Ep. 1545 - Libs Panic After Trump Says "I Got Shot Because Of That" 48:49

President Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, is in hot water again with the liberal press after appearing at a rally in Georgia and pointing out all the ways the liberals have tried to stop a second Trump term. So they tried to impeach him. They failed at that. So they tried to put him in prison. They even tried to kill him. Now, reasonable people out there probably did not bat an eyelash at what J.D. said. He's just describing the things that we've all seen. But the libs are up in arms.

Liberal podcaster and MSNBC contributor Tim Miller tweeted out, quote, J.D. Vance just said they even tried to kill him about Trump. This is deeply irresponsible. It's a lie. If he had one iota of integrity left, he would stop. Does Tim Miller think the shooter who nearly blew Trump's head off was just trying to trim his sideburns a little bit? What does he think happened exactly? Unless

The issue is not with the word shoot, but with the word they. This is the latest liberal spin, that it's irresponsible to say they tried to kill him because there was only one shooter. And we don't know what his motivations were. Who's this they that the right-wingers are talking about? Let's put aside

for a second, all of the unanswered questions about the near assassination of President Trump, which is still being investigated. Let's put aside that we know

the Biden administration refused Trump's requests for additional security. Let's put aside that a Democrat member of Congress tried to strip President Trump of his security. Let's put aside that we know Biden's FBI and Secret Service both lied about the attempted assassination, about the security requests, about the fact that Trump was even shot, and possibly about the shooter's one discovered social media account. Put all of that aside, the Democrats, up to and especially Joe Biden,

have spent years calling Trump an existential threat to our country, to democracy itself. That's different than saying Trump's really bad or Trump's making our country worse or something. The premise that a political figure constitutes an existential threat justifies assassinating that political figure. Existential threat.

The Democrats' persistent justification of assassination in principle constitutes trying to kill Trump. So J.D. spoke perfectly well. They, the liberal establishment, tried to kill him. And as their own words attest, they're still doing it today. I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show.

Welcome back to the show. A major Democrat strategist, really smart left-wing thinker, David Axelrod,

is warning Democrats that the exuberance for Kamala might be a little bit irrational. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to policygenius.com slash Knowles. Life is unpredictable, but a good life insurance plan gives your family a financial safety net to protect against some of the unknowns. Policy Genius is the country's leading online insurance marketplace. It makes choosing the right policy for your family easy and quick. With Policy Genius...

You can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for $1 million of coverage. Some options offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy Genius' technology makes comparing life insurance quotes from America's top insurers easy in just a few clicks. Your life insurance policy is now available.

Through work might not offer enough protection for your family's needs. It may not follow you if you leave your job. You need a backup plan. PolicyGenius has licensed agents who can help you find the best fit for your needs. PolicyGenius works for you, not the insurance companies. That means they are not incentivized to recommend one insurer over another. So you can trust their guidance. Get peace of mind by finding the right life insurance with PolicyGenius.

Head to policygenius.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That is policygenius.com slash Knowles. They tried to kill him. They did try to kill him. Regardless of what happened in a field in Pennsylvania, regardless of what this investigation will reveal, because we really don't know anything right now about the conditions of that shooting. We know very, very little.

Nevertheless, they tried to kill him. The moment you say so-and-so is Hitler, so-and-so is modeling his rise on the rise of the Nazis, so-and-so has a Hitlerian program, and especially, this is the key, so-and-so constitutes an existential threat to our country, you are justifying the assassination of that person. That's what they're doing. You must recall, I am not

a free speech absolutist or anything like that. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the consequences of speech and the speech from Democrats up to and including Joe Biden at the very, very top. The speech has established the premise according to which assassination would be justified. Totally right. Not irresponsible in the least precise for J.D. to say they tried to kill him. And Trump is making this exact point at his rallies.

Remember the words they use? They are a threat to democracy. They've been saying that about me for seven years. I think I got shot because of that, okay? People said, he's a threat to democracy. No, I'm the one that is saving democracy. It's true. They're a threat. Thank you. Wow.

That's nice. This is powerful stuff. Listen to how long I cut off the applause, actually, before it even ended. You hear Trump there. Wow, that's nice. Because Trump is in the speech. We'll get into some of the highlights, but he's going through. I'm going to support this policy and my opponent supports this policy. And there's applause and there's cheering, but nothing like this. This is the key here. OK, this is why the libs are so furious.

to try to stop anyone from suggesting they tried to kill Trump. This is why the libs have gone into overdrive to memory hole the near assassination of Trump. It seems as though there have been 500 news cycles since then. It seems as though the near assassination was in the distant past. It wasn't in the distant past. It just happened because this is really inspiring. The left,

was irresponsible and malicious for years. And they smeared Trump and they lied about him. And they said that this man is an existential threat to the country, which establishes the premises, the premise to assassinate him. Then someone goes out and nearly does assassinate him. The only reason he survives is because of an inexplicable by natural causes, sudden turn of the head at the very last moment. As Trump says, the reason I'm here is by the grace of God. It has nothing to do with me or anything like that. And he says, the irony of it all is,

They called me the threat to democracy. They're the threat to democracy. They tried to take me off the ballot because they didn't want you to be able to vote for me. Then they tried to throw me in jail because they didn't want you to be able to vote for me. And then they, at the very least, established the justification to kill me so that you wouldn't be able to vote for me. Me, the most popular presidential candidate in the race. They are projecting. Their accusations are confessions.

They say I'm a threat to democracy. They're the threat to democracy. And people get on their feet and they cheer. That's really powerful stuff. Trump is even surprised by how powerful his own rhetoric is. He said, wow, okay, that's nice. That's good. This is the campaign. This is the moment that you, you cannot let the Libs memory hold this. Keep coming back to this. I wish he still had the bandage on his ear. They are so, because the shooter missed. Had the shooter, had the shooter actually blown Trump's head off?

At least the Libs wouldn't have to deal with Trump anymore. It would have upended the presidential race, but they wouldn't have to deal with this guy Trump, the man that they've called an existential threat for years and who they're still calling an existential threat.

But the shooter missed. Trump survived. This should be the moment that he goes back to again and again and again. Then Trump gets into the meat of his argument. The meat of his argument is that this Kamala is bad news. She ruined San Francisco, ruined California. Is California...

Attorney General, she defined and redefined child sex trafficking, assault with a deadly weapon and rape of a unconscious person, an unconscious person raped

as nonviolent. These were nonviolent crimes. We shouldn't even prosecute these people to help spring child predators and dangerous criminals out of prison all over the state. And during the left wing riots of 2020, you saw that she urged her followers to donate to bail rapists and murderers out of jail while saying that the violent mobs should not stop. They should not stop, she said.

She was endorsing to fund the place and the police. And she said, violent mobs. Let the violent mobs keep going. Let them keep going. We love what they're doing. We love what they represent. This is the lunatic that the fake news is trying to build up to be the next Margaret Thatcher. You know? Okay, this is good stuff. This is good meat of the argument.

Because while the libs are trying to memory hole the most powerful moment of the Trump campaign, they nearly blew his head off. They're also trying to memory hole Kamala's entire career. Why are they doing that? Why are they lying about Kamala's career? Why are they editing old news articles about her? Why are they trying to deny the fact that she was the most left-wing senator, that she endorsed Medicare for all, four illegal aliens? Everything, the whole thing. Because it's

not popular with the American people. So all Trump has to do for the meat of his argument, for the jabs of the fight, is he's just got to say what she has done and say the positions that she has held.

Once he gets that out past the establishment media gatekeepers, that is going to really hurt her favorable ratings. It's going to further depress her poll numbers. But that's not the headline of the campaign. The headline of the campaign is not, Kamala's really bad. She constitutes an existential threat to the republic or whatever kind of nonsense the Dems would say.

I spoke to Vivek right when Kamala became the presumptive nominee, and he said Republicans had better not fall into this trap of making this all about Kamala. It's not really all about Kamala.

We can't have just been running for 12 months again, three years, I guess, against Joe Biden and say he's the worst guy in the country. And then on a dime say, oh, no, actually, no, she's the worst person in the country. Forget about Joe Biden. It's just going to look disingenuous. It's going to look kind of weak. People don't know as much about Kamala Harris. Vivek pointed out what I think is correct, which is we're running not against an individual as much as we're running against a whole system. The story that tells me everything that I need to know.

comes out of the Clinton campaign. I guess the Clintons aren't running for anything in particular right now, but they're always kind of running for something, aren't they? They've always got their political machinations. Here's a headline. It just came out of, I think, the New York Post. Chelsea Clinton wants to be ambassador to the United Kingdom.

according to a source close to the Clintons. That's a reason why Bill and Hillary came out in the first five minutes to support Kamala's presidential bid. They were currying favor. Chelsea Clinton wants an ambassadorship. She actually wants the most plum ambassadorship in the country, usually goes to the top donor to a campaign or one of the top donors, the ambassador to the court of St. James, or if not that, maybe the ambassador to France, or if not that, this ambassador or that ambassador or whatever. There's a debate right now

among Republicans? Is Kamala a far left radical? Is that why she's so bad? Or is Kamala just an empty suit representative of the liberal establishment? Which is it? More of the same or is she a radical like AOC or something? And the real answer is yes. The real answer is

Both. Yes, Kamala is the latest representative, the latest expression of the Democrat establishment. But the Democrat establishment has become extremely radically leftist. It wasn't just some crazy fringe activists who gave us trancing the kids. It was the Democrat establishment. It was Joe Biden defending trancing the kids repeatedly.

It wasn't just some radical fringe activists who gave us abortion on demand.

It was the Democrat establishment that endorsed abortion on demand. It was the Democrat establishment, Kamala in particular, that endorsed the BLM riots and that bailed some of the rioters out of prison. It was the Democrat establishment that gave us prosecuting our political rivals like we're a banana republic, like we're some tin pot dictators. It was the Democrat establishment that gave us the justification for murdering our political rivals. That wasn't the fringe people...

dancing around with keffiyehs on Columbia University's campus. Or rather, I guess it sort of was those people, but it's just those people occupy the heights of power in the Democrat political establishment. It wasn't just the Marxist professors. The kids of those Marxist professors now have some of the most prominent positions in the government. I

I'm thinking of Pete Buttigieg, whose dad was one of the most prominent Marxist professors in the country. And I'm thinking of Kamala Harris, whose dad was a Marxist economist at Stanford. The distinction between the crazy radicals and the Democrat establishment, it's very, very blurry now. So yeah, you're going to get the Clintons currying favor. Clintons, as establishment Democrat as it gets, they're going to be currying favor. They're going to try to position themselves for some spot in the administration.

And the administration is going to be extremely leftist, too. It's the same. And that's really, really scary because now you've got the fringe radical ideologues with most of the political power in the country.

There's so much more to say. First, though, go to ramp.com slash Knowles. When you are running a business, time is money, honey. That's why I'm so excited to introduce you to Ramp. If you are a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then Ramp could be for you. Ramp is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.

With Ramp, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions. You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting. Ramp's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time, so you don't have to. You will never have to chase down a receipt again. Your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports.

The time you will save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster. Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you've got five employees or 5,000. Right now, get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to ramp.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, r-a-m-p.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, ramp.com slash Knowles. Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank members, FDIC. Terms and conditions apply. There is a...

A big problem for the Democrats, which is that their policies are not very popular. Their presumptive nominee has never been all that popular. She almost lost her AG race in California. And their political establishment seems increasingly corrupt. So...

What do you believe? Do you believe the news reports that Kamala's got all this momentum behind her? She's totally upended the race. Trump is now running and playing defense. Well, I've said for a long time now, I don't think the fundamentals of the race have really changed all that much. And do you know who happens to agree with me? You don't need to take my right wing word for it. You don't need to just wonder if I'm wish casting. One of the most prominent Democrat strategists in the country, David Axelrod, the man behind Barack Obama's rise to power,

Seems to agree. Anyone, you know, there's a lot of irrational exuberance on the side of on the Democratic side of the aisle right now because there was despair for some period of time about what the November was going to look like. Now people feel like there's a chance. But it is absolutely Trump's race to lose right now. He is ahead and he is ahead most of the battleground states.

They're close. They could be won by either candidate. But there is a lot to be determined in the next 90 whatever days, 96 or whatever it is left.

So, yeah, I think it's a wide open race. But Trump has the advantage right now. Nobody should nobody should be nobody should be everybody should be sober about that on the Democratic side. I think he's totally right. There is exuberance. Kamala's poll numbers are OK. People seem more excited about her than they were about Joe Biden. So there is an exuberance, but it's an irrational exuberance because the fundamentals of the race have not changed.

The economy is as bad as it was. The border is as bad as it was. Actually, now you're running not just against the president, Joe Biden, under whose watch the border situation has gotten so terrible, but you're actually running against the border czar, the woman who was put in charge of fixing the border problem, and she totally failed at it. So in that way, maybe this is an improvement for Republicans. Foreign affairs hasn't really changed. We seem to be inching ever closer to World War III. Trump

still was very nearly assassinated a few weeks ago. Trump still avoided putting on an orange jumpsuit and has been prosecuted by his political rivals. Trump still had a better presidency than Biden did, than the Biden-Harris administration. So the fundamentals are the same. You've just got to tick away at some of that irrational exuberance. It's a lot easier to

to get rid of irrational exuberance than it is to get rid of rational exuberance. And I think Axelrod is totally right. The relief that Democrats are feeling, oh, thank goodness we don't have to run this cadaver, is fleeting because they're running a woman who frankly is not much better. So the question then is, should Trump debate Kamala? You want to hear the most dishonest headline I've read, well, I don't know, in days now. There are dishonest headlines every day. But here's the most dishonest one I've read in a while.

It was from New York Times, of course. Trump cancels a debate with Harris on ABC News and pitches one on Fox News instead. That is a complete lie.

President Trump did not cancel a debate with Harris. President Trump never agreed to a debate with Harris. President Trump agreed to two debates with Joe Biden, the then Democrat nominee for president, one on CNN, one on ABC. And then Trump so destroyed Biden at the first debate on CNN, even though all the rules were stacked against Trump and in favor of Biden, he so obliterated Biden on the debate stage that Biden is no longer the nominee.

It's the most decisive debate win in American presidential history. So now there's a new presumptive nominee. She's not even the official nominee yet. We haven't even had the Democrat National Convention yet. She's never won a single primary vote while she was running for president. So no, Trump didn't cancel a debate with her. Joe Biden canceled a debate with him by refusing to run for president after he got beaten so badly. Now,

They can agree to do a debate, but they got to propose a new debate. We got a new candidate here. So Trump has done just that. Trump has proposed a debate on Fox News. He posted on Truth Social, Kamala Harris doesn't have the mental capacity to do a real debate against me scheduled for September 4th in Pennsylvania. She's afraid to do it because there's no way she can justify her corrupt and open borders, the environmental destruction of our country, the Afghanistan embarrassment, runaway inflation, terrible economy, high interest rates and taxes, and her years-long war.

fight to stop the words Merry Christmas. I love that. I love it. He just weaves in the really heavy structural economic issues with the, I think, just as serious, in some ways maybe more serious, cultural and social issues. He goes, I'll see her on September 4th or I won't see her at all. She's acknowledged to be the worst vice president in history, which works very nicely against the worst president, crooked Joe Biden. The combination of these two low IQ individuals have destroyed our country, but we will make America great again. I love this

But does it mean that Trump is going to debate Kamala or not? There's so much more to say. First, though, go to roe.co slash Knowles. Man, have you heard about Roe Sparks? This dual action prescription merges the powerhouse ingredients found in generic Viagra and Cialis, Sildenafil and Tadalafil into one formidable treatment.

But it's not merely about the ingredients in the medication. It's how you're taking it. That's why RhoSparks are designed to dissolve under your tongue. RhoSparks keep you present with your partner instead of waiting for a pill to work. RhoSparks leverages the benefits of sublingual administration.

meaning the tablet dissolves under your tongue. This method allows for fast absorption directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the digestive system. Plus, tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, is really fun to pronounce, and it lasts in the system for up to 36 hours. So when the mood is right, you'll be ready without another dose.

for treatment that works fast and lasts long. Connect with a provider at roe.co slash Knowles to find out if Roe Sparks are right for you. That's roe.co slash Knowles. That's a great example of assonance.

Oh, oh, oh. Again, roe.co slash Knowles. Compounded drugs are permitted to be prescribed under federal law, but are not FDA approved and do not undergo FDA safety effectiveness or manufacturing review. Only available if prescribed after an online consultation with a provider. Roe.co slash Knowles. Also, folks.

Speaking of preservatives, preserve your cigars while traveling with the brand new Mayflower Cigars Travel Humidor. You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but the Mayflower cigars are not just, they're excellent cigars, okay? And there's never been a better way to store your premium handmade cigars than right here.

Beautiful design, very subtle, Mayflower from dawn to dusk. You get the nice logo here. Perfect seal, so it's going to maintain that humidity in your humidor. Nice little cushion here so you can toss it in your suitcase, your briefcase, your backpack, wherever you take your cigars. Go to MayflowerCigars.com, get yours. You must be 21 years old or older to purchase. Quick little button on the Trump-Kamala debate. Should he debate her? Yes.

I think what Trump is engaging in when he suggests the Fox News debate is a little bit of negotiation, a little bit of the art of the deal here. Democrats are trying to change all the rules, all the terms of the agreement. So Trump is going in and he's not going to let them get away with that. And he says, now, how about we debate on Fox News? We did one on CNN. Let's do one on Fox News. How about we not do two on left wing networks? And what are we going to do? We're going to do ABC. Who's going to moderate that? You're going to get your old White House communications director, George Stephanopoulos, to do that. Give me a break.

No. Now, I think he should debate Kamala. The reason he should debate Kamala is there's a reason that she doesn't really do press conferences. There's a reason that she doesn't really do off-the-cuff remarks. She's really bad on her feet.

She's not a particularly good debater. She didn't do very well against Mike Pence in 2020. Most of her debate style is just her saying, excuse me, excuse me, I'm talking. And she just kind of interrupts in this really ugly way that I think turns off most people who are not already on board. And I think she's a very clever political operative. I don't know that she has the greatest command of

facts or the English language. So I think, you know, and Trump has eccentric diction himself, but I still think Trump would do much better in a debate against her. So he should do the debate. It would be better for him. But he's engaging in a negotiation here. Maybe the compromise that they reach is they go right back to CNN and they get the exact same moderators and they have a replay of the first debate.

That first debate was meant to give Biden all of the advantage. You have all these two liberal moderators on a liberal network with rules that benefit the liberal candidate. Trump happened to just hit a grand slam. Okay, maybe we go back, we do the same thing. I'm giving in to you, Kamala. You get your liberal moderators, you get your liberal network, you get your liberal rules, but you're giving in to me because you're going into the same place where I destroyed your predecessor, so much so that now you're the nominee. At least one person is apparently excited for Kamala.

That would be 99-year-old former president Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter has been in hospice now since I think the late 90s. And no, he's been in hospice for something like a year and a half or something now. I mean, it's really impressive. And he's still alive. Usually people stay in hospice for days or weeks, maybe a few months. Jimmy Carter has now been there for a real long time, since last February.

He will turn 100 if he makes it to October 1st. And he says he's going to try to make it not to turn 100. According to Jimmy Carter's son, Chip, he says, I'm only trying to make it to vote for Kamala Harris. Now, some people are a little skeptical that Jimmy Carter actually said this. You know, Jimmy Carter showed up to the funeral for his wife and he was looking pretty frail. However, he was still talking to people. This guy, he's got real tenacity.

So maybe he did say this. It sounds a little bit like those stories, you know, I told my three-year-old that Roe v. Wade was overruled and she wrote this poem or something, you know, and then everyone in the TSA line applauded. And it sounds a little fanciful, but I don't know, maybe he really said it. Maybe he really said, I am only trying to make it so that I can vote for Kamala Harris. But if that is true, the joke's on him. Because if Jimmy Carter goes to his eternal reward before November...

then it's guaranteed that he'll vote for Kamala Harris. In some ways, he's more likely to vote for Kamala Harris if he does pass on into the life of the world to come before November than afterward, just knowing how Democrat voting goes. Jokes aside,

I can't be partisan about this. I can't be, you know, Carter was a terrible president and all that shit. I can't be partisan. It is impressive. It is impressive how much tenacity this guy has, how he is holding on, how he will not go into that dark night. He, Jimmy Carter, at 99 and a half, is probably more with it and capable than Joe Biden,

And frankly, the real deep read of this is, why is he holding on? He's not holding on to reach 100. He's not holding on to vote for Kamala. He's holding on because at this rate, Jimmy Carter might well be the Democrat nominee for 2024. Speaking of tenacity, Imani Califf, you know, this boxer who some are calling a man, some are insisting it's a woman, some are saying this person, regardless of whether a man or a woman, should not be boxing in the Women's League. The Olympian who's made all the headlines.

just destroyed another woman boxer. This would be Hungary's Anna Luka Hamory. No surprise there. If you look at pictures of Imani Califf and you look at pictures of the women that this person is to fight, you don't need to be a brilliant gambler to know you'd put all your money on Califf. So at the same time that this news breaks,

Redux magazine comes out and says the European vice president of the World Boxing Organization has come forward to confirm that Algerian boxer Imani Califf is male. Istvan Kovac says he warned the Olympic Committee about several male boxers in the women's category, but nothing was done. So again, I'm just reading to you what Redux mag is reporting.

I am not coming to any conclusions on whether this boxer is a man or a woman or simply confused. On top of that, the IOC president, the president of the Olympics, had to correct himself on the matter of Imani Califf. The IOC issued a correction, said in today's IOC Paris 2024 press briefing, IOC president Bach said, but I repeat here, this is not a DSD case.

meaning disorder of sexual development. This is about a woman taking part in a women's competition, and I think I've explained it many times. What was intended was, but I repeat here, this is not a transgender case. This is about a woman taking part in a woman's competition, and I think I've explained this many times. So what the IOC president is saying is, no, no, no, it's not that Imani Califf is transgender. It's not that this is a man who identifies as a woman.

It would seem that the implication from the correction is this is a DSD case. And DSD means disorder of sexual development, difference of sexual development. That can refer to basically any sexual birth defect where the sex is ambiguous, where genitalia are atypical, where chromosomes or gonads or really anything pertaining to sexual development is a little bit off. So we don't know what this means.

We don't know what gonads this person was born with. We don't really know what the chromosomes of this person are. We've heard reports, but we don't really know. We just, we don't know, okay? And so I think, again, this further affirms the wisdom of my perspective about this, which is, hold on, why are women boxing in the first place? But I discussed that on the show on Friday, even after a lot of it was censored for my show on Thursday. The scandal here.

is not that the boxer might be a man. The scandal is that the debate is even possible. That's the scandal. Is Imani Califf a man? I don't know. I don't know. What are you asking me for? I don't know. The Olympics seems to disagree with the boxing group, with the this and the that, and who knows? The reason this debate is possible is because we no longer can define what a woman is.

And I know some people say, well, a woman is an adult human female. Okay, that's a pretty reductive definition of a woman. The fact that we don't know what a woman is shows you something about how our culture has atrophied, how our collective intelligence has atrophied, how the very meaning of sex has atrophied. It used to be that you could identify a woman not merely by her chromosomes, but by how she dressed.

how she acted, how she talked, by the kinds of things that she would do, the activities that she would take part in. Used to be, not so long ago, about a dozen years ago, certainly 25 years ago, that if a person was boxing, you could know with pretty much 100% certainty that person was a man. Because boxing was not the sort of thing women did. Used to be, call me an old fuddy-duddy, I don't know, 10, 20, 30 years ago,

When someone was wearing a dress, that person was, with 99%, 100% certainty, a woman. Maybe the exception for a glam rock star or someone in a red light district. But generally speaking, that was a woman. Used to be the case that when, it used to be the case that sex was not merely biological.

Now sex isn't even biological. The left says sex has nothing to do with biology. The right says sex has everything to do with biology. Now it used to be, yeah, there's a biological basis. There's a physical expression of it. But then there's a social and enacted expression of it.

You dressed a certain way. You behaved in a womanly way if you were a woman. When a man behaved in a womanly way, that was actually called womanish. That was bad. Womanish carries a negative connotation. Womanly carries a positive connotation. And it's based on who's doing it, who's performing the role of a woman. It used to be that there was a role to perform and there was a role for men to perform if you wanted to be a man and that that wasn't a bad thing. Now that's considered a punchline.

The notion that a man ought to act like a man or a woman ought to act like a woman, that's considered the height of barbarism. Only the sort of thing a knuckle-dragging troglodyte would suggest. Seemed to me society worked a little bit better back then. When girls were girls and men were men, mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again. Speaking of scandals, Kamala Harris' husband apparently cheated on his first wife. So Kamala Harris is this guy's second wife.

He was previously married, has kids from his first marriage, but his marriage broke up. And now apparently this might have had something to do with him cheating on his wife. I'm not exposing a private sin here. I even hesitated to talk about it, but I think it's politically relevant. This is now being widely reported. So according to the Daily Mail,

he cheated with the nanny, you know, with his daughter's nanny. And this really damaged his marriage. And obviously the marriage ultimately broke up. And then he had a second marriage and he knew that this was going to come out at some point. I think this story matters. And I think it's worth talking about. Not because I want to get into the personal sins, though no sin is totally private, but not because I want to get into the tawdry tabloid gossip about these figures personally.

I certainly don't want to get into the tabloid gossip about politicians' families. You know, it's ugly stuff. It's already being reported, so we're not breaking any news here. The reason this story matters is it takes the wind out of the sails of this election as a referendum on Trump's supposedly bad character.

This was one of the things Biden pitched when he ran in 2020. He said, we're going to restore dignity to America. Okay, we're going to restore the soul of America, bring dignity back to the White House. That's what George W. Bush ran on against Bill after the Bill Clinton era of the 1990s. But these people don't have better character than Trump. Okay, you can attack anything Trump's done. Oh, he shouldn't have done this. He shouldn't have done that. Yeah, maybe. But his opponents...

do not have better character than Trump does. In fact, I think their character is much worse. This is why Willie Brown matters. You know, Kamala's married early boyfriend in politics who really helped her get a rise in politics. The reason it matters is it shows you that these people, at the very least, have no better character than Trump. It takes that issue off the table of restoring dignity to the White House. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and really most of the people around them

They're disreputable people. Kamala Harris is disreputable. She's a liar on top of that. She lies about her own record. She lies about Biden's degeneration. She lies about a lot of things. Kamala Harris wasn't democratically elected to be the Democrat nominee in 2024. The threat to democracy argument, that flies out the window there too.

Part of the reason to mention stories like this is just to clear away all of the left-wing propaganda used to attack Trump so that we can get to the issues. The border, the economy, foreign affairs, military policy, all the things that really do matter. Because when you get to the issues, Trump wins.

Trump's positions on most of these issues are more popular than Kamala's position. So they try to muddy up the waters with all of these personal attacks on Trump. So we have to point out the personal problems with Kamala now and previously with Biden to show that these personal attacks on Trump are totally disingenuous. You want to get back to the issues? Great, because on the issues we win. The Daily Wire is about to release its very first theatrical film.

From the guys who brought you What is a Woman comes America's next great question, the movie Am I Racist? In theaters September 13th. Matt Walsh, one undercover in the belly of the DEI beast, surrounded by professional race baiters and diversity grifters. Pre-sale tickets are available August 15th. Mark your calendars. That date is very important. Go to amiracist.com right now. My favorite comment on

on Friday is from chariot to one, two, three, who says they've taken everything from women, sports or unique purpose in this universe to give birth motherhood or safety or voice. We have gone backwards. Yeah. And that funny how progress progress with a capital P seems to lead us backward to very unpleasant conditions.

before the great glories of Christian civilization, which we are now told are regressive and were bad for women. You think Christian civilization was bad for women? Just wait until you find out about unchristian civilization. Boy, oh boy, that is a lot worse for women. Now, speaking of scandals, let's get to some more substantive scandals. This was a crazy one. The White House apparently was working on a plea deal for the mastermind of 9-11 and his accomplices. The alleged, I have to say alleged,

because he hasn't really faced a trial. The alleged mastermind of the September 11th terror attacks and two other terrorists being held in Gitmo would have been spared the death penalty under a deal with prosecutors. These must be the same prosecutors who wrote up the Hunter Biden plea deal. You get a slap on the wrist, you're basically facing no penalties if you admit to some low crimes and then it all goes away. Well, these prosecutors have the mastermind of 9-11,

and other terrorists at Gitmo, and they give him a plea deal. They say, you'll avoid the death penalty. You just admit you did it, and we won't kill you, and who knows? If another Democrat administration comes into office, maybe they'll just go ship these guys off to a luxury penthouse in Qatar like they do to other terrorists at Gitmo. A spokesman for the Office of Military Commissions

which is prosecuting the case, confirmed it had entered into pretrial arrangements with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused principal architect of the 9-11 attacks, and two alleged co-conspirators, Waleed Mohammed Salik Mubarak bin Natasha, that's a mouthful, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam Al-Hassawi, all of whom have been held at Gitmo since 2003.

In exchange for the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment, these three accused have agreed to plead guilty to all of the charged offenses, including the murder of 2,976 people listed on the charge sheet. Okay. Well, good. It's good for them to fess up to what they did. But call me harsh. Call me old-fashioned. I don't think we really need to give plea deals to terrorists at Gitmo who admit to their crimes. They can admit to it. They cannot admit to it. I don't really care.

Why are we giving them plea deals? Why are we lessening their punishments? Especially as we have released so many terrorists from Gitmo to go right back to the battlefield. Not only if you defend retributive justice, but even just from the perspective of protecting the common good, protecting the national defense. Why would you even raise the possibility that these people could go back out there?

So Lloyd Austin, the defense secretary, just finally issued a memo killing the deal. But this raises a lot of questions, which is, hold on, if they already pled guilty, if they already accepted the plea deal, it was offered to them, they accepted the plea deal, they said, okay, we did it, we did 9-11. And now you say, ha ha, okay, well, too bad, we're taking your plea deal away. Well, hold on, do they have any legal rights here? They held up their side of the bargain. Does the US government have to uphold its side of the bargain? I don't even know that it's possible at this point.

for the defense secretary to withdraw the plea deal. I hope he does, but I certainly don't trust the Democrats on this. This has been a Democrat soft spot for over 20 years. Democrats for 20 years now have been railing against Gitmo and the poor terrorists who are being held at Gitmo. Barack Obama ran, the first time he ran for president, he ran on closing Guantanamo Bay and emptying it out and letting the terrorists run free.

So this has been building for a long time. It's especially a soft spot for the Democrats now because they have the intifada within their own ranks. They have the pro-Palestine protesters who are wearing keffiyehs talking about, you know, the poor beleaguered Islamists, which is good news for Republicans. This is a hard issue that it didn't just come out of nowhere. The Democrats have been squirming on this issue for a long time. If they don't go soft on Islamic terrorists, their base is going to hate them.

That's been true for a long time. Obama had to campaign on it. But if they do go soft on Islamic terrorists, normal Americans are going to hate them, and they're not going to vote for them in November. Now, you add on to this, the Democrats need to maintain the Muslim vote, especially in a swing state like Michigan. But if they—now zooming out to one of the present global conflicts—if they curry too much favor with the Muslim vote in Michigan—

They're going to turn off the pro-Israel vote, which they need. But if they go too heavy on the pro-Israel side, they're going to alienate the Muslims in a swing state, which could flip it to the Republicans. They're in a really tight spot. And so what do I want to see happen? Well, I'd like the people behind 9-11 to be behind bars or executed. You know, either of those, I guess, is fine with me. But I want them to face the harshest punishments that there are, the most serious punishments that there are. As a matter of electoral politics, though,

I just want the Democrats to squirm. Keep squirming on this. Hey, leftists. Hey, keffiyeh-wearing activists. You're going to put up with this? These Democrats are holding the poor beleaguered Islamists at Gitmo for over 20 years now without a trial, without a plea deal. You're going to let them get away with that? Come on. I want you to take to the streets. Leftists, you demand justice for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Go on out there and make sure you wave big Democrat signs when you're at those rallies. Maybe burn some American flags. You usually do that. So make sure you get that in the image, too. I want you to really bring some pressure to bear on this Democrat administration. Make them sweat. You're already seeing this from some of the really prominent activists because there's a big question now. Who is Kamala going to pick for her running mate?

assuming she's it would appear that she's the democrat nominee so who's she going to pick for her running mate one of the leading contenders would be a smart choice would be josh shapiro who's the the governor of pennsylvania democrats have to win pennsylvania this is a must-win state all the swing states matter but pennsylvania really matters josh shapiro is a popular governor there but josh shapiro's got a real weakness right now namely his last name

Because the Dems are not so hot on a certain ancient nomadic tribe right now. So Cynthia Nixon, who's a very popular left-wing activist, and she was an actress, she was in a bunch of shows, she is begging Kamala, don't pick Shapiro. Cynthia Nixon says, Trump's VP pick was a serious unforced error. Please don't make that same mistake, Kamala. Will you be about more of the same decaying old school politics or someone who unifies and energizes the base? Shapiro is a serious unforced error.

And this is in response to a post about Palestinian rights and Palestine liberation movement. So what's funny here is pretty much all of the VP contenders that have been raised for Kamala have roughly the same view on Israel-Palestine. So why is Shapiro the unforced error?

It would seem to me because of his last name and his membership in the aforementioned ancient tribe. And I just, I love this conundrum for the Democrats. On the one hand, he's the best choice because they got to win Pennsylvania. On the other hand, he's the worst choice because the Democrat grassroots activists hate the Jews. So what are they going to do? For me, I hope she picks Shapiro.

Because I'm nervous about losing Pennsylvania, but I think the Democrat activist base right now hates the Jews in Israel more than they want to win Pennsylvania. And I think Cynthia Nixon is proving me right, and I think the campus in Tevada is proving me right. And so go ahead, Kamala, let's go. Your best choice is also your worst choice. That is a position that I want my opponent to be in. Today is Music Monday.

The show continues in the memory of segmentum. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-A-S. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people. Growing up, I never thought much about race. Never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me. Am I racist? I would really appreciate it if you left. I'm trying to learn along this journey. I'm going to sort this out. I need to go deeper undercover.

Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. Here's my certification. What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness. This is more for you than this for you. Is America inherently racist? The word inherent is challenging there. I'm going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. America is racist to its bones. So inherently. Yes. This country is a piece of shit. White. Folks. White. Trash. White supremacy. White woman. White boy. Is there a black person around here? There's a black person right here. Does he not exist?

Hi, Robin. Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt. I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. I never be too careful. In theaters September 13th. Rated PG-13.