The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1522 - Libs Panic After Debate Disaster, Who Will Replace Joe Biden?

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

Libs beg Biden to drop out of the race, the Supreme Court makes a historic decision on the Chevron ruling, and it turns out that diversity is bad for profits.   Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri   Ep.1522   - - -   DailyWire+:   Buy one year of DailyWire+ and get a second year FREE! Join here: https://bit.ly/3L1kc1o   Check out my new candle collection, available now: https://bit.ly/3VrZ6Ot   Get 10% off your tickets to Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot at http://angel.com/MICHAEL   Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY   - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   American Financing - Call [phone] for a FREE mortgage review, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net/   ZERO DEBT USA - Learn how to get out of debt today! Visit http://www.zapmydebt.com   - - -   Socials:   Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6   Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA   Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg   Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Four days after Joe Biden's disastrous performance at the presidential debate, there is somehow even more fallout as Biden himself now admits that he's senile. I don't walk as easy as I used to. I don't speak as smoothly as I used to. I don't debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know. I know how to tell the truth. A slight correction there. Joe Biden does not, in fact, know how to tell the truth, as we learn. when even CNN was forced to fact-check his many lies just last Thursday night. He said he's the only president in a while who didn't have any troops dying anywhere in the world. Troops have, of course, died on his watch.

He said he's put in a $15 per shot cap on insulin in Medicare. It's a $35 a month cap. He said it's a $200 cap on overall drug spending in Medicare. It's $2,000 a year. He said the border now has fewer crossings than when Trump was in office. That's generally not true. He said or at least strongly suggested unemployment was at 15% when he took office, it was actually 6.4.

He said Trump wants to get rid of Social Security. Trump doesn't. He said billionaires pay 8.2% in taxes. It's much higher. He said Trump told Americans to inject bleach amid COVID. We know Trump made foolish comments about scientists studying, disinfectant injection, but didn't frame it as advice to people. And Biden said the Border Patrol endorsed him.

No, its union supported the border bill he'd supported, never endorsed him himself. And it keeps going, actually. It goes on, but we've got more important things to get to, like how Biden is now admitting his senile. We have all known for some time that Biden has some form of dementia. When it became obvious in the lead-up to the 2020 election, Democrats blamed his strange behaviors and failures of memory and inability to think anymore on a childhood stutter.

Overnight, that became the official line of the liberal establishment. PBS made a whole documentary about Biden's supposed childhood stutter. In the crisis of stuttering, A life method. Persevere. Just push through. Highly recommend you watch the whole documentary. It is some grade A propaganda.

Out of nowhere. None of us had ever heard of Biden's alleged stutter for the first 47 years of his political career. But that was the Democrat story. And they were sticking to it until now. When Biden himself has finally admitted that he can't walk. He can't talk. And he can't debate much. anymore, specifically because he is old and senile and obviously unfit for office, much

less a second term in office. And the craziest part of the whole thing is, Joe Biden still has a better chance of beating Trump than anyone the Democrats can replace him with. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. We're all talking about Biden and whether the Democrats are going to replace him and will he step down as president. Meanwhile, in another branch of government in the Supreme Court, the court just dealt a huge blow, potentially a death blow to the administrative state, sometimes referred to as the deep state. One of the biggest Supreme Court decisions of my lifetime comes out on Friday just after the show, and very few people are talking about it. But it's huge. It's something conservatives have been asking for for 40 years. It just, it's, I think, impossible for me to overstate how important this decision is we'll get in.

into it in one moment. First, though, I want to light up my candle. You know, we sold out of Sicilian summer. Sorry, if you didn't get Sicilian summer, that's my seasonal release. You're out of luck. I don't know what to tell you. Sorry, you got to buy them faster next time. If you go to the candleclub.com, you have to have to the da-da in there, the candleclub.com. We might have it on the daily wire site, but the candleclub.com is the home of it. You can get my whole line of candles. This is the old soul candle. Smells like, I don't know, big puffy sweaters in New England. something. We've also got Wise Man that is a riff on the Smells and Bells candle from Lent that also sold out. The Wise Man candle is still available. We've got the PSL candle. It's a little

out of season, but it smells delicious. We've got a whole Mayflower line of candles. It's coming beautiful colored glass, politically correct. We have to say glass of color. So go get them now. Thecandleclub.com. The liberal establishment right now is begging Joe Biden to drop out, not just according to reports, not just privately. This is publicly. The New York Times editorial page comes out. This is not just by some opinion writer. It's by the New York Times editorial board headline to serve his country. President Biden should leave the race. No uncertain terms there. The Washington Post has come out. The Washington Post didn't go quite as far as the New York Times, but the post said Biden should at least spend the weekend considering dropping out Politico,

establishment outlet has said that has observed that a ton of other liberal, lackey establishment columnists, Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Nicholas Christoff, Jonathan Alter, David Ignatius, Joe Scarborough over on MSNBC, they have all called on Biden to drop out or to seriously consider dropping out. This is a full-scale assault. Immediately following Biden's debate performance, these guys believe that Biden cannot win, can't beat Trump. Don't forget, the point of that debate, the reason the debate was held so early, was because Biden continues to trail Trump in the polls. So Biden was the one who called for this debate. There are some conspiracy theories floating around that actually this was 5D Chess,

and the Democrats put Biden up to this debate because they knew he was failing and they wanted him to be exposed and they wanted their convention to be thrown into chaos so that they can replace him. I think it's all bogus. In part the reason I think that theory is bogus, is, it was Biden who called for the debate. It wasn't the Democrat establishment. It wasn't the New York Times. It wasn't the Washington Post. It was the inner circle around Joe Biden called for that debate because they had to turn his poll numbers around. That was the point of it. And not only did the debate not turn his poll numbers around, it's going to sink his poll numbers even further. So all these guys, the Times, the Post, all the rest of them agree, he cannot beat Trump. So what do people like Barack Obama?

What do people like Bill and Hillary Clinton? What do the real poobas of the Democratic Party? What are they saying? They're saying the opposite of the New York Times and the Washington Post. Obama came out and said, Joe's the nominee. He tweets out, quote, Bad debate nights happen, trust me, I know, but this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks' entire life

and someone who only cares about himself, between someone who tells the truth, who knows right from wrong, and will give it to the American people straight, and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefit. Last night didn't change that, and it's why so much is at stake in November. Now, I, of course, agree with Barack Obama entirely. That is the choice in this election. Obama might be misinterpreting which one is which, but this is Obama's way of saying, I'm sticking with Joe, he's the nominee.

And he includes a link, Joe Biden.com. Bill Clinton, then. So you got Obama, who's Biden's old boss and the previous Democrat president. Now you got two Democrat presidents ago. Bill Clinton says, I'll leave the debate. I'll leave the debate writings to the pundits, but here's what I know. I know a lot. Facts and history matter.

Joe Biden has given us three years of solid leadership, steadying us after the pandemic, creating a record number of new jobs. I don't even, it's going to hurt my voice to keep doing this. Blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what's at stake. You've got to vote for Biden. not only Bill Clinton, but Hillary Clinton comes out and defends Joe Biden. I won't do a Hillary Clinton voice because I don't want to damage my microphone.

She says, the choice in this election remains very simple. It's a choice between someone who cares about you, your rights, your prospects, your future, versus someone who's only in it for himself. So again, they all post basically the exact same tweet with the same kind of ambiguity. At least Hillary clears it up and says, I'll be voting Biden. Again, she doesn't clear up the ambiguity. She just says, look, there's a good guy and a bad guy. who cares about the people and a guy only cares about himself, guys who tells the truth and a guy who lies. And then there's really no connection there that she says, I'll be voting for Biden.

So it kind of hilarious addiction from all three of them, but they all have the same message, vote for Biden. And the reason for this is they know that right now there is no mechanism to get Biden out of the race other than Biden dropping out. So they're trying to suck up to Biden. Even if they really think he should drop out, they would still have to suck up to Biden. I think it goes deeper. I think that Obama and the Clintons recognize something that a lot of the pundits who are hysterical and reactive and impetuous don't realize, which is there's nobody better among the Democrats. It's true. If the election were held today, Joe Biden would lose and he would lose by a lot. But hey, New York Times, hey, Washington Post. Hey, Joe Scarborough. Hey, who are you going to replace him with? There's so much more to say. First, though, go to Americanfinancing.net. Inflation is through the roof. Many Americans have no other choice but to put these expenses on credit cards, which obviously have very high interest rates. Instead of panicking, call American financing today. If you are a homeowner, they're helping thousands of people in the same situation, pay off that debt and break free from financial stress. Their salary-based mortgage consultants are saving homeowners an average of $854 a month. That's a big relief. Call today. You may deliver. to mortgage payments. American financing 866 721-3300.

That is 866 7213, 3300. Or if you are more digitally and virtually inclined, you can go to Americanfinancing.net. NMLS-182-334, NMLS Consumer Access.org, APR for rates in the five, starting at 6.799% for well-qualified borrowers. Call 866 7213300 for detail. about credit costs and terms. Who are they going to replace him with?

Kamala Harris? No, Kamala loses to Trump. No one likes Kamala Harris. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish.

Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident, restoration is guaranteed, pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. That's not going to work. Michelle Obama, this is the one you hear, even from the GOP pundits, the conservative pundits. They say, oh, Michelle, Michelle could come in at the last minute and Michelle would destroy Trump. First of all, I don't think Michelle Obama wants to be president.

she already had the advantages of being president. She got a kick out of it, but I don't think she wants to run. It's a miserable process. Second of all, I don't think people like Michelle Obama that much. People, a certain group of liberals like Michelle Obama, but I don't think Michelle Obama has that widespread appeal. She doesn't have anywhere near the appeal that her husband had. She's kind of an unlikable figure. Don't forget, Michelle Obama is the one who said she, the first time she was ever proud of her country was when it elected her husband.

Some people like Michelle and they view her as Oprah or Ellen DeGeneres or something. You know, they'll subscribe to the Michelle Obama Book Club. But I think a lot of people really don't like Michelle Obama. And she's not going to run anyway, so who cares? Gavin Newsom, I think he's really overrated. I don't see Gavin Newsom winning in Michigan. I don't see Gavin Newsom winning in Pennsylvania. He's slick.

He's Governor Patrick Bateman. He probably feeds stray cats to ATMs. And he definitely plays very well with the staff at the French Laundry. I don't think he plays that well in Peoria. Way overhyped. Whitmer in Michigan, she's the, I find very unpleasant female Democrat governor in Michigan. Okay, you say maybe she's got a chance because Michigan is kind of a must-win state for the Democrats and she obviously wants to be president. So, like, maybe Whitmer does better than Biden against Trump, but I don't think so.

Maybe I just, I doubt it. Who then? some have floated Josh Shapiro. He's the governor of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is another state that the Democrats really want to win. I don't know. At a time when you've got intifadas marching around the left, at a time when the Democrats quite openly despise Jews, I don't think that a guy named Shapiro is going to do that well as their nominee when Israel is the wedge issue and you have some pretty blatant anti-Jewish rhetoric on the left, including in the mainstream left, I don't think that's going to work. the guy has just been elected. He's not ready for prime time. Ain't going to happen. I don't think Josh Shapiro does better than Joe Biden against Trump. Then who? That's the present crop. How about Mayor Pete? Is Mayor Pete going to do it? Give me a break. Tony Blinken. Give me a break. The Secretary of State. I don't think so. Who? Okay. Now we got to go back. Are they going to run Hillary

again? Please, please Democrats, run Hillary again. But okay, you're going to say Hillary versus Trump. Trump's going to win it. We already know that because he did. Okay. John Kerry, let's go back to the previous Democrat loser nominee. John Kerry, I don't think so. I don't think Thurston Howell III on his private jet whining about the Sun Monster. I don't think he beats Trump. Then you've got to go back further. How about Al Gore, St. Al, is he going to do it?

He can brag about inventing the Internet? I don't know. That was the last major thing he could brag, or that PowerPoint he did that he won an Oscar for? No. No, you got to, they're going to end up, they're going to end up with Jimmy Carter. they're going to and Jimmy Carter God bless him the guy is still kicking is still around you would have to go back that far to get to a popular Democrat there are there are no choices the Democrats dug their own grave here by straight facing it and pretending that Biden was not in decline and pretending that his obvious senility was a childhood stutter and now now they're stuck with him the big problem for the Democrats right now

So that's why they can't replace him. They also can't leave him as their nominee. And the reason they can't leave him as their nominee is you can't take this back. You can't take back the New York Times editorial that Biden's unfit to lead. You can't take back Claire McCaskill, the former Democrat senator now pundit, going on TV and saying, yeah, this guy is really cooked. You know, this guy is clearly past his sell-by date. You can't take back the entire liberalist. establishment saying that he is not fit for a second term. Because then if the convention happens,

and he is their nominee, all those very same people are going to have to go out on TV and say, oh, JK, no, what? Oh, forget about that. I didn't really say that. He's great. To serve his country, Biden should definitely be president again. What are they going to, they're going to stealth edit that in the New York Times. You can't take that back. So now they're in a real quandary. They have no one better to replace him. They've already said they don't have any faith in him as the nominee. And he's got to be the one to decide if he wants to leave and he doesn't want to leave. There's nothing for them to do. Now, I'm sure there will be a lot more Biden fall out in the coming days. I want to turn to something that no one's talking about. It's an earth-shaking decision

out of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has overruled Chevron deference. And if that sounds a little wonky or you're not familiar with that case or that legal term. Chevron deference refers to a principle established in 1984 in a case which is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel. And at issue in the case was, do the executive agencies, do the bureaucrats who ostensibly work under the president, but really they have a ton of independence in part because of this 1984 ruling, who interprets? Who interprets? the laws that apply to them. You know, Congress passes some law, but, you know, Congress doesn't really get all into the weeds on details. Who gets to interpret what that law means? Who gets to

interpret how much power the bureaucrats and the agencies get? Is it the Congress? Well, maybe they haven't been clear in the law. Is it the courts? Maybe. Or is it the agencies themselves? Chevron established the principle that when Congress does not speak clearly to a particular issue, and when an agency's interpretation of the law is at least plausible, then the agency gets to interpret the law itself. And the reason this matters is it means that unelected, largely unaccountable bureaucrats are always going to take as much power for themselves as they possibly can. And the courts were constrained to stop them.

The courts really didn't have a lot of teeth to stop them. As long as the reading of the law, whether it's the EPA or whatever, whatever alphabet agency you can think of, as long as their reading of the law was even somewhat plausible and Congress was ambiguous, which it always is, they get to do whatever they want. Then this case just came down, 2004, Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo. It doesn't really matter the details of this particular case. What was at issue was Chevron deference. and the court voted to overturn it.

So this is something that libertarians have been calling for for 40 years. Many conservatives have been calling for a long time. This is the best chance that conservatives have to gut and overhaul the administrative state, sometimes called the deep state. And it happened. Liberals are furious. Libertarians are thrilled. Conservatives are mostly thrilled, but we have mixed feelings about it because it,

because it is complex. And the courts now, the court has argued that courts have a special skill in interpreting statutes. Bureaucrats don't have any particular skill in interpreting statutes, but the courts do. And so that's why the courts should decide, not these bureaucrats giving themselves more power. However, the courts don't know very much about environmental regulations or any other kind of regulation. They don't really know that much about the functioning of the administrative state. So I kind of understand the arguments from the administrative state. And frankly, if the administrative state were staffed by conservatives, and if conservatives had a foothold in that institution, I would probably be favoring more power to them because every large state in history has some kind of bureaucracy.

And we don't actually live in some yeoman republic utopia that the Jeffersonians might be imagining. We live in a global empire with a huge sprawling bureaucracy. In any case, it's an earth-shattering decision from a bold Supreme Court that is taking on huge issues this cycle. No sooner do they make this decision overruling Chevron? This is a decision on the level of Dobbs overruling Roe v. Wade. Maybe not quite there, but pretty close. Definitely comparable. No sooner do they issue that ruling, then they decide that Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist is going in jail. The court denied on Friday Steve Bannon's request to stay out of jail pending appeal. So he's almost certainly going to put on an orange jumpsuit. And of course,

this is the case. First of all, because you've already got Peter Navarro, Trump's other senior White House advisor. He was the trade advisor who is currently in jail serving out his sentence for criminal contempt of Congress. So if the Supreme Court said Bannon doesn't have to go to jail, it would be kind of bad optics for Peter Navarra to keep languishing away there. Also, because Steve Bannon is relatively small potatoes compared to the court's responsibilities right now. I'm not cast in any shade of Steve Bannon. He's a very important right-wing figure, very important to the MAGA movement. But compared to all these other things, the court is doing, the court overruling Chevron deference, the court about to rule on immunity. Does President Trump have immunity for actions that he committed his president to what degree does he have immunity?

are the other Biden prosecutions of Trump even going to move forward? That's a huge decision. We know the court follows the election results. We know the court, especially under John Roberts, is very concerned with seeming to be impartial and seeming to have institutional credibility. Yeah, Bannon's going to jail and we are just going to gear up for the big question. Does Trump have immunity? will that prosecution move forward? And there's even another January 6th case

and the court ruled in a way that is going to surprise a lot of people on the left and the right. There's so much more to say first, though, go to zapmydebt.com. Does your debt keep you tossing and turning at night? The unfortunate reality is that our banking system is designed to trap you in debt. These insanely high-interest credit cards and loans

make it impossible to pay off your debt. Thankfully, there is a new way out of the debt trap with Zero-Det USA. You've heard me talk about Pivotal Debt Solutions now known as Zero Debt USA, they have new aggressive strategies to end your debt faster and easier than you thought possible. Zero debt USA can cut or even eliminate interest. They will help find programs to write off your balances so you owe less, and they can do all of this without bankruptcy and without a loan. Before you do anything, contact Zero Debt

USA first at zapmydebt.com. Talk to them for free. Find out how fast they can help you get out of debt. Do not spend another night tossing and turning worrying about your debt, those annoying phone calls. Just go to zapmydeat.com today. That is zapzap, my debt, dot com. The biggest case the court is going to have to consider is this Trump immunity decision. The court is meeting today. This is for the final time this session. Usually the court doesn't continue to meet this late into the year. We're already in July, right? It's a June, Junete 1st. Because every month is now going to be viewed in relation to June at once because

Pride Month is now Pride Year, but also because Juneteenth is the most important holiday on the liberal liturgical calendar. So we're on Junetee 1st, but we used to call it July 1st. It's weird that the court's meeting this late. They, it's probably coming out right now. Regardless, this is the most anticipated decision. Is Trump immune from prosecution for his role on? January 6th. Now, either way, the reason that I'm not sweating it and, you know,

checking my phone while I'm recording this show to see how the court rules is that actually either way, it's very unlikely that Trump would stand trial before the election. The fact that the decision is coming out this late means that either way, it probably won't affect the November election, which would seem to be a pretty clever way to, to do it because you the supreme court, neither the liberals nor the conservatives on the court, want to be seen as interfering in the presidential election. Rigging, stealing the presidential election, which is the contention that Trump is making. Now, the question of presidential immunity is an interesting one in itself.

Is the president, should the president be prosecuted for things he does as president? There's got to be some limit, right? There's got to be, like if the president of either party goes, out, shows up to the White House dining hall and just starts shooting his staff members. If the president then, you know, pulls out a bunch of hard drugs and invites a ton of hookers over and a bunch of Mexican gangbangers, you know, from MS-13, and they all have a kind of satanic ritual and then go out and murder more people. Surely the president should be prosecuted then, right?

I think we all agree. So there's got to be some, it's kind of a silly example, but it's an important example because it just shows you there's got to be some limit. So how much leeway should the president have? And it would seem to me that the president should have a lot of leeway. Okay, I recognize there's got to be some limit to what the president can do in office, but there's got to be a lot of leeway. Otherwise, we're going to become even more of what Joe Biden's turned us into, which

is a banana republic, a tin pot dictatorship where the cost, of serving as president in a way that's dignified and just is that you spend the rest of your life in prison. I think the court knows that too. That would be a major upending of our political order if we start jailing former presidents. Now, we're already getting good signs on these questions because the Supreme Court, again, star the show here, has just ruled in favor of a January 6th demonstrator. And before the libs get their garments in a twist, the decision was 6'3, and it wasn't on ideological lines. Supreme Court was asked to rule on a former police officer who shows up on January 6th. You know, he's a J6 demonstrator and is charged with obstruction. You probably heard a lot of these obstructing an official congressional proceeding,

which actually Jamal Bowman, the Democrat congressman who just got voted out by his constituents. He did a much more egregious version of that crime when he pulled that fire alarm in Congress, but somehow he never gets prosecuted for it. The question was, do the January 6th guys, sorry, January 6th people get prosecuted for obstruction? And the charge comes from part of a law enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed after the Enron scandal. The purpose of this provision of the law was to prevent evidence tampering, basically. It was in response to the Enron stuff.

It targets anyone who, quote, obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so. The majority of the court said, no, that's way too broad a reading. It's really about financial bookkeeping and fraud and evidence tampering. No, you're not going to charge this guy for obstruction here. And the justices who said that were, Roberts, Chief Justice, kind of conservative, Thomas, very conservative, Alito, very conservative. Gorsuch, pretty conservative, even though he wrote transgenderism into U.S. civil rights law. Kavanaugh, pretty conservative, and Katanji Jackson. Super Lib on the court.

The dissent, the people who wanted to go after this January 6th guy, Sotomayor, Lib, Kagan, Lib, Amy Coney-Brett, supposed to be pretty conservative. It's good news. Whenever the Supreme Court decisions are not purely on ideological lines, it looks good for the court and helps them maintain institutional credibility. even though I don't really see why. The other thing you have to remember about the court is that there's broad consensus on a lot of issues that come before the court. It's just the really, really contentious ones, the really, really political ones, party political ones that get all the attention, like a Dobbs decision or like the Obamacare decision or like Chevron for that matter. But a lot of the procedural more in the weed statutory questions, there's often a lot of consensus. The libs are attacking the court right now in particular because they're looking down the,

the pike and they see that this could be a contested presidential election if the cadaver that they've ostensibly nominated can even make it to November. There could be a real contested election, and the court could rule, because it's a largely conservative court, could rule in favor of Trump. And so the libs are preemptively attempting to tarnish the credibility of the court. And they've been up to this for quite some time because the court provides a check on a lot of their power grabs through the bureaucracy in particular and through the other branches of government. So they've been going after the courts for a while. They never forgave the court for giving the election to George Bush in 2000,

even though that was the obvious decision to be made. So regardless, this is filtered into the public consciousness. And most Americans, according to an AP survey, believe that the Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality. The Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that seven in ten Americans think the court's justices are influenced by ideology, while only three in ten Americans think that the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair or impartial. What this survey reveals is nothing about the Supreme Court.

What this reveals is the ignorance of the survey respondents about the words ideology and impartiality. They don't really know what these words mean. It is not the job of a Supreme Court justice to not have opinions on anything. It is not the job of a Supreme Court justice to not have an ideology, or at the very least, to not be influenced by ideas and a particular view of the world.

It is a job requirement that justices have a clear vision of the world. It is a job requirement that justices have opinions about things. It is a job requirement that judges can discern right from wrong. That's actually their job. impartiality here is being confused with neutrality.

The judges have to be impartial in as much as they have to be indifferent to private interests. You know, they shouldn't be coming down with decisions that just serve their private, irrational wills. But they can't be impart. You can't, to be a judge, you have to have good judgment. You have to prefer good to bad. and right to wrong and truth to falsehood. You can't be impartial when it comes to truth and falsehood and right and wrong.

The two aren't opposed. Impartiality, and here it says ideology, I prefer, you know, a view of the world. Those two aren't opposed. They actually go together. You can't properly be impartial in matters of law without having a well-formed understanding of justice. But this is how the LIBS work. I mean, their political strategies are so clever. By confusing the American people about what a judge is even supposed to do,

they are able to tarnish the credibility of the court, specifically, the conservative members' justice is on the Supreme Court. Now, speaking of ideology, shocking survey has just come out, shocking news studies, shocking precisely to no one who has a modicum of common sense, shows that, diversity, D-E-I, is bad for corporate profits. Wow, gee, you don't say. Now, why is this even a headline? It's a headline because back in 2015, McKinsey, probably the most famous consulting firm in the world, came out with a study, and they claimed that they found a link between profits and the racial and gender diversity of executives. McKinsey came out, big lib establishment corporate consulting firm, and they said,

diversity is good for your bottom line. Get more women, get more blacks and get more even get even more ethnically and racially specific and exotic in the boardroom. You're going to make more money. And the problem with that study is it's completely bogus. Academics have tried to repeat the McKinsey study and they're not able to replicate those results. Academics, a number of academics have found there is no link whatsoever between profitability and executive diversity. They haven't found that having more women and black people and Hispanics or whatever diminishes profits. They haven't found that either.

They've just found there's no link between diversity and corporate profits. The methodology of the McKinsey studies is very silly and ridiculous, just to give one example that's been pretty widely reported on. McKinsey originally had linked profits over several years at a company with diversity at the end of that period that they were looking at. And they concluded from that that having, you know, in 2024, having a diverse boardroom is why the company was profitable from 2015 to 2024, for example. But you said, well, hold on, they only had the diverse boardroom at the very end of that period. So McKinsey is concluding that diversity causes profits. you might be able to say actually profits cause diversity.

The more profitable a company becomes the more mainstream and establishment a company becomes the more pressure it feels to implement DEI policies and invite tokens into the boardroom strictly for their skin color or their sex. But the other reason that it's so obvious that diversity does not, diversity, capital D, does not lead to profits, is that unless black people are uniformly more productive than white people and are being kept out of jobs by some nefarious hidden force that can only be rectified by DEI policies, this conclusion couldn't possibly be true. Because without the DEI policies, ostensibly the corporations are just hiring the people that they think are best for the job.

And maybe that means it's only white guys. And maybe it means it's seven white guys and three black guys. And maybe it means it's nine men and one woman. And maybe it means it's three normal people and seven like LGBT pansexual whatever. I don't know. But regardless, without the mandates and you need X number of black people and X number of women and X number of this, the corporation is just trying to make money. It's just trying to make money for its shareholders. And the main color that corporations care about is not black or white or yellow or red, but green.

They want the money. So the very fact that such a policy would be pushed by you. government, such a type of DEI policy would be pushed by agitative NGOs and lawyers and all the rest of it, is specifically because corporations are simply focusing on profits. So the two are distinct. No surprise then that the policies do not increase those profits. It's one of those examples where it's the IQ bell curve, the drooling idiot at the lowest end of the IQ bell curve knows that, yeah, of course, like, the, implementing these diversity quotas don't actually increase profits.

Then the people in the middle of the IQ curve are trying to say, no, but actually, here's why, you know, because at McKinsey, we found the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they have this bogus methodology. And then at the top of the IQ bell curve, you say, yeah, duh, if you, if you, if your goal is to make money, then you're going to make more money. And if your goal is to prioritize all these other ideological fashions, then you're going to get more of that, but that might come at the cost of money. For the 4th of July, DailyWire Plus is not only celebrating freedom, we are giving a year of it away.

By one year of DailyWire Plus, get one year for free. That means you get an additional year of the Michael Nulls Show, uncensored, unfiltered, and 100% ad-free. You also gain access to our extensive library of compelling films, groundbreaking documentaries, hard-hitting series, and in-depth investigative journalism that you won't find anywhere else. Purchase one year of DailyWire Plus. We will give you another year at no additional cost. This deal will not last long. visit dailywareplus.com now secure your two years of dailyware plus for the price of one and then return to your 4th of July festivities. Join us today as we build the future and fight the libs.

My favorite comment on Friday is from, and again, I don't really look at the names. So the fact that this guy keeps popping up, it's just because his comments are that good. The Drummer's Workshop, Norm's Music, who says, Trump did well at the debate. He stayed composed while Joe decomposed. That is true. That's a very precise way to put it. Now, speaking of bad workplace regulations, pull over your car, sit down if you're standing up, a gay porn actor has been arrested on charges of child pornography.

Stop the presses. It's always the ones you most expect. I won't get into too many of the details of this story because it's a family show and everything. It's a 43-year-old guy. He had videos of kids being tortured and videos of like infants and stuff. It's just, whatever horrific thing you're picturing, it's 10 times worse than that. The charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of 20 years. I've said it before. I mentioned these stories somewhat regularly, maybe once a week, once every two weeks. It's always the ones you most expect. Yes, sometimes we get surprised. Oh,

my goodness, the hypocrisy. Can you imagine someone that we didn't expect to do something bad? It did do something bad. Yeah, it's a fallen world. That sort of stuff happens. But generally, as a rule of thumb, it's always the ones you most expect. Of course, because human behavior is somewhat predictable. And when people fall into vices and sins and bad habits, they absent some major repentance and change of heart, they pretty reliably keep doing that stuff. And if you get involved in a little bit of bad stuff, you're going to get, you're likely going to get involved in more bad stuff. And if you hang around with bad people, you're likely going to hang around with more bad people. And that's just how it works. That's how habits form and human behavior works.

And the reason I mention this story is this would not have happened had we simply enforced the laws already on the books and prosecuted pornography as we have for most of American history. Not only would this guy not be going to prison, not only would this guy not have committed this horrific crime, not only would not as many victims fall prey to this awful industry. He wouldn't have even been tempted to do it in the first place. This guy is involved in depraved and aberrant sexual behaviors. He works in that kind of stuff professionally. His job is to just corrupt his soul, warp his mind, turn his brain into mush, and cultivate disgusting desires that can never really be satiated because there are these appetites

that, you know, it's not like you blow off a little steam and then you, you know, you feel better. You start to cultivate really bad habits and then you need more and more and more and just kind of crazy stuff. Like with anything, you start out, you know, doing a soft drug, and then if you keep going down that path, you're going to do a little bit of a harder drug and a harder drug and a harder drug. Very few people start out with crack cocaine,

but they just end up there because they keep wanting more and more of a high. Had we just told this guy, instead of having a culture where we say, actually, we're going to celebrate weird sex stuff for a whole month or more than a whole month. And actually, we're going to totally stop prosecuting porn. And actually, we're going to say that, indulging selfish sexual desires and putting obscene content everywhere in the culture is that's a good thing. And we're just going to do that all the time.

If instead we just discouraged all that stuff, what are the odds that he would have gotten to this point where he'd be engaged in as depraved activities as you can possibly imagine? He might have gotten he might have gotten involved in some bad activities. But then if we just kind of punish that or discouraged that or cut off the supply to that or just. made that much more difficult, he wouldn't have even had the opportunity to abuse his free will in this way that has destroyed his life. How many discounts does USAA auto insurance offer? Too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount? New vehicle discount. Storage discount. Legacy. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. We don't even have to go back that foreign American history to look at this. We don't have to go back to 1820. We don't need to go back to 1920.

back in 2008, the federal government prosecuted a porn maker for obscenity, not for child pornography, not for things that are so obviously illegal, just for obscenity. And they prosecuted him and he served prison time. It wasn't that long ago. That was the very end of the Bush administration. Barack Obama got elected that year, the year that we did that. We can do that again, and we could beef up the laws, and that would be good for everyone. It would be good for the victims of, obviously the poor little victims of this crime.

That's the group that your heartbreaks were the most. It would also be good for society to protect people from predators like this guy. It would also be good for this guy. And he might not have destroyed his life if our politicians just did their job. And were not neutral when it came to questions of good and bad and right and wrong and truth and falsehood. And actually acted in a just and prudent way for the common good. Now, speaking of these kinds of ethics, horrific story out of the use. UK. It's going viral now. Stories from a few years ago, but the right to life UK just posted

the story of a mother who has a child with Down syndrome who was encouraged to have an abortion full term. And even being offered termination at full term on the Friday and giving birth to him on the Sunday. What was said to you? She's turned around and said to me, you do know we still terminate babies with Down syndrome at 38 weeks. And what did you say? I said, well I'll pretend I didn't hear that. Because I was completely blown away, shocked and disgusted. And here he is, Hector.

And you know, he is absolutely beautiful. Had ya? Yes. He's got a modeling career. You know. He is and so are you. And you know, and he's got a lot of people that love him. Wave, Hector.

Give us a wave. I'll blow with a kiss. He's got a great fan. Great fan club. A really cute kid and everything. A really horrifying story. But it shouldn't surprise us. Trump did a great job in the debate, pointing this out.

And Biden said, nobody wants late-term abortion. Trump said, yes, you do. You're trying to protect abortion up until the moment of birth in some cases. And when you look at the Virginia governor, former Virginia governor, Ralph Northam, he said he would support abortion after birth. If the mom wants to kill the kid, well, we'll put him on the table and we'll just kind of see, you know, we'll make a decision then, have a discussion. Andy Cuomo, when he was governor of New York, Democrat, he changed the abortion law so that if a criminal murders a pregnant

woman, it would no longer be double homicide, and so that a woman could kill a baby up until the moment of birth, and then he lit up the World Trade Center in Pink to celebrate that. The Democrats want to do that. That baby was delivered at 38 weeks, and the doctor said, you know, we still will abort him. Three days later, the baby is born. My recent child, my third son, was born 39 weeks. I very recently held a baby that was pretty much the exact same age as a baby that these UK doctors wanted to murder. And we have this idea that when the baby's in the womb, it's not really a baby. But then the minute the baby comes out of the womb, you say, oh, my goodness, that's a baby.

That's so weird that that thing was just in your belly. We have this idea that the baby in the womb is, I don't know, is like kind of looks weird or is translucent. something. I don't know. It just doesn't look like a human. No, the baby that they offered to kill had skin that just looks just like yours and my skin, had features, body features that look just like your and my body features, had moral dignity and worth, just like ours, probably better than a lot of the people who are trying to kill him. The doctors in the UK wouldn't say, three days later when the woman gave birth, okay, do you want us to behead him now? Do you want us to poison him or strangle him or just,

like, you know, dashes brains out on the rocks? Do you want us to do that? They wouldn't do that because they, the horror of what they're proposing to do and what they regularly do is so obvious. But three days prior, they would do it. And they would do it because the kid is a little bit slow. He's a bit simply.

He has Down syndrome. Because of that, because he has an intellectual impairment, they would say what is the exact equivalent of you take a newborn baby dash his brains out on the rocks like you're living in ancient sparta or something that's that's really happening and Biden can deny it and but trump for all the controversy he's generated on some of his nuanced views on these kinds of issues and his maybe his prudent or imprudent decisions to try to get elected this is a guy who is pretty clearly on the right side of the life issue okay and if you think this is just going on in the UK you're crazy this stuff is

being promoted by the sitting president of the United States, whether he admits it or not, whether he's even aware of it or not. The rest of the show continues now. It's Music Monday. You don't want to miss it. Become a member. Use Code Knowles, Canada, WLA. So check out for two months free on all annual plans.