Ep. 2101 - Ole Miss Ring Cam Girls: Was This Racist?

There are two kinds of confession. One, the state force is out of a prisoner. The other, a man makes freely before God. Confession, written by the DailyWire's very own Ben Shapiro, is about a man in Stalin's Moscow caught between the two. Confession is now streaming only on the DailyWire, joined today to watch. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender. There were 12 billion funded since 2004, planned under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at cardiff.co/noles. An 18 year old white girl receives death threats and even has to drop out of Ole Miss for allegedly making a racist gesture on a ring doorbell cam. Pete Hegseth faces down impeachment in the house, and more than one in five college students says America deserved 9/11. A Michael Noll's is the Michael Noll's show. (bell ringing) (upbeat music) Welcome back to the show. Tonight is the launch of Confession. Ben Shapiro's new movie on the DailyWire with Rob Lowe, James Franco, Raddora of Dean Norris, Nick Nolti, on and on and on. It drops at 7 PM Eastern on the DailyWire with a 30 minute pre-show. Go see it in a local theater near you by going to dailywire.com/videos/cancer. I think the DailyWire marketing department should maybe find a better URL. I don't know, do you think, can we afford a vanity URL? Maybe if you go see the movie, the movie's terrific, go see Confession today. Speaking of films that have gone viral, that are causing Stalin-esque purges and show trials, this is gas. Maybe if you go see the movie, the movie's terrific, show trials, this is gal. It's actually three gal's, but one of them in particular, who have gone viral because they were walking back. I don't know, they look like they were going out at a party or something, they're walking back. And as they walk by a ringed doorbell camera, they make some gestures like their monkeys. Like, I won't describe it any further, judge for yourself. Okay, now you're probably asking, why are we talking about this video at all? What, young university girls, I think the main girl who's in trouble for this is 18 years old, she's a freshman, and she's walking by a ringed doorbell cam, and she does something silly. Coming back from, I don't know, a party or a bar, I don't know, whatever, and now her life is ruined. Why, because apparently the student whose doorbell camera was is black, and the mother of the student whose ringed doorbell camera was saw the video and made a go viral and said this was racism. And so let's just keep an open mind for a second. I guess it could be racism. I guess it could be that this white girl or a group of white girls knew that the student was black and wanted to say that black people look like monkeys. I guess it could be that. So we'll get to that in a second. But the girl herself says that she did not know who occupied the apartment, it never met her, didn't know the race of the girl who occupied the apartment, and was not doing the little monkey gesture as if to say black people look like monkeys. Here is the extracted apology video as this woman's family is harassed as she receives death threats and as she's been forced to drop out of school. To the women I offended and to the Ole Miss community, I sincerely apologize. Before the incident on November 6th, I never met the women involved and was unaware of their race. However, I recognize my actions were insensitive, inappropriate, and deeply harmful. What? Hold on, what? One of those things can't be true. Either the girl knew that, knew these people or knew they were black or knew that or there's nothing insensitive or harmful about the actions. Now, this is an 18 year old girl. So now she's got global appropriate thrust upon her, a university investigation, death threats. Maybe she's just apologizing. Maybe she's telling the truth and she's saying, I don't know these girls, I don't know the race, I didn't mean to do a racism, but I don't, I really want to stop receiving death threats and I'm just a kid. So I'm sorry, it's offensive to do a monkey impersonation. I don't know, that doesn't make sense, but you can hear the dress in this apology. I would never truly understand the pain I have caused them and what I did is not a reflection of who I am trying to become. I would never truly understand the pain of making and let's say that we forget about the first part of the letter. Let's say that the girl knew the other girl was black or whatever. You could never understand the pain of someone making a racial joke, I don't know. I'm not black, but I'm Sicilian, which is close at least. And I've been called jokingly, sometimes a little more seriously, a wop, grease ball, dago, guinea, I don't, people have done impressions of the Italian people. Hey, why you, hey, you forgot about it, whatever. And it doesn't cause that much pain. I don't know, it's not nice. Racial jokes, they can be a defensive, but I can never understand the pain. What? I think you could. I don't think it's that much pain. Also, you said you didn't, you didn't mean to do a racism and you didn't know the girl was black, so it's, you didn't intentionally inflict any pain on anybody. But even if you had, you know, people have real problems, right? You know, there's like war and death and rape and starvation in the world and racial jokes. If you do make them intentionally, they're not nice. You shouldn't do that. I could never understand the pain. What? Over the past several days, my family and I have received death threats and harassment. I'm grateful for the authorities working to ensure our safety as I intend to cooperate fully with the university's investigation. The university's investigation of a girl coming back from a night out doing uh-uh to a doorbell camera. I ask for privacy for my family. Yeah, I can imagine. I understand the seriousness of the situation and remain committed to taking responsibility and learning from this embarrassing ordeal. The seriousness, it's not a serious situation. It's just not. Even if she had done the thing that she said she didn't do, and for which we don't have much reason to believe that she did do it, that she hates black people or something, but even if she had done it, it's not that serious. It's not nice. It wouldn't be nice if it were in fact the case that the allegations are true, but it's not serious at all. She went uh-uh-uh on a doorbell camera. That's like the least serious thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. Well, since then, her harassment, the harassment of her family, the death threats, the girl withdrew from the university. So let's just be perfectly clear about why this is going viral. It's going viral in part because the left has been exploiting claims of racism for many decades now, and it's very effective, and they do it all the time, and it scores them political points, or at least it hasn't passed. But here you're seeing some blowback in the other direction, some people who are coming at least to a moderate defense of the young girl. Why is that? One, it's totally unclear if the girl actually intended any offense. And if she did, you shouldn't do that. We should be civilized people. We shouldn't call black people monkeys. We should, yeah, okay, you shouldn't, sure. If that was what she was doing, that's not nice. And she should, you know, she should apologize. There should be some mild social repercussion for that. Okay. The reason this rubbed so many people the wrong way is how totally out of whack the response seems to be. She's getting death threats, her family's getting harassed, she's got to drop out of school. The reason this is rubbing so many people the wrong way is that even a dubious claim of anti-black racism becomes a national incident. It leads to a days or weeks long national conversation about race. We're told that one can never understand the gravity and seriousness and pain caused by this incident. That's how we react to anti-black racism. You know what we call anti-white racism on campuses? We call it the curriculum. We call it the admissions process. That's why people are responding in this way. One, because there's a really good chance this girl is being accused of something that she did not do, had no intention of doing, and that would be deeply unjust, and she could very well be totally innocent of any offense whatsoever. But even if she doesn't like black people, and she thinks they look like monkeys, and she made a joke on a camera, even if that were true, which she denies, there is such a gross double standard here that people are sick of it. It is such proof that there is not a pervasive anti-black racism in America, that every time anything even vaguely, slightly possibly resembling a hint of anti-black racism crops up, everybody talks about it forever, and the alleged perpetrator has her life ruined at her family's life ruined, and she's threatened with death and she can't get an education. Meanwhile, when that girl applied to that university, she was docked points on her admissions application because she's white. If she's white or Asian, she is disadvantaged in even getting into the university. If you are black or to some degree Hispanic, you are advantaged in getting into the university. When you get in and you go take classes on sociology, on American history, et cetera, et cetera, uneconomics for that matter. You are told white people are bad and black people are good, and white people have committed all the crimes ever in the history of the world, and non-white people are the innocent oppressed who can never have their pain made right. That's what you're told. We are told that white people are profoundly racist, yet we know from survey after survey that white people have essentially zero racial identity, racial consciousness, and every other group, especially black people have very high degrees of racial consciousness and identity. It's just so totally out of whack. Assume the very, very worst possible interpretation of the girls video. Do we think that the response to this is even remotely proportional? Of course not. Does anybody? I want the most left-wing racial identitarian person watching or listening to this show right now. Do you seriously believe that white people are more racist than, forget black people, than any other race in America? Not even close. There's significantly less racist. The consequences for their racism are infinite, essentially infinite, and the consequences for anti-white racism from any other racial group are non-existent. That's the issue. The way that the liberal media are going to portray this is Ole Miss. In Mississippi, the whole South, the clan continues to ride in the big two-six, but of course look at the response to this. It's anything but. If there is anything resembling a virtual lynch mob in this whole case, it is the mob of people going after this 18-year-old girl. In Mississippi, deep red conservative Mississippi that just elected a Democrat senator, which we'll get to in a second. But the kids on college campuses right now, they're not all right. They're not all right. There's a new survey shows that one in five college students, more than that actually, says America deserves 9/11. We'll get to that in a second. First, I want to tell you about Bolin Branch. There's a lot more to say. First, they'll go to Bolin Branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com/noles. Can it be really us? Code Noles. There's a really, really important strategy when you're buying a Christmas present for your spouse. A lot of guys know it. If you haven't figured it out yet, it's that you want to buy your wife something that you also will enjoy. I think that's what a caring husband is supposed to do. Sometimes you strike out. When I bought a Lisa, that beautiful new humidor a few years ago, sweet little Lisa, she didn't love it so much. When I bought her, I'm very nice, new, expensive ukulele. She doesn't play the ukulele and kind of hates the ukulele. Then I struck on one. That is really, really good. That would be Bolin Branch because my wife loves Bolin Branch. Everyone's wife loves Bolin Branch. Maybe more importantly, I and every guy I know loves Bolin Branch as well. Every guy that's tried it and you should try it now too. Their sheets are made from 100% organic cotton. They're incredibly soft and breathable. They get softer with washing. The nice thing about them is, one, they're really, really high quality. It's like sleeping on a five-star hotel bed every single night. You know that multiple US presidents have slept on Bolin Branch sheets as well as your favorite podcaster. Right now, you can get early access to Bolin Branch as best sale of the year. Be the first to shop 25% off plus free shipping and extended returns. Bolin Branch.com/noles. Code Noles. Bolin Branch. B-O-L-L-A-N-D. Branch.com/noles. Code Noles. For early access to 25% off, exclusions apply. There's a new pull out from my old stomp and grounds at the Buckley Institute. It says that more than one in five college students says the United States deserve September 11th. 22% of the participants agreed with that statement. Worst air attack, of course, in American history. It means that it ain't just Hassan Piker. You know, Hassan Piker, this left-wing streamer who campaigns with the left-wing candidates, who calls for the murder of multiple Republican senators, who said that he personally wanted to murder Charlie Kirk before one of his fellow travelers actually made good on the threat, who says that he wipes his daily air with the American flag, who says America deserves $9.11 and actually has a picture celebrating $9.11 behind him on his set. It's not just him. It's not just some random guy in the left. This is the point we've made about a guy like Hassan Piker for many months now is he's not the fringe. He's not the outlier. He prominent Democrat Senate, Senate candidates who will soon be sitting senators actually invite this guy to campaign. So he is the mainstream of the Democrat party and he is reflecting a huge share of the voices on campuses. So what is this about? The establishment conservatives are going to have a perfectly wrong reaction to this. I'm sorry to say some of my best friends are establishment conservatives, but they're going to have the wrong reaction. What they're going to say is these college kids, they don't know anything. They're ignorant. They don't even know. They don't even remember $9.11. These college kids, they're socialists and communists today because they're ignorant because they don't have memory. They don't remember the Soviet Union. They weren't alive for the fall of the Berlin Wall. We just need to teach them some facts about 9/11, about communism, about left wing economics. We got to teach them the facts and we got to destroy the left wing arguments with facts and logic and then they'll be conservative, but you're totally misunderstanding what's motivating this survey response. It is not the intellect that is motivating the survey response. These college kids don't have much intellect. The establishment conservatives are right about that. It's not the intellect. It's not an interpretation of the facts. It's the will that is motivating this response. This response does not primarily represent some declaration about what did or did not happen or even the significance of those events. The survey represents a contempt for the country. It's not about ideas. It's about love. When you say America deserved 9/11, what you're saying is I hate the country. I have contempt for the country. This ties into just what we were talking about in the sociology classes and the history classes on campus. What the left wing professors are inculcating is not a set of facts. It's a set of feelings. I have a palamine who famously says facts don't care about your feelings. My rejoinder to that always is politics almost exclusively cares about your feelings. So much of human life is about feelings. You want to get your facts right. Logic should be guiding our actions. We should subdue our appetites and our wills to the intellect to the truth. But you have to take the will very seriously. If you want to get a different survey result, let me make this very, very practical. If you want students to respond differently to this question, did America deserve 9/11? You don't need to tell them more about the dangers of Islam or why it's wrong to kill innocence. You don't need to correct them if they entertain conspiracy theories about 9/11. It wasn't really the Muslim hijackers. It was an inside job or whatever. It's not about changing facts or correcting facts. You need to cultivate in them a love for the country, a kind of patriotism. In the same way, if you want your kid to show up to Thanksgiving, even if they disagree with the conservative uncle who shows up to the Thanksgiving dinner, the best way to get your kid to show up to Thanksgiving dinner is not to tell him that the conservative uncle has a point on tax and immigration policy. The way you get him to show up to dinner is to say, "Hey, he's your uncle and you love him and he loves you and we're a family and this is what a family does and we're part of this unit together and we need to work in harmony and we need to recognize that there is such a thing as a common good and we all flourish or fall together." That's the kind of thing you need to develop in them. I fear that the conservatives were a little bit to commander data. We're a little bit too into facts and logic. It's about cultivating loves and many conservatives will shy away from that because they've bought into an essentially liberal premise that education does not teach you what to think, only how to think. Okay, well, even if that were the case, how do we think about the country? We don't love the country as a consequence of a series of syllogisms and argument and debate that convinces that the country is worth loving. We have to begin by loving the country, just as you have to begin thinking about the whole world by loving your family. That's the first institution of which you're conscious. You begin with that and that shapes the way you see the rest of the world. Now, speaking of war with Muslims, President Trump in that much-discussing just Ross Douthet interview. We talked about his views of heaven and hell. We talked about his views of the midterm elections. We talked all sorts of things. One overlooked part is where President Trump was asked about what the future of the war in Iran looks like. So you're not going to escalate the war now that the midterm is over? Well, I'm not looking too. I don't think there's any reason to. Okay. Simple enough. He goes on a little bit, but that's the crucial point. Where are you going to escalate the war or not? We all agree that the most immediate issue cause of the Republican blowout on Tuesday night was the war in Iran because the war in Iran is perceived by voters as in Congress with the MAGA movement and Trump's promises of America first because the war in Iran has led to higher gas and oil prices because when energy prices go up, the price of everything goes up because it seems like a foreign distraction from the domestic agenda, so on and so forth. Iran really is the issue. Okay. Well, what are you going to do in Iran now? We're still in this war. We're not even so much in a war at the moment as we are in a stalemate, an unstable stalemate that will have to be resolved one way or the other. President Trump says he does not want to escalate the war, but the question then becomes, how do you get out of it? This is why the voices who were urging restraint on Iran, there were really three camps. There were the people who are essentially pro-Iran who said, no, no, Iran, they don't mean to attack us. They don't hate America. They don't want a nuclear weapon or it's not a big deal if they get a nuclear weapon. That camp was pretty incoherent and in as much as there were people on the right talking about it, they were just cribbing talking points from the left and it didn't make any sense. Then there were a group of people who were hardcore war hawks in Iran and they said, oh, it'll just take three weeks and it'll be great and there will be no downside whatsoever and you should absolutely go in. Then there was this third group of which I was a member and a remainder member, which is, no, Iran is awful. They're a terrible regime. They do want a nuclear weapon. They do hate us. We should stop them from getting a nuclear weapon as best we can, but this intervention is unlikely to work because the regime is more durable than the hawks are pretending because a man starts a word his own will, but he doesn't end a word his own will as Machiavelli tells us because Iran has asymmetrical advantages over us in this kind of an action and because when it comes to the Iranian regime, in this kind of a strike, it's all or nothing. It seems to me either you totally destroy the regime, you know, you have regime change. That could be a bad idea for its own reasons or you try something else, but this middle ground is just going to lead you into a stalemate and then Iran is going to start playing trump cards, which they ended up doing in the case of closing the straight-up or moves. In other words, you have the first group which says, "In principle, the war is bad." You have the second group which says, "In principle and in practice, the war will be good." You have this third group in the middle, which is me, who says, "In principle, the war could be good." It could be a major geostrategic win for the US, but practically it won't be. Of all those groups, hate to say I told you so, it would appear that that third group was vindicated. So, Trump very rightly says, "Look, I don't want to escalate the war in Iran. I would like there to be some nice solution to it." The question is, "What will that be?" Meanwhile, Iran is ramping up the threats as Scott Besant is now facing very serious death threats, even more serious ones than that 18-year-old girl from all misses facing. Before we get into that, I want to tell you about Catholic match. There's a lot more to say first, though, go to Catholicmatch.com. Every year, people spend November and December postponing their lives until January. I'll start exercising in January. I'll get organized in January. I'll finally take dating seriously in January. Apparently, when the clock strikes midnight on New Year's Eve, we all become entirely different people. Well, you won't. I haven't worked out since the Obama administration, at the latest. If you're single, did I work out even, maybe, I don't know, maybe briefly in the Trump amendment. Anyway, I certainly didn't keep any New Year's resolutions about that. If you're single and you're a Catholic and you're serious about marriage, you do not need to wait for a new calendar. You can go to Catholicmatch.com. Catholicmatch is the largest Catholic dating platform in the world, built specifically for people who share your faith and understand that dating should lead somewhere. You're not beginning with awkward negotiations over mass, sacraments, family, or whether marriage is even the goal. Those important things are already decided. You could focus on meeting the person and discovering whether the two of you might actually build a life together. Creating a profile is free. Catholicmatch is free to download from the Apple App Store or Google Play Go to Catholicmatch.com. Do not make finding a spouse and other resolution you abandoned by February. Make the introduction now. Scott Besson, Treasury Secretary, is facing very serious death threats, so serious that they've actually moved him from his home in DC to a military base. This is now being reported by a lot of agencies, including in New York Times, including Reuters, the U.S. National Intelligence Chief, Jay Clayton, has been warning that Iran is substantially increasing its efforts to target Americans in the Middle East and beyond. This is another reason that I think the war hawks way overstated their case on Iran. They said, "Well, you know, we got to stop Iran from getting a weapon." Iran wasn't actually that close to a nuclear weapon, but they were close to a conventional weapon supply that would have made their nuclear program in penetrables. If you ever do want to stop their nuclear weapon, you have to go in now. Obviously persuaded President Trump, but part of the argument there was, "We got to stop them there right now because otherwise they're going to come attack us and right now we're not that vulnerable." But that's not true because we're a global empire. We have interests and we have troops and assets all over the world in that region. They can inflict very serious harm on us and they're going after Besson right now. There is a little silver lining, I think, in the fact that Iran is really focusing its efforts on Scott Besson because Besson is running the economic warfare against Iran. And the economic warfare can inflict very serious pain on Iran. Even that carries some danger for the United States because Iran can retaliate and try to strike ships that are getting through the straight-of-war moves or strike different American assets and bases all around the Gulf. So they can do that, but the fact that Iran feels that the greatest threat to the regime right now is in the Treasury Department, is to me a sign that the economic warfare against the Iranian regime is working. And a few points just to counter some of the hawks here, the hawks who initially they told us, "Oh, it'll be really, really quick. We'll drop some bombs. It'll be very easy. We won't disrupt the energy markets too much and then we'll be all done." And then as the word dragged on, they said, "Well, we need to drop more bombs in different places and we need to more severely disrupt the energy markets. But don't worry. We're not going to push for a regime change." Now the hawks are telling us, "Actually, we need regime change," so they keep just moving the goalposts. But they say, "If we just move the goalpost one more time, then it's all going to wrap up really, really quickly. I see no reason to believe that. Frankly, even if we did destroy the Iranian regime, I see no reason to believe that that would not further embroil us in it potentially even more dangerous quagmire in the Middle East. Because who's going to run Iran? Who's the backup? Where is that? Do we have any sense of that? I don't think so. And the war hawks' predictions have been totally wrong the entire time. So President Trump's strategy right now seems to be just keep up the economic pressure. And the war hawks are saying, "Well, if you are a Republican, probably the most prominent voice for restraint, at least according to the reporting, has been Vice President J.D. Bands." And I think that he has been totally vindicated on this. If that is the case, what the war hawks say is, this is a betrayal of the Reagan principle of peace through strength, the great strong American foreign policy that toppled the Soviet Union and won the Cold War. Hold on. Let's zoom in on Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. Because it's the war hawks who most want to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan here. Okay, what did Ronald Reagan do when the Iranians, through Hezbollah, killed over 200 U.S. troops in Beirut? Remember that? People kind of memory hold that one. What was the response of Ronald Reagan, cowboy, tough, peace through strength, Ronald Reagan? When Iran, through its proxy, actually killed over 200 U.S. troops. Did he go in and glass the country and bomb Carg Island and invade and topple the regime? Now, he withdrew from Lebanon, very uncomfortable fact for the war hawks who would claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Let's go further. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. This is the total vindication of the peace through strength policy. How do you win the Cold War? Did he win it by invading the Soviet Union? Did he win it through kinetic military action? No. Quite the opposite. He won it through economic warfare by just running up the budget on the Soviets and defeating them economically. In other words, exactly what President Trump and Scott Besson and the voices who are urging more restraint on military action in Iran are doing. So, there's a kind of irony here, and I haven't heard the hawks respond to it, which is, okay, you made a bunch of predictions about the Iran war. Some of us said at the time that that probably wasn't going to turn out to be true. You were proven wrong, but now you're saying that, regardless, we need to pursue this belligerent policy because that's what Ronald Reagan would have done. Reagan did the opposite, including specifically against the Iranians. So, what's your response to that? Right now, if President Trump and Besson are, and vice president and according to some reporting, other people within the administration, according to the reporting John Rackliffe at the CIA, Mark Rubio at state, we're also urging restraint on Iran, but let's just focus on right now. If all those voices who either were always advocating restraint or at least have been convinced of restraint since the midterm blowout, if, if, if, if we're now claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan, who's actually, who's actually affecting the policies that Ronald Reagan successfully used to defeat our adversaries, seems to me it's the guy, it's not the Hawks. It's the guys who are urging a little more restraint. Okay, let's turn to the domestic side of this war. We now have Congress week after the midterms already trying to impeach, not Trump, they don't have the juice for that, but they're trying to impeach Pete Hegseth, but we don't actually have the Democrats running Congress yet. They don't take office until January. So that was led by a Republican or a quasi-Republican or a former Republican or a, he's a libertarian, so they're, you know, libertarians, not totally trustworthy when it comes to rock-ribbid conservatism. It's Thomas Massey, who tried to impeach Pete Hegseth, and there was a lot of chatter on Capitol Hill that it would succeed. Pete Hegseth survived. The Republican led house, still Republican led as of today, rejected the effort. The vote was 211 to 204. Massey went down swinging. Very, very weak stuff here from the lips that the case against Pete Hegseth was totally absurd. We went through the articles of impeachment yesterday. It was just a total joke. I mean, say what you will. I've enjoyed a lot of what Massey's done in his career. His recent turn has been unfortunate. And now he's pallying around with lips like Rokona and you're waiting for him to put the pink hat on. But there were a lot of good stuff that Massey did earlier on in his career. Now he files this stuff. This is just a total joke. I don't care if you're still 100% Massey Stan. I don't care if you're a hardcore libertarian or you hate Trump or whatever, or if you're all of those things. Those articles of impeachment were totally a joke. They were ridiculous on the face. And even if you thought they were legitimate, you wouldn't file them against Hegseth. You'd file them against Trump, but Massey knew he didn't have the juice to get Trump. So this is a win. This is a big win. And again, I was a doomer going into the midterms and I caught a lot of flak for it, including from some of you, some of you wonderful listeners out there were very angry with me for being a doomer in the lead up to the midterms, but I hate to say I told you so there. But now I'm one of the more hopeful people coming out of it because you have these people talking about how the Republican party is dead forever. How Republicans shouldn't even run for president in 2028 because we're going to get totally blown out of the water. The closest historical analogy to the 2026 midterms was the 1994 midterms when Republicans won more seats in the House than the Democrats won this year. And guess what happened two years later, Bill Clinton wins a major victory for president. The Democrats were doing just fine. Democrats were not destroyed nationally. They won a big presidential election two years later. So a week after the midterms that were centered largely on the Iran war, the head of the Pentagon who's taken a lot of the blame for the Iran war is put up for impeachment and the impeachment goes down. Little sliver of hope there for the Republicans. And I think that hope could grow depending on how the Democrats play their cards. Meanwhile, also in the House of Representatives, they've had leadership elections and the new minority leader of the House is Jim Jordan. Well, I love Jim Jordan. I think he's a great guy. And I think he's a good pick for the House minority leader. So when you're in the majority, there are two big leaders. I mean, there are a number of leadership roles. But the two big ones are Speaker of the House and majority leader. When you're in the minority, you don't get a speaker. So Mike Johnson has said when he's in the minority, he is not going to be leading the party. This opened up an election for minority leaders, Steve Scalise wanted it to. Steve Scalise, who was an early victim of left wing political violence, a Bernie Brow nearly murdered him during the congressional baseball game. But he survived. Thank God. Steve Scalise has been a leadership for a long time. Jim Jordan has been a leading voice in the House for a long time, but he's never really been in leadership. And I think he's great for this role, not just because I really like Jim Jordan personally, but also because, think about what Jim Jordan is most famous for. People want the House to do a lot more than it can do. They want the House to prosecute people. They want the House to deport people. They want the House to have more teeth than the House actually has. Basically what the House has is a microphone. In theory, they can pass laws, but the Congress doesn't even really do that in recent years and decades. So really what the House can do is just speak into a microphone and call attention to issues and grill Democrats and help sway voters when it comes to other races, especially the presidential election. Jim Jordan is good at that as anybody. He might be the top dog in the House for grilling the Democrats. He's really good at embarrassing them, at getting those great clips, at putting them into a corner. And so that is essentially the job of the House minority leader is to obstruct and embarrass the opposition, to obstruct and embarrass the Democrats. Jim Jordan is great at that. I think this is a really good pick. So congrats to Jim. Though I said, there have been different times when Jim was up for Speaker or when Republicans were in the majority. And I said, I hope he doesn't get it because I like him. And that's the worst job in all of politics. So I fell with Mike Johnson. I really, really like Mike Johnson. He had the worst job. He did a good job with it. He had the worst job in all of politics. I'd rather probably clean out the bathrooms in the Smithsonian than have to be the Republican Speaker of the House. So in this case, congratulations and my condolences to Jim Jordan for taking a job that, at least in the minority role, is a little bit more pleasant. Okay. Speaking of that legislative agenda, big worries the President Trump in his 60 minutes interview was floating amnesty for illegals after the shellacking in the midterms. Trump is clarified, specifically during his press conference with New White House press secretary Dana White. Before we get into that, though, my favorite comment yesterday from actually Madeline who says, the seven scariest words in the English language are, now this is a family show, but so true. It used to be Ronald Reagan said, the scariest words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. That's a good, lovely, famous, we've now replaced that. The new scariest words are from this program. This is a family show, but because I try, I don't, I don't like to go blue. I know a lot of people in the podcast media, including on the right. I like to use naughty words. They want to talk about scintillating obscene, downright pornographic things. I try not to. This is a family show, but it's very hard when all of the news is vulgar and violent and obscene and pornographic. It's hard. We need euphemisms. It's actually a great opportunity to work through our diction, our vocabulary, but it's tough to keep it a family show in the big two six. Trump suggested that he might be open to an amnesty deal with Democrats in the new Congress. This, we'll read a lot of conservatives, myself included, President Trump clears it up in the briefing room. We have a very strong deportation policy, there's no amnesty, no, no anything, we keep that, but we focus on the worst of the worst. We want to get the murders out, we've gotten most of them out, we've gotten most of the really bad. They allowed Joe Biden allowed 25 million people to come in of that 11,888 murderers, most of whom committed more than one murder. We've gotten most of them. We want to get the worst of the worst and then we'll see what happens. But they came in illegally. Many of them have good jobs now, they're productive, some of them are even paying taxes. And we're seeing what's going to happen. There won't be amnesty, somebody suggested, will there be amnesty, no? But they came in, they knew the law, and we're working with a lot of different groups to see whether or not, but my policy hasn't changed. What we are doing is absolutely the worst of the worst. We're getting the murderers. Okay, so that phrase there, we're getting the worst of the worst and then we'll see what happens. We'll see what happens is doing a lot of lifting there. So there are a lot of different ways to interpret what Trump is saying. So that there are a lot of different ways to interpret what Trump means by what he says. Those are not necessarily the same thing. And then there's the question of, well, what should we do? What is the best policy? So one way to read it, at least from the 60 minutes interview is, yeah, we're going to cut an amnesty deal with the Democrats. We're going to stop some of the deportations and then we're going to give some of the illegal citizenship or a pathway to citizenship. Trump says it's not that. Okay, good. Another way to read it is, we are going to slow down on the deportations and we're going to give legal status to some of the people, not citizenship, not even a path to citizenship, just to kind of legal status so that the illegals don't need to worry about being deported anymore. I hope it's not that. Trump hasn't explicitly said it's not that. Then there is, okay, we're going to focus on the worst of the worst and then the face tattoo to MS-13, guys, and then we're not going to give legal status to Abuela or the gardener or the waiter or the farm worker or all these different groups that the various industry lobbies are lobbying the government to not deport. We're not going to give them legal status, but we're also not going to go after them. So they're going to live in this kind of indeterminate shadows and they're going to do that because they did break the law, so we're not going to reward them for breaking the law, but we're not going to specifically punish Abuela. Okay. It could mean that. Maybe surprised if that's what President Trump is saying here. I also hope it doesn't mean that. There is a final thing, which is it could be, okay, we're going to go. go get the worst of the worst, 85% 90% of Americans agree we need to go get these people. And then I'm going to leave it ambiguous as to what we're going to do with the rest of the people. We're not going to give them citizenship. We're not going to give them legal status. We're not, I'm not saying that we're not going to deport them, but I'm kind of implying we're not going to deport them and a boil is probably okay. He might be saying that with the meaning that they're going to go get a boil out anyway. That's kind of what I'm hoping for. Because I have anything against a boil out, I'm sure a boil is really, really nice. But I hope that that is what President Trump means here because that would be, speak softly and carry a big stick. The worst version of the deportation policy would be you deport a small number of people, but you make a big show about deporting all of those people. So you rile up the left and some of the people in the middle, but you don't actually get all the goods out of it, which is getting the millions or tens of millions of illegals out of the country. That's the worst version, and the inverse of that policy is you only talk about getting the very, very worst people out, the ones that everyone agrees should be out, almost everyone. But then behind the scenes, you are getting rid of Abuela and all the other illegals who just should not be here and it's nothing against them, but they're fraying social solidarity. They're statistically using a lot of welfare programs. They're making a mockery of our system of law and of our sovereignty. So you got to get them out and if they want to apply again, they can, but we should also drastically reduce legal immigration as well. Okay. That's what I'm hoping that that means because that is speaks softly and carry a big stick. And I think that is the best version of this immigration policy. In some places, it's not going to work as well. Like in Minnesota, it's not going to work as well because the Democrats are going to make a big show about everything and so they do that all the time. I mean, it's, it is just a psychotically sociopathically left-wing state. So they're going to be the epicenter of the George Floyd riots. They're going to be the epicenter of the deportation protests because they're going to gin that up. They're going to make that up for themselves. But in other places, you can kind of quietly send Abuela back to Venezuela or wherever. You can send the farm worker back or whatever. You can send them back and then the real trick on that one is you're not, it's not even fighting Democrats. You're going to fight Democrats to deport anybody. You're going to, Chris Van Hollen, the Democrat Senator is me weeping and sobbing because his boyfriend at the wife beating Gangbanger, Kilmara, Brego Garcia, got deported back to his home country. And you're going to have Democrat Senator saying, no, please, sweet Kilmara, you can't deport the gangsters. No, I love him. I love him. I know. The heart wants what the heart wants. So you're never going to make them happy. Forget about the Democrats for a second. The people you're going to have to fight. If you do the speak softly and carry big stick strategy, it's the hotel lobby. It's the farm lobby. It's people who are in some ways your own constituency. It's the Chamber of Commerce. It's all, you're going to have to fight those guys. But it is worth fighting those guys because Americans want to fix the migration problem. Not just Americans, but Brits and the French. And this is an issue so pronounced that it pervades the entire, the entirety of our civilization. And the politicians keep not giving them what they want. This would be a big win. It would do more to help Republicans in 2028 to deport as many of these people as you can. You're not facing another midterm. President Trump will reach the end of his presidency. Deport them. Try to deport the nice looking ones quietly. Deport the really mean looking ones loudly, but you're going to have to be fighting people within your own tent. You're going to, and I think you do need to stand strong against those lobbyists, okay? The really bad news for the deportation policy is right now all of the governors in border states will be Democrats in 2027. You got, you got mayors of cities and towns in the border states who are saying that they're not going to cooperate with ICE anymore. You saw this out of Houston. Big, big problem. And here's a little tease for tomorrow because we don't have time to get to it. You have people making these moral arguments that you need to take in all the migrants that you have to have open borders, you have, and sometimes people are pointing to the most prominent religious leader in the world, the pope, the most prominent religious leader in the world for the last 2000 years, the pope, and they're saying, well, Pope Leo is a big lib and he supports infinity migration and he doesn't think nation should have borders. And I think a lot of that is unfair, although I understand why some people think that Pope Leo just came out and gave a major, major signal that he's not a big lib, first of all, and that he is instituting reforms that will help to push out the more left wing and deforming elements within the Catholic Church. And most people missed this signal. It was just one or two words that sent the signal. We'll get to that tomorrow because I don't have time to get to it today because I'm a tease. It is no longer woke Wednesday. And Mr. Davies did not even prepare a member of segmentum of News Renoise Wednesday. It's we hang out Wednesday. We'll see what that segment is. The rest of the show continues. Now, you don't want to miss it. Become a member. You've got an old candidate of the early essence check out for two months free and all annual plans. They take me out of my bed, and they brought me here, and they tell me nothing. What have I done? Article 58, counter-revolutionary activity. That is all I know. They have to deal with so many enemies of the state, all of whom claim their innocence, who protest, who cry. There are no answers here. Other than the ones they put in the mouth, they will break. Today is your opportunity to demonstrate your loyalty to the people. I would like to know why I'm here, of course. But you're already now, don't you? You must leave in something greater than the party. You will remember your duty, but I told you I don't know. The ground like a fair all-man. You stink of failure. You want me to lie. Still, I drunk. Damn you. They all break. Baby.