Australia, same as we see in Canada, same as we see here, same as we see in Europe.
	Give us a feel for how it's playing over there.
	Normal people hate it.
	Normal people hate it because it's a little bit like what you were saying before about the don't refer to illegal immigration because it shows hate in your heart.
	Here's the thing: you know, we're lucky enough to be able to express ourselves each and every day in formats like this, right?
	You can respond to what we say with the full force of whatever you've got, right?
	Let's get into the conversation, but you don't get to tell me what I meant or what I was thinking.
	And the problem with wokeism and postmodernism that leads into all of that that basically means, you know, is a tree a tree or have you just been told that it is, you know, this garbage that is all about reordering our society is that it tries to pretend that we all have motivations that we clearly don't.
	So when we turn around and say, hang on, okay, hang on, the person in the bikini who doesn't just shave their bikini line, but also shaves their jaw, that's an odd presentation of the person that you want to be, the person out in front representing a surf brand in a country that has quite an obvious relationship with surfing, right?
	Be it professionally or be it just mucking around at the beach.
	But the wokeism that comes from the corporate sector, I think largely comes from the fact that many of these companies are listed on the stock exchange.
	As soon as you're listed on the stock exchange, then you've got all of these areas where people are able to infect an organization and change it for the worse.
	The great companies are the ones that are sort of owned by a person or a family and they kind of can keep a lot of this stuff out.
	But it's also governments where basically because it's hard to build a bridge, we end up turning around and policing language.
	Because it's difficult to police your border, we end up turning around and saying that up is down and down is up.
	And what I find exhausting, you find exhausting, and everyone watching and listening finds exhausting is that I am tired of waking up and having to fight for what was the status quo yesterday and being called bigot, racist, sexist, blah, because I want what happened yesterday to still be the rules tomorrow.
	Not in the 1950s, just yesterday.
	So it's happening over there.
	I mean, it's happening that the transgender thing, the race essentialism, the policing of languages, you point out.
	Is there a backlash happening now too?
	Because I feel like here in America, we're pretty well into the backlash against some of this, especially on the issues I just ticked off.
	Well, as you are envious of our borders, I'm envious of the conservative economy.
	The idea that if you want to find safe harbors with, you know, the mobile phone contract that you have or the bank that you bank with, you can plot a way of kind of keeping wokeness out of your life as best as you can.
	The problem in Australia is that we're such a small country that all of the institutions that aren't literally privately owned by an individual or by a family are all affected by all of this.
	So you end up with this scenario where basically the I often talk about sort of woke activists as basically kind of toddlers with a university degree where they use the same pester power they want for candy to get changes in language or changes in legislation.
	And as always, whenever they change the legislation, they say it's about doing things like saying banning gay conversion therapy from extreme religious groups.
	The reality when you look at the legislation, parents have no legal right to know whether their child is being pushed into a scenario to change genders before they are old enough to get a tattoo.
	So it's not just us, but there is a backlash.
	And you're right.
	are creating our own sort of line of, I mean, there's one advertiser who comes on our show advertising their own freedom water.
	I was like, every possible product is now realized that conservatives buy products and conservatives want things available to them that doesn't, you know, go against their values from beer to razors to banks.
	You could keep going, but we're just at the beginning of this.
	In 10 years, it should be a fully robust operative lane.
	Well, and this is why, you know, the people that you talk to over across at the Daily Wire, I like what part of what they do where they turn around and say, look, we're going to whinge about how woke movies are, or we could make movies that aren't woke, right?
	I like the idea of engaging in the culture to say, well, okay, we can whinge about it or we can make an alternative culture to take care of people who don't want the sort of over-poisoning.
	I'm not talking about some sort of overly puritanical kind of super edit where nobody, you know, sees half a boob or hears, you know, three quarters of a swear word, but the idea that you can have a comedy that actually pokes fun at people and sometimes occasionally punches down because we all like watching fail videos, that that's a good thing to push back into the culture.
	And it's our responsibility as people who buy movie tickets or buy products to support the ones who advertise on this program, to keep watching this program and share this program to get the word out as much as possible.
King Charles Health Concerns 00:06:25
	But also, I remember talking to a bunch of people in one of our big cities a couple of months ago.
	And, you know, they understandably had all the list of grievances about everything that was changing for the worse.
	But my pushback was, well, okay, if you think the schools are too woke, there's a few millionaires in this room.
	Get together and create a school that is a lifeboat.
	Now, we don't have a lifeboat for 25 million, but we could start off with a lifeboat for 100 that becomes 1,000, that becomes 10,000 that becomes a million.
	And then surprise, surprise, the kid's able to go from starting school into high school into, as we call it, university, as you would say, college.
	And guess what?
	They got the straight up and down education that you and I got.
	And again, it's not a lifeboat for 25 million, but let's try and start with the lifeboat for 100 and save as many as possible.
	Okay, I just, I have news for you from the UK where it's just breaking here.
	King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer.
	This I know, the report, this is from NBC.
	During the King's recent hospital procedure for benign prostate enlargement, a separate issue of concern was noted.
	Subsequent diagnostic tests haven't identified a form of cancer.
	Buckingham Palace did not specify what form of cancer was diagnosed or at what stage it was found.
	Buckingham Palace saying Charles had, quote, commenced a schedule of regular treatments and that during treatment, he would, quote, postpone public-facing duties, saying he would continue with his official business and usual office work.
	I'd be remiss if I didn't point out to you the next headline in the Daily Mail is Harry to fly to London after King's cancer diagnosis.
	I'm sorry.
	I wish I could believe that that was all about supporting his father who's ill, but I don't.
	But the bigger picture is the king is sick and with something serious.
	And I wonder, Paul, like, you know, if you look at the scenarios that are in front of us here, I mean, could we potentially have a situation where we have a king who's only been on the throne for a year or two or what have you and decides, we hope decides, we hope nature doesn't decide for him, that this is going to be his son's game sooner than we thought.
	Not that son, but the heir.
	No, you're absolutely correct.
	In terms of William, I think a lot of people had the sense that there was something pretty serious about the surgeries that he was going for.
	We started to hear about the potentials in and around prostate.
	I do find it mysterious that that Buckingham Palace sometimes kind of wants to play the game like it's you know 1924, not 2024 which is that you can turn around and say the king is ailing or the the, the queen Elizabeth, I mean literally her.
	Her death certificate says that she died of old age.
	Now it does.
	It's not going to speed up or reduce the cancer for people to know what type of cancer that it is obviously human to human.
	We hope that it is not advanced, that whatever treatment he can get is the best possible and he has the longest possible life.
	But I think what is particularly worth noting here is that queen Elizabeth's reign was the longest of all time.
	It was the exception to the rule.
	Now, in previous times obviously it had been good health or conflicts a whole series of reasons why kings and queens come and go.
	But the reality that we could be looking at a potential change in the throne, either through the worst possible circumstances or health, meaning that it's passed on to the son within five years, ten years or or even in the worst case scenario here, two or three years, is very real, which is why there's a constant training process for who's next.
	That the prince of Wales role inside the royal household is essentially to be right across all of the activities of the king for the moment when you ascend to the throne, and William obviously has, just as his father has, his entire life known that that is his future.
	So it's it's not a shock where you wake up one day living a normal life and then you become a king.
	For obvious reasons, you are training for it and preparing for it.
	Obviously, as a family.
	I hope that they can pull themselves together and and and make it through the.
	The Harry thing i've got to mention here, where he's been in and out of the Uk multiple times when he was trying to sue newspapers and then turned around and dropped those actions.
	He didn't see his father.
	Instead, it takes potentially, let's say uh, early cancer or, worst case scenario, pretty advanced cancer for him to drop all of his bullshit and to actually go and see his father.
	And that's a comment about him and that's why thankfully, he is the spare and the heir in William Uh, and his wife Kate is somebody who is ready when his time comes.
	Yeah no when, when Charles was going through the hospital treatments to figure out what's going on with the enlarged prostate was right around the time when Harry's book was mysteriously translated to reveal the alleged racist or not Harry's book.
	Omit Scoby's book was mysteriously translated to reveal who the alleged racists were in the royal family, who supposedly said they were concerned about the cover uh, the color of Megan and Harry's child.
	And it was revealed, revealed.
	One of them was allegedly King Charles, and there's no way Omit Scoby would have been told that by anybody other than Harry and Megan.
	So these two, in my view, have been sticking the knife into king Charles for years now, the royal family at large, and so It's the same thing with the queen.
	Was there any person or persons more responsible for stress within the family than those two leading up to her unfortunate death?
	And as he falls ill with cancer, I'm not blaming these two, but I also don't have it in me to cheer for his heartfelt return to be by his dad's bedside when he's in trouble, when he is the family member more than any other who tried to stick the knife into his dad as he was ascending to the throne, has been ignoring him, as you point out, when he goes to the UK.
	So, whatever, it shouldn't be a headline.
	The headline should be about the king.
	He's 75.
	He was only coronated in May.
Royal Family Stress and Cancer 00:00:45
	And, you know, these things can be serious.
	What we hope is that this one will be under control and fast because one thing's true, they have access to the best healthcare in the world.
	Paul, it's been such a pleasure.
	Thank you so much.
	I love talking to you.
	I love your show.
	And I'll see you tomorrow, my time, the day after your time on Sky News, Australia.
	Wherever it is, it's bedtime somewhere, and somebody else is getting up and somebody's pulling on Lauda.
	Megan, I love you.
	I've admired you from afar.
	And to be able to get to know you as I have has been an absolute privilege.
	I love this show.
	I listen to it all the time.
	I watch it all the time.
	And you're the best in the biz.
	Love you, Doll.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Love you right back.
	Talk to you soon.
	Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:03 Super Simple Accounting Software
00:02:02 Trump Dominates Polling Numbers
00:08:21 Legal Risks for the White House
00:23:09 Democrats Pay Temporary Price
00:38:27 Boys Revolt Against Agenda
00:50:05 Australia Immigration Backlash
01:05:30 Layers of Detention Security
01:18:10 Wall Funding and Hotel Stays
01:21:15 Woke Activism and Backlash
01:31:10 King Charles Health Concerns
01:37:36 Royal Family Stress and Cancer