Ep. 2055 - Trump Is The First President To Do This In Nearly 100 YEARS!

Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all-day-gum v-grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue. Just plump, dewy, hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. "Maybe it's Mavily!" This episode is brought to you by Cardiff America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion fundants since 2004, applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at cardiff.co/nolls. Almost three million foreigners have left the United States since the start of President Trump's second term, with 2.3 million of those people being illegal aliens that, according to the latest and most reliable numbers we've gotten so far, from the Census Bureau. This means that America has officially had net negative migration for the first time in about 90 years. This also means that conservatives have something to be happy about, which is a strange feeling and I'm sure that we'll find some way to be angry about it, but this is pretty good stuff. Then, leftists on social media celebrate the one-year anniversary of the murder of Charlie Kirk and New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani gives a 9/11 commemorative pen to a lawyer for a member of Al Qaeda, a Michael Noll's, the Michael Noll's show. Welcome back to this show, James Tallerico is doubling down on his Islamophilia. To remember, he said he learned as much about his faith from Islam as he had from Christianity. That was a weird one that made some eyebrows go up. Well, he's doubling down. He's going Muslim, Tallerico's going Muslim, Milo Yanapolis, fresh off the deportation, is going Muslim. Everybody's going Muslim. We'll get to that. I want to get to the Milo story if we have time. First, those speaking of faith, I want to tell you about HALO. Go to HALO.com/nolls, Canada VLAS. How do you pray? Not do you pray. How do you pray? What does your prayer life look like? And for people who have prayed their entire lives, it's a question you should consider time and time again. For someone who wants to pray but does not really know where to begin, it can be surprisingly intimidating. That is the idea behind HALO's new 21 Days of Prayer Challenge. Every day, you'll hear from someone different. Coach Prime, Gwen Stefani, Gary Sinise, Coach Dan Hurley, Fernando Mendoza, priests, pastors, moms, nurses, police officers, all answering basically the same question. Who are you and how do you pray? This is not 21 Days of Abstract Discussion about Prayer. You're actually praying. Maybe you discover something you begin saying every morning. Maybe it's a prayer you remember when life gets difficult or maybe you simply practice something modern life has made surprisingly difficult. Being still. We have endless things competing for our attention. Prayer requires us to give some of that attention back to God. So whether you've prayed your entire life or you're not quite sure where to begin, give God 21 Days and see what happens. Go to HALO for three months and join the 21 Days of Prayer Challenge at Hello.com/NOLs, Kenneth V. L.A.S. that is Hello.com/NOLs. Before we get into all the bad stuff and conservatives are all fighting over this new policy from the Trump administration that would take a pre-existing welfare program and stop it from only incentivizing single motherhood and conservatives are fighting about it because we're always fighting about everything. Before we get into all the kind of negative stories, this is good stuff, guys. We got to enjoy the wins. We got to enjoy the wins when we get them and we conservatives, we don't want to do it because we want to be do or upset all the time. But this is big stuff. From the Census Bureau, the foreign-born percentage of the population over the last 18 months is down 2.9 million people. So this is all foreign-born. Not just illegal aliens, not just people on green cards who are residents, but including even citizens, people who are born in another country and became citizens. This will be a little controversial in some portions of the right because there are some people, especially in the more Chamber of Commerce, Business Right, the more fiscally conservative but socially liberal right, they like the idea of open borders as long as you do it legally. They have no problem with flooding the country with foreigners just so long as everyone feels at the right paperwork. But people who are a little more traditionally conservative, people who are a little more concerned with social solidarity. Those of us on that side of the issue, we recognize that the problem of mass migration is not just that people don't fill out the right documents. The problem of mass migration is that it creates all sorts of problems for social solidarity, for questions of sovereignty. Do we, the people, still have the right to determine who and how many people come into the country? We have taken, since the 1960s, something like 70 million people into this country, maybe more, it is the largest movement of human beings in recorded history. And a lot of Americans left right in the center object to that. So we've got a reduction in all of that. Now, I want to make very clear here, the motivation for the hardcore immigration restrictionists, among whom I count myself, is not that we hate Mexicans. It's not that we hate people from Tahiti, or Ghana, or anywhere else. It's not even necessarily about the immigrants themselves. Some immigrant communities are definitely worse for this country than others. Notice the Somalis in Minnesota who are defrauding the taxpayer who don't assimilate, who have a totally different culture and religion and language. It's very, very difficult for them to integrate into the society. They don't seem to have much interest in doing it in any way, but it's not even really about the immigrants. It's just a fact of politics that huge waves of migrants create social problems. This has been true since Cicero, it's been true since Aristotle, it's been true since man first walked out of the cave. So during some periods, you can be a little bit looser with immigration, but during some periods, you got to be a little bit tighter, okay? And our country right now has the highest foreign-born percentage of the population that we have ever had. We take in a million legal immigrants per year. And then by the end of Joe Biden's presidency, we were taking 3 million illegal aliens on top of that. So you had something like 8, 9 million illegals coming in under Joe Biden. That is just simply unsustainable. So this is really good stuff. Yes, we want to get rid of the illegal immigrants because of the law and because of justice. But we also want to reduce the overall foreign-born percentage of the population because when you have too many foreign-born people, you cannot transmit your political tradition. You cannot inculcate a serious sense of civics. You cannot maintain your political community. It's just a fact of politics. This means that for the first time since the 30s, the United States has net negative migration. If the Trump administration keeps up the pace that we've seen in the first year and a half, what that means is that the United States will see a reduction in approximately 15.3 million of people of its foreign-born population by the end of Trump's second term. That is really, really big news. That would make it the lowest national foreign-born population since 2010, which is double-edged sort. On the one hand, you say, great. Not only a change in the direction of the graph, that's not only a change in where the country is headed, but you are going to see a massive reduction of 15.3 million foreign-born people and still that will only bring us to our foreign-born percentage of the population from 2010. That was halfway through Barack Obama's first term. That's how steep the mountain is that we have to climb. That is how heavily the odds are weighed against President Trump and all of the people who voted for President Trump more importantly. But this is really, really big news. You can read about it. We have the Census Bureau data. This is the current population survey, which is published with some regularity. There's a good article on it in the Center for Immigration Studies. This is good stuff. This is one of the main issues that motivated Trump voters, not just on the right, but also in the Center also disaffected liberals in 2024. It's part of the reason that Trump was able to deny the popular vote to the Democrats. This is one issue where Trump has gotten flack, even from some people on the right who say the deportations are not enough. Well, the hard numbers are coming in and yes, we always want more, I guess, but this is pretty good. If Trump is able to accomplish this, a reduction by over 15 million people in the foreign-born population, that will be maybe the most important part of his legacy. Maybe there are other important parts too. There's another win. Before we get to the negative news, there's another win that we're getting this from the DOJ. The DOJ has just gotten Mount Sinai hospitals, one of the most important hospitals in the country to end its child transition gender program. So they got Mount Sinai to stop transiting the kids. Do you remember there was a case the DOJ was able to just out, which is that they got a hospital to admit that it was wrong to trans the kids. They said they would stop transiting the kids and they set up a clinic with a lot of their own money, the hospitals own money, to offer free de-transition procedures to any kids and now adults who were subjected to this horrific, experimental castration, quote unquote therapy. So that was a big win and the DOJ said there's more to come. Well, this is the more to come. This is huge. And I hope there's a lot more after this, but these are big wins. And you might say, it's very easy to say, well, yeah, whatever, but I mean, woke one was crazy. And yeah, okay. Great. The biggest win we can ask for is conservatives is that we stop castrating little kids. And I guess the answer to that is, yeah, kind of, had Kamala Harris won. be trans. in way more kids, a Joe Biden run for a second term and one, we'd be transit way more kids, all of the current Democrat candidates running for office, basically with that exception, are running on the promise of transit the kids. And by the way, they might win in the midterm elections. Part of the reason that conservatives can't celebrate the victories when we get them is because I think we have a failure of appreciation of just how bad things got. And the trans ideology to me was the clearest example of that. We were castrating little kids and subjecting them to particularly perverse pornography in kindergarten with the approval of the White House under Joe Biden. We had trainees lifting up their shirts, showing off their prosthetic breasts on the lawn of the White House. But about the transgender ideology more broadly for adults, forget about radically redefining marriage, the basic social institution, forget about all that. That is how crazy and perverse it got. And you're now seeing concrete wins from the Justice Department. Well, you're always say, well, it's not enough. We need more and more more. Yeah, yeah, we need more and more, but I'll take the wins when I can get them. Speaking of mutilation, there's a very, very telling speech that just came out of the socialism 2026 conference. Don't forget, the Democratic Socialists of America are now more popular with rank and file Democrat voters than, then Democrat members of Congress. Okay, the DSA, the Socialists now own the Democrat Party. The chief intellectual thought leader of the Democrat Party is the son Piker and a vowed Socialist, all the hottest candidates in the Democrat Party, Mamdani, AOC, Abdul-El-Sayed, on and on and on. They're all Socialists. So the Socialism Conference in 2026 is a little more significant than it was in 2006. Back then, the Socialists were kind of a fringe issue, okay, you got Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist. Basically, nobody else does. 2026, the Socialist Conference might as well be the DNC. And at the Socialism 2026 conference, one of the speakers explained that what the Democrats are after, what the Socialists are after is dysgenic biology. We'll get to the dysgenics of the left first, though, I want to take that leaf filter. Go to leaffilter.com/noles, CanadaVLAS. There is a trend online right now called Gold Star Behavior, where adults congratulate themselves for completing ordinary tasks. The answer to an email, Gold Star, you put the laundry away the same day, you washed it, Gold Star. Apparently, civilization is saved. Home ownership has the opposite reward system. Nobody can congratulate you when everything works. You simply receive an extremely expensive reminder when you ignore something for too long. One of the biggest problems is your gutters. They are the perfect example. Cleaning them is always at the bottom of the list, until heavy rain sends water over the sides and down around your foundation. Leaf filter helps protect your home before that happens. Their local pros inspect your gutters, clean them out, and repair or replace them if needed before installing leaf filter. Its surgical grade stainless steel micro mesh keeps common debris out while channeling water away from your foundation where it belongs. Every installation comes with a no-clog guarantee and a lifetime transferable warranty because wet leaves belong on the ground, not at the center of your weekend plans. That deserves a Gold Star. Help protect your home today with leaf filter, America's #1 gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection today at leaffilter.com/noles. For a limited time, get up to $500 off leaf filter with your $0 down at leafilter.com/noles restrictions apply. See representative for warranty and promotion details. Socialism 2026, we have Beatrice Adler Bolton. She's wearing a mask in the big 26 face mask. That's okay. That's one negative sign. She's got the hyphenated last name. That's not dispositive, but it's generally a sign of a little bit more of a liberal feminist politics. It's too bad. I love the name Beatrice. I love the name Beatrice Adler. This woman, regardless of these fine attributes, explains that socialism is about being disgenic. You have to give up the fantasy of being fitter than the fascists. It's not just that it's cringe or strategically bad. Though it is. I think it's also politically revealing. Fitness is a measure of relative disposability under capitalism. Our task is not to become less disposable, to become more useful to the ruling order. What we all need to be doing is rejecting disposability in all of its forms. The point is not to beat the fascists at their own game. It is not to lay a better claim on their own territory by being fitter, more eugenic. In fact, the more disgenic, the better, I think. Revolution is not a contest between optimized and properly prepared bodies. That idea is fascist in and of itself, and it races the history of less struggles around the world. Only people of the world unite. It used to be that the socialists said workers of the world unite no, no longer. The socialists don't even talk that much about workers or class issues anymore. You really, frankly, you hear more of that from the Republican Party. You see much more of an emphasis on working class economic issues from the GOP, Mirabila Dictu. Probably many of us didn't expect that in our lifetimes. You're seeing much more of that from the conservatives than you are from the socialists. The socialists are talking about weird sex stuff and mutilating little kids and how working out is fascist. If you really want revolution, you need to be a big fat ugly guy. That's kind of weird, right? I mean, I don't look. I don't work out. I like to think I'm not the ugliest guy in the world, but I certainly don't work out. I don't think we need to make idols that have physical appearance. Hold on, she's saying that if you're healthy, that's fascist and you need the more disgenic, the better. Maybe this helps to explain why all the people at the Socialist Conference are wearing the face masks six years after COVID. The face masks, which didn't do anything during COVID to begin with, but maybe this explains why they seem to have this fetish for ill health. They're always bragging about all their mental health problems. They're always bragging about their other physical health problems. Their immunocompromised status and all the rest of it isn't that so strange that being healthy mentally and physically is right wing coded. It's conservative coded. Again, I'm not making this up. I'm not the one issuing the provocation here. This is coming from the Socialist Conference. They're saying that if you're unhealthy, mentally and physically, that is left wing coded, Socialist coded, and good. The more disgenic, the better. Do you know what this is? I can explain this in a way where you don't need to have read all the insane babblings of every radical leftist to ever wrote a political treatise. The way that everybody can understand this is that girl in your high school or your college or even that lady at work who breaks up with her boyfriend and chops off all her hair. You know that phenomenon? Of course, you know that phenomenon because it happens a lot. The girl who she goes through a bad breakup, she's going some kind of emotional trauma and she messes with her body. She chops off her hair. She gets a bunch of like weird tattoos, a lot of weird piercings that don't, she makes herself look uglier. I've just noticed this. I don't want to stereotype, you know, far be it for me. I don't want to make any claims about men and women. I would never do such a thing. But I have noticed that when women, especially men too, but especially women are going through some kind of emotional trauma, they try to make themselves look uglier. You don't have to take my word for it. This woman is elevating that phenomenon into a political ideology. And it's a reminder, less than anyone be confused. Socialism is not primarily about economics. And as Sunpiker goes and he says, 9/11 is awesome. I wipe my rear end with the American flag. I want to murder Republicans. I want to murder Charlie Kirk when he says all of these things. And then you call him on it and you call all the candidates that ask him to campaign with them on it. What do they say? They say, right wing radicals are Nazis and left wing radicals. We just want to give people health care. Say, hold on. No, I'm not objecting to your, I mean, I kind of object to a lot of your policies about health care. But I'm not objecting to you at wanting people to have health care. I'm objecting to the fact that you're advocating the murder of ordinary rank and file conservatives and members of the Senate. You say America deserved 9/11 and that and you want to murder little babies and you want to castrate little kids. That's the stuff I'm objecting to. I'll get to my objections on your health care policies at like criticism number 500. But the reason that we're not chiefly objecting to them wanting to give people health care or whatever is because socialism is not primarily about economics. To read Marx's own words, what he's calling for is the ruthless criticism of all that exists. What he's calling for is a total revolution. What he's calling for is to stop interpreting the world and to changing the world. What he's calling for reading Gertrude's Faust is that everything that exists deserves to perish. It's this radical revolution against everything that we previously thought was good and true and beautiful and that we still know deep down in our hearts is good and true and beautiful. It's a rebellion against Christ, Christendom, it's a rebellion against the moral order. It's a rebellion against our political institutions, and ultimately it's rebellion against God. Because all left-wing politics, and I'm not the first to observe it, comes down to three simple words, screw you, Dad. And I think that's what this woman's saying. She goes, it's actually, you know, if you look good, that's right-wing and fascist. And the more disgenic you are, even those words, because we throw this word, eugenics around, because eugenics refers to a movement that was a very bad thing, because it involved killing people who were mentally disabled and who were kind of ugly and who were in disfavored races. And that kind of eugenics is very bad. But at a basic level, eugenics just means good genes, right, good breeding. And so at that level, every single human being who gets married engages in what he thinks is eugenics. And what I'm saying is at the most fundamental, innocent level, eugenics is just wanting to have a healthy kid. That's really what it comes down to. So every guy, every guy who goes out, every lady who goes out to a bar and picks the most attractive person to try to, you know, go home with or go get a cup of coffee with, they are engaging in every basic form of eugenics. In other words, the problem with eugenics is not that people wanted to have healthy kids. The problem with eugenics is that they were committing grave moral evils to achieve that goal and good ends do not justify immoral means. The problem with eugenics was all the killing and the sterilization and all the rest of it. But it's not that you want to have healthy kids and you want to be healthy yourself. And what this woman is saying is no, no, no, the less healthy you are, the better. The less healthy our society is the better, which is really ironic because it completely undercuts the left wing argument when they say, our radicals, we just want to give people health care. No, what you're saying is you want people to be unhealthy. It's also, this woman's speech is perfectly socialist because she herself looks fine. I mean, I guess it's hard to tell behind the mask, but when she says everyone should be morbidly obese, which is her implication, notice she is not morbidly obese. She could probably use a trip to the hair salon, but she looks fine. I don't know. She looks okay. She looks like she's showered. She's basically well, right? She's like, again, you know, she could do upper hair a little bit. The shirt is fine. I don't know, maybe fewer chains or stuff, but she looks okay. It's classic, you know, do as I say, not as I do. And it's also, again, not just area type too much, but is this just a mating strategy for some very liberal women to try to encourage all the other women to make themselves look ugly so that they are more attractive in the dating pool is that? I don't know. Now, I mean, now I'm getting to psycho-bapples, so I don't, I don't want to do that. But on this point of socialism, we turn from the left to the right because there are people, especially among the more establishment conservative types, who are accusing the Trump administration of socialism for reforming a welfare system to not only incentivize single motherhood. This is one of the stranger cries that has come out of the GOP establishment a long time. We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about balance of nature. Go to balanceofnature.com. I'm just promo code NOLs, modern people have this odd habit of assuming that if something is complicated, it must also be sophisticated. The longer the ingredient list, the more technical the explanation, the more elaborate the routine, the more impressive it must be. I increasingly suspect the opposite is true. Real sophistication often looks like simplicity. That is one of many reasons I love balance of nature. They're not trying to reinvent nature or isolate some supposedly magical component. Our whole health system brings together 47 ingredients of real whole fruits, vegetables, spices, and fibers, and keeps the focus on the whole food ingredients themselves. They use a tailored vacuum-cold process designed to help stabilize the naturally occurring phytonutrients, while keeping those ingredients close to nature through minimal processing. There's a certain humility in that. Nature got quite a lot right before we arrived to improve upon it, and balance of nature makes those whole food ingredients simple enough to incorporate into an ordinary day. Go to balanceofnature.com, subscribe to the whole health system, or any subscription, receive an additional 10% off with promo code nulls. That is code nulls, can it be value-s? That also gets you a free guiltless snack with your order, balanceofnature.com, promo code, nulls. I mentioned this at the top of the show yesterday. The studios were closed. No one was in the office, and I still insisted on doing at least a little bit of a podcast yesterday. And in part, it was because of this new policy that was leaked through the New York Times, so take it with a grain of salt. But it was leaked from the Trump administration, reportedly the administration is really big on this policy, and it's being spearheaded by the vice president, JD Vance. And the policy would take an existing welfare program, which is the child care and development fund. This has been around since the 1990s. It was a Clinton, Newt Gingrich era change to welfare. It's a fund worth about, I think, $12 billion a year that pays women a below a certain income threshold. It pays single mothers, I guess theoretically single fathers, too, but it's the vast majority's single mothers, below a certain income threshold. It pays them to send their kids to daycare so that they can go work in the widget factory. That's what the program does. It's been around for 30 years, and the Trump administration is coming out, reportedly, and saying, okay, well, we already have this fund. It's mandatory spending. It's been around for 30 years. But right now, it discriminates against women who want to take care of their kids in a different and dare I say better way. So we have this fund that is supposed to help mothers take care of their kids below a certain income threshold with all sorts of criteria. Well, instead of only giving that money to single mothers so that they can pay the money to daycare programs so that they can go work in a factory all day, maybe we should also give some of that money to married women who, rather than paying a daycare center to watch their kids, would like to stay home and watch their kids themselves. And so we'll have certain criteria, which is you have to be married, and your spouse has to be working more than 35 or plus hours per week. And you're going to have all these qualifying criteria. But if the whole point is to help mothers care for their kids when they don't have a lot of money, and we have to spend this money anyway, rather than discriminating against the married mothers who want to take care of their kids themselves, also the kind of mothers who vote Republican, unlike the other program, which is mothers who almost exclusively vote Democrat, rather than discriminating against those married mothers. What if we just open it up to them as well? No change in this levels of spending, no creation of a new program, no law passed by Congress, no nothing. It's just a reform to the eligibility for this program. Because of this, many members of the GOP establishment, I should say the conservative movement establishment, are accusing the Trump administration of socialism. And I'm scratching my head. It's very, very difficult to understand this. Now, the first way that I could understand this is this is all kind of shadow boxing for the 2028 Republican nomination. Because the reporting says that vice president Vance is really pushing this through the administration, okay, there are some people who don't want Vance to be the nominee in 2028. Even though his polling is very high, Trump has already effectively endorsed him, okay, there are people who want it to be someone else. Sanders, Senator Cruz, Rand Paul, I don't know, probably the chief object of desire for these people who don't want it to be Vance is Marco Rubio, even though Rubio has signaled many, many times he's not going to run against Vance, probably he'd run with Vance. But regardless, they say, okay, well, maybe a way to help Rubio in the shadow of 2028 race and hurt Vance is to attack this program. But that's insane because this reform that is coming out of the Trump administration, that is largely being attributed to Vance, actually uses a lot of the same language from legislation that then Senator Marco Rubio had proposed. So this comes from Rubio's 2024 Respect Parents Child Care Choices Act. And so it's not, this can't be a Vance versus Rubio thing. They got a lot of the language from Rubio and Vance himself is definitely owning this issue. He's been talking about these kinds of issues for a long time. So there for the shadow boxing of 2028, there you see a phenomenon that I've been calling out for a long, long time as people have been trying to pit Vance and Rubio against each other. It's going to be hard to do because Vance and Rubio seem to agree on basically everything. And Rubio has endorsed Vance for the nomination and very likely Rubio could be the running mate if you wanted to be. So that doesn't make a lot of sense. The attacks on common good language in political discourse, which are being lobbied at Vance. Once again, Marco Rubio is the guy who coined the phrase common good capitalism. So it doesn't work to pit Vance against Rubio. So what's the issue with the program? I could understand the objections if Trump were proposing making a new welfare program. Oh, I understand those objections all day, but that's not what's happening. I could understand the objections if the new policy would require additional spending from the White House. In other words, it's not a new program, but it requires a lot more spending, but it doesn't do that. And in fact, it can't do that because Congress has the purse strings. So you would have to bring that to Capitol Hill and all of the leftists, all of the Democrats have signaled they totally opposed this reform from the Trump administration. You got the feminist groups coming out, the national organization of women lawyers have come out against this. They said this is terrible. You can't allow mothers to access this program to raise their own kids. No, no, no. The point of this program is just to force mothers to pay childcare companies so that they can go work in the widget factory. In other words, it's a subsidy for corporate America to encourage single motherhood. So what's the objection here? Well, the one objection I've heard, and this one, this is pretty crazy. You see it floating around social media, I won't name names of the establishment conservatives, but there are a number of them who are pushing this. They say, well, no, you know, the real thing we should do if we want to fix this problem. We want to encourage state-home mothers. The real thing we should do is just abolish this welfare program altogether. Some will go so far as to say, we just need to abolish the whole welfare state and cut taxes and abolish the whole welfare state. Okay, so hold on. If I understand this correctly, the establishment conservative's objection to this very smart common sense reform from the Trump administration is that we cannot reform a 30-year-old welfare program to stop only incentivizing single motherhood because it would be better to abolish the entire 91-year-old welfare state, which no one even pretends to think as possible. What? Seriously? Seriously? That is not a serious proposal. Even the people who are saying, well, we just need to abolish this whole program and give the money back to the people. One, that's not how it actually works, but two, none of these establishment conservatives were calling to abolish this program three days ago or at any point before that. Most of them didn't even know it existed. In other words, it seems to me that their function in politics is just to preserve the liberal policies of the past and not ever to change them, even to make them incrementally better. It's very, very strange behavior that that is somehow socialism. The final point on this that I think is pretty nuts is conservatives have made a lot of hay on the issue of school choice. School choice has been a big winner, saying, look, we have all this mandatory funding that goes to public schools, but a lot of people don't want to send their kids to public schools. You know what? A lot of people want to send their kids either to a private school or a more religious school or they want to homeschool. And Republicans have done great work going in and saying, well, you know what? We're going to take some of that mandatory funding to the public schools and we're going to have the government send it back to parents so that they can homeschool their kids, get a little break homeschooling their kids or sending them to a prokyl school or a religious school. Conservative seem to all agree on school choice just about. But this is the exact same thing, only on a much, much smaller scale. What would the argument be? If people were to be consistent here, they would say, okay, we don't want this reform of the welfare program to help stay on mothers and we also don't want to fund public schools. So we're not going to have school vouchers. We're not going to have school choice because it would be better to just abolish public school funding entirely. Well, you're not going to do that. So what's your next best, best option? Indeed, basically no Republican has cut the size of the government, cut government spending like ever, other than minor circumstances right after wars, right after major financial crises after World War II for instance, but in terms of normal ordinary operation of the government, that's never happened. So what's the argument? To me, that gives away the game. If you support school choice, if you say, you know what, maybe some of that government money that taxpayers are paying and maybe some of that should go to parents so they can make their own decisions for their kids, that's exactly the same argument as we see in this reform of the child care and development fund. See again, with school choice, that's at a much, much larger scale. That involves much more involvement with the government and a dealing with the bureaucracy and the welfare state. And you never hear the school choice advocates being called socialists, totally incoherent argument. I think it's basically just based on ignorance because a lot of the people who are coming out against this, they come out and they said, well, it's creating a new program. It's expanding a new program and that just isn't true. There's no, you're seeing this weird fight right now and it's between conservatives and traditionalists and some of the populists on one side. And the people who are opposed to this program are Democrats, basically all the Democrats. And then some libertarians, some like kind of libertarians, and a lot of the people who were never Trump in 2016, so I think there's a little score settling going on there too. But in any case, the socialism approach, the socialism accusation, I think it's just totally insane. The opponents of this program would fail that measure even even on the other policies that they support. Okay. Now, I think there are bigger fights out there than they were formed to, no, it's very good policy. I love it from the Trump admin, but they're bigger fights out there. Namely, as we approach the one year anniversary of the murder of Charlie Kirk, there are leftists on social media who are once again celebrating his murder. People get to that momentarily first. I did not pick this comment. This went to the producers and all my producers are out today, not all of them, but a lot of them around. Mr. Davies is on vacation. Professor Jacob was sent to Dallas in anticipation of the RNC. So basically right now, I don't know, I think it's it's a daily wear employee Jack with his saxophone, just like pushing random mutants in the control room. Anyway, they picked the comment from Trevazar who says, you know, I forget sometimes that other people have lives and jobs outside of my four-day weekend. I'm going to treat the start off my Monday. Thank you, Michael. Oh, the fact that I did, you know, I love doing this show. I feel very blessed that I get to do a job that I really enjoy and because not everyone gets to do that. And at different points in my life, I've done jobs that I don't really enjoy that much. And so I figure for Labor Day, I know the studio is closed. I don't care. If my job is saying what I think about politics and selling cigars, delicious Mayflower cigars available to brick and mortar near you. And if those are my jobs, I'm going to do them even on the day off, okay. The lives are, once again, celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Here is some lady on TikTok. Heather, second chance, it's a kind of older woman. She's getting my playlist of songs that remind me of Charlie, ready for the Kirkiversary party. And she is very unfortunately jiggling on a dog. She's jiggling her whole body on a dog. And by the way, she's not 21 years old. I guess it would be preferable. And now she's dancing, she's joking about a gun shooting through the neck. But this is, this is the demo man. This is, again, I don't, you know, I guess the theme of today's show is I don't want a stereotype. I don't want to make too broad sweeping statements about men and women. But this is that woman, a lady never tells her age, but this woman's in her 40s or 50s. She's wearing sunglasses, but one can intuit the SSRIs, you know, one in five American women is on those kinds of drugs. One in four American women is on psyched drugs more generally. And that involves emotional blunting. It's a little bit of a chicken or the egg because you can't figure out if the ladies were nuts before they took the drugs or if the drugs made it more nuts or if it's like an aura boros and it just keeps going, but regardless, there are lots of reasons to believe this woman is a sociopath, not the least of which is she's dancing and joking about the murder of an innocent man who only ever tried to talk it out with his political opponents, a young husband and father and she's, she's joking and dancing about his death. And the fact that the reason I keep mentioning her appearance and her age and her is because it would be better if she were a 19 year old orange haired, septum piercing, crazy, young chick looking for attention. It would be better because she might grow out of that because young people do stupid things. That's one of the defining features of being a young person. This woman's like 50. She's got gray hair, she has the body of a 50 year old and she's doing that. This was the second scandal. This was the aftershock of the murder of Charlie a year ago. The fact that a leftist would murder a conservative speaker on campus really was not that shocking because they had been trying to do it for 10 years to like all of us, okay? Any conservative who spoke on campuses for the previous 10 years, any conservative with any kind of profile had some run in with this, with the increasingly violent protesters with attacks, with being chased down the hall, with having people throw stuff. We all knew and they were open about wanting to harm us. The fact that one of them succeeded at killing the most important one of us at the highest level is, I guess it was shocking in degree, but it wasn't shocking in kind, it wasn't shocking that it happened. I think the real aftershock, the thing that really surprised a lot of people was that lady because that lady sits next to your work and that lady was happy that Charlie was murdered, which meant that that lady would be happy if you were murdered, for your belief that taxes should be a little lower and we probably should close up that border and maybe we shouldn't expose kindergartners to pornography. For those beliefs, maybe your belief that we shouldn't murder children in the womb. For those beliefs, the lady who sits next to you at work was fantasizing about slitting your throat or shooting you in the neck. And a year later, they're still doing it. I spoke yesterday. I was on a podcast with Laura Trump and Mary Margaret Olehem. There are a lot of shows that are reflecting on one year since Charlie was killed. I'm going to be speaking. You're going to do a memorial event at the campus at which Charlie was murdered, Utah. And I'm going to go out to that, TPSA asked if I would come out to that. I was very honored to be invited and I'll be there on Thursday. So I'll give my fuller recollections and thoughts about Charlie's murder then. I won't do it here. But something we talked about last night on the show that I'll mention here just briefly is. Politically speaking, basically everything has gotten worse since Charlie was murdered because Charlie was murdered. The left scored a big game. victory by murdering Charlie Kirk. Not for their own souls, not, you know, not in the long run, perhaps, but in the short run they certainly did. And we don't want to admit that. And we want to pretend that, you know, we're going to be even stronger now. And that's what we said right after Charlie was murdered. And I always knew that was a cope. And I always knew what's going to happen. Assassinations work. That's why people do them. And a year later, the right is at each other's threats. Over crazy conspiracy stuff, over a factional and fighting ideological and fighting, over non-traversies like this welfare reform policy coming out of the White House, free modest policy. It says, hey, maybe we should take some of the preexisting money in like support state home mothers rather than just single parenthood. I don't like to me. That's a pretty minor political fight. But we're at each other's threats over everything. And Charlie was this guy who could maintain the coalition. Charlie, that was his chief contribution to politics. He had others as well, but that was his chief contribution and he was the best at it. A year later, the right is in a very bad spot because of Charlie's murder. And the left is unified. Now, the one hope is that the left is so crazy, is so repulsive, pushing this radicalism. The chick who sits next to you at work who's dancing and joking about Charlie being shot through the neck. All the way up to Abdul Al-Sahed and Mamdani giving a 9/11 commemorative pen to an al-Qaeda lawyer and all the way. The whole left going in on castrating the little kids and flooding the country with illegals and rapists and murderers. You'd like to hope that the left is so repulsive that we won't get totally blown out of the water in 26 and 28. But that is right now probably the best thing the right has going for it. You're getting some wins at a Trump administration, which I mentioned at the top of the show. But a year after the murder of Charlie, the right is substantially weaker. And the left has not learned any lesson. In fact, the only lesson that the left learned was that assassinations work and maybe they should keep it up. Which is why they have elevated a son-piker, not just weirdos on the internet, but the candidates, Abdul Al-Sahed and Mamdani and AOC. They have elevated a son-piker. It's not even just them. The New York Times has elevated a son-piker. The entire American left has elevated a guy who said, yeah, we need to keep killing Republicans for being Republican. That's where the left is at a year later. Not a good situation. Speaking of the left-celebrating violence, I mentioned it a couple of times in the show today. We're approaching the 25th anniversary of 9/11. I am a New Yorker. I was in New York on September 11th. I had schoolmates who lost parents. My mother saw the Tower fall from the city when she was commuting into Wigrupp and the suburbs. She was commuting into work and she saw the Tower fall. I mean, this is a very viscerally felt experience for New Yorkers, especially, but for all Americans. And the phrase that emerged out of 9/11 was never forget. Never forget. And we forgot. Not to be a doomer because I was pretty chipper at the top of the show with all these policy wins. But we forgot. We elected this radical and Muslim to be the mayor of New York for the 25th anniversary. And as he's signing the proclamation to commemorate 9/11, Mamdani hands the pen to an al-Qaeda lawyer. There you have it. So what's crazy about this? We have reporting here from the New York Post on this. What's crazy about Mamdani handing the pen is whenever politicians sign proclamations or bills into law, they have these pens and they hand out the pens as mementos from this event. They're all all sorts of people behind and there are a bunch of people behind Mamdani here. So he turns to the police commissioner and he hands her the pen. But he doesn't hand her the pen for herself. He hands her the pen and asks her to pass it to the guy next to her who was a lawyer for al-Qaeda. So he hands it to Jessica Tish, whispers to her, "Can you pass this?" And she hands it to Mamdani's chief counsel, Ramzi Kassem, who snuck into that press conference. It's not even totally clear why he's there. He gets into the press conference and he gets the pen. Ramzi Kassem was a lawyer for the al-Qaeda operative Ahmed Al Darbi. This is too many coincidences just to be accidental. He's not even passing this out. And here's to one and here's to the other and you all get pens. No, no. If anyone's going to get it, it should be the police commissioner. He says, "No, you pass it to the al-Qaeda lawyer." This is making a mockery of 9/11. This is confirming the worst fears that New Yorkers, especially Americans generally, had about so around Mamdani. On the 25th anniversary of 9/11, he is downplaying. He's mocking 9/11. And you see this around the country. It's not just Mamdani. Abdul al-Sahid. His comments on 9/11 have been repulsive. He says, "Oh yes, I mourn the deaths of 3,000 people that day. The deaths?" This is like when people talk about the death of Charlie Kirk, as if Charlie Kirk had a heart attack, as if Charlie Kirk got cancer. He didn't. He was murdered by leftist. Don't tell me about the death of Charlie Kirk. Tell me about the murder at the hands of the leftist political radicals. Don't tell me about the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11, like a piano fell out of the sky in Looney Tunes. An airplane was flown out of the sky by Muslim terrorists. That's what happened. When we have to grapple with that, and we probably shouldn't be rewarding al-Qaeda lawyers. The fact that Mamdani would do such a thing tells you everything he thinks about New Yorkers and 9/11. James Talleriko is doubling down on his Islamophilia. Milo Yanopoulos, the right-wing provocateur who was just oddly enough deported as an illegal alien. This is one of the big Trump supporters from 2016. Then he kind of turned on Trump. Now he's gotten deported. Apparently he was here illegally. But now Milo, who was the sort of flamboyantly homosexual secular guy, then he had this big conversion to Catholicism. But now he's posting these pictures as a Muslim in the UK, went in Rome, I guess, do as the Romans do. And in case I want to get to all those stories, but we're out of time. So I'm a real t-swap to get to it tomorrow. All of these Islam stories, though, do remind us that we have a movie coming. It's called "Runhide Fight" in Fidel's. Every significant movement in history started with protesting. This is our generation civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should have figured as polarizing as late sounders, he would be allowed on campus. Okay, hear me okay. Daughters is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. This is a decision I cannot fight. Islam will conquer the West. Are we paying attention? They've taken over the building. They're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. Mohamed is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel beams into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leave front. You need a course in safe weapons handling. The timing seems about right, especially as we've all forgotten. Anyway, go, you have to subscribe to the Daily Wire to watch "Runhide Fight" in Fidel's. Which, however, it unhinged it you think it's going to be, it's about a billion times more than that. I got a lot of people are really, really going to enjoy it and probably find it very cathartic. So go check it out at Daily Wire. You have to be a member. Today's Tehe Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. You're going to remember Use Code Noll's Canada VLL. I said check it out for two months free and all annual plans.