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

Episode Date: September 8, 2026

President Trump officially had net negative migration for the first time in nearly 100 years, libs celebrate the anniversary of Charlie Kirk's assassination, Mamdani hands 9/11 pen to lawyer for al-Qaeda member. Ep. 2055 - - - Today's Sponsors: Cardiff - America’s favorite small business lender, provides the liquidity to move at the speed of business with same-day funding up to $500,000. Apply in under 3 minutes with zero credit impact. Apply now at https://cardiff.co/knowles Hallow - Visit https://hallow.com/knowles and get 3 months free. Leaf Filter - Help protect your home today with LeafFilter. America’s #1 Gutter Protection System. Schedule your free inspection today at https://leaffilter.com/KNOWLES. And, for a limited time, get up to $500 off LeafFilter with $0 down. Balance of Nature - Visit https://BalanceofNature.com today. Simple ingredients. Simple routine. Get an additional 10% off any Balance of Nature subscription PLUS a FREE Guiltless Snack when you use promo code KNOWLES. - - - DailyWire: Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe 🎆 🇺🇸 Celebrate America 250 with 3-Months of DailyWire for just $17.76 📜 Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 🍿 Run Hide Fight: Infidels will premiere on The Daily Wire, Wednesday September 16th. 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 📗 My book "Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/ReasonsToVoteForDemocrats 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We've all heard radio advertisements about owing the IRS money. They lean on fear and try to frighten you into calling. Tax relief advocates does things differently. Whether you owe 5,000, 50,000 or 500,000. TRA offers an actual solution. Do not lose hope. TRA could reduce or even eliminate what you owe the IRS. Their passion is taxes and helping individuals and businesses settle their IRS problems. They've earned over a thousand five-star Google reviews and an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau. There is no need to fear the IRS any longer. Substantial. Schult relief programs are available that can give you a fresh start. So do not delay. Visit t r.com. That is t r a.com or call 800 575 4908. That is once more 800 575 4908. Tax relief advocates, real solutions for real people. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same-day funding up to 500,000 at cardiff.c.c.0. Almost three million foreigners have left the United States since the start of President Trump's second term, with 2.3 million of those people being illegal aliens, that according to the latest and most reliable

numbers we've gotten so far from the Census Bureau. This means that America has officially had net negative migration for the first time in about 90 years. This also means that conservatives have something to be happy about, which is a strange feeling, and I'm sure that we'll find some way to be angry about it. But this is pretty good stuff. Then, leftists on social media celebrate the one-year anniversary of the murder of Charlie Kirk and New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani gives a 9-11 commemorative pen to a lawyer for a member of Al-Qaeda. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knolls show. Welcome back to the show. James Talariko is doubling down on his Islamophilia. You remember he said he learned as much about his faith from Islam as he had from

Christianity? That was a weird one. That made some eyebrows go up. Well, he's doubling down. He's going Muslim. Tala Rico's going Muslim. Milo Yanopolis, fresh off the deportation is going Muslim. Everybody's going Muslim. We'll get to that. I want to get to the Milo story if we have time. First, though, speaking of faith, I want to tell you about Hallow. Go to hallow.com slash Knowles, K&WLAS. How do you pray? Not do you pray. How do you pray? What do you? your prayer life look like, even for people who've prayed their entire lives, it's a question you should consider time and time and time again. For someone who wants to pray but does not really know where to begin, it can be surprisingly intimidating. That is the idea behind Hallow's new 21 days

of prayer challenge. Every day, you'll hear from someone different. Coach Prime, Gwen Stefani, Gary Cinnis, Coach Dan Hurley, Fernando Mendoza, priests, pastors, moms, nurses, police officers, all answering basically the same question. Who are you and how do you pray? This is not 21 days of abstract discussion about prayer, you're actually praying. Maybe you discover something you begin saying every morning. Maybe it's a prayer you remember when life gets difficult, or maybe you simply practice something modern life has made surprisingly difficult, being still. We have endless things competing for our attention. Prayer requires us to give some of that attention back to God. So whether you've prayed your entire life or you're not quite sure where to begin, give God 21 days

and see what happens. Download Hallow for three months and join the 21 Days of Prayer Challenge at hallow.com slash Noles. K&W-L-A-S. That is hallow.com slash Noles. Before we get into all the bad stuff and conservatives are all fighting over this new policy from the Trump administration that would take a pre-existing welfare program and stop it from only incentivizing single motherhood and conservatives are fighting about it because we're always fighting about everything. Before we get into all the kind of negative stories. This is good stuff, guys. We got to enjoy the wins. We got to enjoy the wins when we get them. And we conservative, we don't want to do it because we want to be doer and upset all the time. But this is big stuff. From the Census Bureau, the foreign born

percentage of the population over the last 18 months is down 2.9 million people. So this is all foreign born, not just illegal aliens, not just people on green cards who are residents, but including even citizens, people who were born in another country and became citizens. And this would be a little controversial in some portions of the right because there are some people, especially in the more Chamber of Commerce, business right, the more fiscally conservative but socially liberal right, they like the idea of open borders, as long as you do it legally. They have no problem with flooding the country or foreigners just so long as everyone fills out the right

paperwork. But people who are a little more traditionally conservative, people who are a little more concerned with social solidarity. Those of us on that side of the issue, we recognize that the problem of mass migration is not just that people don't fill out the right documents. The problem of mass migration is that it creates all sorts of problems for social solidarity, for questions of sovereignty. Do we the people still have the right to determine who and how many people come into the country? We have taken, since the 1960s, something like 70 million people into this country, maybe more. It is the largest movement of human beings in recorded history. And a lot of

Americans, left, right and center, object to that. So we've got a reduction in all of that. Now, I want to make very clear here, the motivation for the hardcore immigration restrictionists, among whom I count myself, is not that we hate Mexicans. It's not that we hate people from Tahiti or Ghana or anywhere else. It's not even necessarily about the immigrants themselves. Some immigrant communities are definitely worse for this country than others. Notice the Somalis in Minnesota who are defrauding the taxpayer who don't assimilate, who have a totally different culture and religion and language. It's very, very difficult for them to integrate into the society. They don't seem to have much interest in doing it anyway. But it's not even really about the immigrants. It's just a fact

of politics that huge waves of migrants create social problems. This has been true since Cicero. It's been true since Aristotle. It's been true since man first, first while. out of the cave. So during some periods, you can be a little bit looser with immigration, but during some periods, you've got to be a little bit tighter, okay? And our country right now has the highest foreign-born percentage of the population that we have ever had. We take in a million legal immigrants per year. And then by the end of Joe Biden's presidency, we were taking three million illegal aliens on top of that. So you had something like eight, nine million illegals coming in under Joe Biden. That is just simply unsustainable. So this is really good stuff.

Yes, we want to get rid of the illegal immigrants because of the law and because of justice. But we also want to reduce the overall foreign-born percentage of the population because when you have too many foreign-born people, you cannot transmit your political tradition. You cannot inculcate a serious sense of civics. You cannot maintain your political community. It's just a fact of politics. This means that for the first time since the 30s, the United States has net negative migration. if the Trump administration keeps up the pace that we've seen in the first year and a half,

what that means is that the United States will see a reduction in approximately 15.3 million people of its foreign-born population by the end of Trump's second term. That is really, really big news. That would make it the lowest national foreign-born population since 2010, which is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you say, great, this is not only a change in the direction of the graph, It's not only a change in where the country is headed, but you are going to see a massive reduction of 15.9 million foreign-born people. And still, that will only bring us to our foreign-born

percentage of the population from 2010. That was halfway through Barack Obama's first term. That's how steep the mountain is that we have to climb. That is how heavily the odds are weighed against President Trump and all of the people who voted for President Trump, more importantly. But this is really, really big news. You can read about it. We have the Census Bureau data. This is the current population survey, which is published with some regularity. There's a good article on it in the Center for Immigration Studies. This is good stuff. This is one of the main issues that motivated Trump voters, not just on the right, but also in the center, also disaffected liberals in 2024. It's part of the reason that Trump was able to deny the

popular vote to the Democrats. This is one issue where Trump has gotten flack, even from some people on the right who say the deportations are not enough. Well, the hard numbers are coming in. And yes, we always want more, I guess, but this is pretty good. And if Trump is able to accomplish this, a reduction by over 15 million people in the foreign-born population, that will be maybe the most important part of his legacy. Maybe. There are other important parts, too. There's another win. Before we get to the negative news, there's another win that we're getting this from the DOJ. The DOJ has just gotten Mount Sinai Hospital. It's one of most important hospitals in the country to end its child transition gender program. So they got Mount Sinai to stop transing the kids.

You remember, there was a case the DOJ was able to just out, which is that they got a hospital to admit that it was wrong to trans the kids. They said they would stop transing the kids, and they set up a clinic with a lot of their own money, the hospital's own money, to offer free detransition procedures to any kids and now adults who were subjected to this horrific experimental castration, quote unquote, therapy. So that was a big win. And the ZOJ said there's more to come. Well, this is the more to come. This is huge. And I hope there's a lot more after this. But these are big wins. And you might say, it's very easy to say now, well, yeah, whatever. But I mean, woke one was crazy. And yeah, okay, great. The biggest win we can ask for

as conservatives is that we stop castrating little kids. And I guess the answer to that is, yeah, kind of. Had Kamala Harris won, we'd be transing way more kids. Had Joe Biden run for a second term and won, we'd be transing way more kids. All of the current Democrat candidates running for office, basically with that exception, are running on the promise of transing the kids. And by the way, they might win in the midterm elections. Part of the reason that conservatives can't celebrate the victories when we get them is because I think we have a fair. failure of appreciation of just how bad things got. And the trans ideology to me was the clearest example of that. We were castrating little kids and subjecting them to particularly perverse

pornography in kindergarten with the approval of the White House under Joe Biden. We had trannies lifting up their shirts showing off their prosthetic breasts on the lawn of the White House. forget about the transgender ideology more broadly for adults. Forget about radically redefining marriage, the basic social institution. Forget about all that. That is how crazy and perverse it got. And you're now seeing concrete wins from the Justice Department. We always say, well, it's not enough.

We need more, more, more. Yeah, yeah, we need more and more. But I'll take the wins when I can get them. Speaking of mutilation, there's a very, very telling speech that just came out of the Socialism, 2016 conference. Don't forget, the Democratic Socialists of America are now more popular with rank and file Democrat voters than Democrat members of Congress. Okay, the DSA, the socialists now own the Democrat Party. The chief intellectual thought leader of the Democrat Party is Asan Piker and avowed socialist, all the hottest candidates in the Democrat Party. Mamdani,

AOC, Abdul El-Sayyad, on and on and on. They're all socialists. So the Socialism Conference in 26 is a little more significant than it was in 2006. Back then, the socialists were kind of a fringe issue. Okay, you got Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. Basically, nobody else does. 2026, the socialist conference might as well be the DNC. And at the Socialism 20206 conference, one of the speakers explained that what the Democrats are after, what the socialists are after, is dysgenic biology. We'll get to the disjointed. of the left. First, though, I want to tell you about Leaf Filter. Go to Leaffilter.com slash Knowles, KennaW-L-A-S. There is a trend online right now called Gold Star Behavior, where

adults congratulate themselves for completing ordinary tasks. He answered an email, Gold Star. You put the laundry away the same day you watched it, Gold Star. Apparently, civilization is saved. Homeownership has the opposite reward system. Nobody congratulates you when everything works. You simply receive an extremely expensive reminder when you ignore something for too long. One of the biggest problems is you gutters. They are the perfect example. Cleaning them is always at the bottom of the list until heavy rains sends water over the sides and down around your foundation. Leaf filter helps protect your home before that happens.

Their local pros, inspect your gutters, clean them out, and repair or replace them if needed before installing leaf filter. Its surgical-grade stainless steel micromesh keeps common debris out while channeling water away from your foundation where it belongs. Every installation comes with a no-clog guarantee. and a lifetime transferable warranty, these wet leaves belong on the ground, not at the center of your weekend plans. That deserves a gold star. Help protect your home today with leaf filter,

America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection today at leaf filter.com slash knolls. For a limited time, get up to $500 off leaf filter with zero dollars down at L-E-A-Filter.com slash nulls. Restrictions supply, see representative for warranty and promotion details. Socialism 2026. We have Beatrice Adler Bolton. she's wearing a mask in the big two six face mask that's okay that's one negative sign she's got the hyphenated last name that's not dispositive but it's generally a sign of a little bit more of a liberal

feminist politics it's too bad i love the name beatrice it was the name of dante's love in the divine comedy but this woman regardless regardless of these fine attributes this woman explains that socialism is about being dysgenic you have to give up the fantasy of being fitter than the fascists. It's not just that it's cringe or strategically bad, though it is. I think it's also politically revealing. Fitness is a measure of relative disposability under capitalism.

Our task is not to become less disposable, to become more useful to the ruling order. What we all need to be doing is rejected, disposability in all of its forms. The point is not to beat the fascists at their own game. It is not to lay a better claim on their own territory by being fitter, more eugenic. In fact, the more dysgenic, the better, I think. Revolution is not a contest between optimized and properly prepared bodies. That idea is fascist in an itself and erases the history of left struggles around the world. Ugly people of the world unite. It used to be that the socialists said workers of the world unite.

No, no longer. The socialists don't even talk that much about workers or class issues anymore. You really, frankly, you hear more of that from the Republican Party. You see much more of an emphasis on working class economic issues from the GOP, Mirabi La Dicto. Probably many of us didn't expect that in our lifetimes. You're seeing much more of that from the conservatives than you. are from the socialists. The socialists are talking about weird sex stuff and mutilating little kids and how working out is fascist. And if you really want revolution, you need to be a big, fat, ugly guy. That's kind of weird, right? I mean, I don't, look, I don't work out. I'd like to think

I'm not the ugliest guy in the world, but I certainly don't work out. I don't think we need to make idols out of physical appearance. But hold on. She's saying that if you're healthy, that's fascist and the more dysgenic the better? Maybe this helps to explain why all the people at the socialist conference are wearing the face masks six years after COVID. The face masks, which didn't do anything during COVID to begin with, but maybe this explains why they seem to have this fetish for ill health. They're always bragging about all their mental health problems. They're always bragging about their other physical health problems. They're immunocompromised status and all the rest of it.

Isn't that so strange that being healthy, mentally and physically, is right-wing-coded? It's conservative-coded. Again, I'm not making this up. I'm not the one issuing the provocation here. This is coming from the socialist conference. They're saying that if you're unhealthy, mentally and physically, that is left-wing-coded, socialist-coded, and good. The more dysgenic, the better.

Do you know what this is? I can explain this in a way where you don't need to have read all the insane babblings of every radical leftist who ever wrote a political treatise. The way that everybody can understand this is that girl in your high school or your college or even that lady at work who breaks up with her boyfriend and chops off all her hair. You know that, you know that phenomenon? Of course you know that phenomenon because it happens a lot. the girl who she goes through a bad breakup she's going some kind of emotional trauma and she messes with her body she chops off her hair she gets a bunch of like weird tattoos a lot of weird piercings that don't they don't she makes herself look uglier there i've just noticed this i don't want to stereotype you know far be it for me i don't want to make any claims about men and

women i would never do such a thing but i have noticed that when women especially i guess men too but especially women are going through some kind of emotional trauma. They try to make themselves look uglier. You don't have to take my word for it. This woman is elevating that phenomenon into a political ideology. And it's a reminder, lest anyone be confused. Socialism is not primarily about economics. When Hassan Piker goes out and he says, 9-11 is awesome.

I wipe my rear end with the American flag. I want to murder Republicans, I want to murder Charlie Kirk, when he says all of these things, and then you call him on it, and you call all the candidates that ask him to campaign with them on it. What do they say? They say, right-wing radicals are Nazis and left-wing radicals. We just want to give people health care. Say, hold on, no, I'm not objecting to your, I mean, I kind of object to a lot of your policies about health care, but I'm not objecting to you wanting people to have health care.

I'm objecting to the fact that you're advocating the murder of ordinary rank and file conservatives and members of the Senate, and you say America deserve 9-11, and you want to murder little babies, and you want to castrate little kids, and that's the stuff I'm objecting to. I'll get to my objections on your health care policies at, like, criticism number 500. But the reason that we're not chiefly objecting to them wanting to give people health care or whatever is because socialism is not primarily about economics. You know, to read Marx's own words, What he is calling for is the ruthless criticism of all that exists.

What he's calling for is a total revolution. What he's calling for is to stop interpreting the world and to changing the world. What he's calling for reading Gertes Faust is that everything that exists deserves to perish. It's this radical revolution against everything that we previously thought was good and true and beautiful, and that we still know deep down in our hearts is good and true and beautiful. It's a rebellion against Christendom. it's a rebellion against the moral order. It's a rebellion against our political institutions

and ultimately it's rebellion against God because all left-wing politics and I'm not the first to observe it comes down to three simple words, screw you dead. And I think that's what this woman's saying. She goes, it's actually, you know, if you look good, that's right-wing and fascist.

And the more dysgenic you are, even these words, because we throw this word eugenics around because eugenics refers to a movement that was a very bad thing because it involved killing people who were mentally disabled and who were kind of ugly and who were in disfavored races. And that kind of eugenics is very bad.

But at a basic level, eugenics just means good genes, right? Good breeding. And so at that level, every single human being who gets married engages in what he thinks is eugenics. What I'm saying is at the most fundamental, innocent level, eugenics is just wanting to have a healthy kid. That's really what it comes down to. So every guy, every guy who goes out, every lady who goes out to a bar and picks the most attractive person to try to, you know, go home with or go get a cup of coffee with or say, they are engaging in a very basic form of eugenics. In other words, the problem with eugenics is not that people wanted to have healthy kids. The problem with eugenics is that they were committing grave moral evils to achieve that goal.

And good ends do not justify immoral means. The problem with eugenics was all the killing and the sterilization and all the rest of it. But it's not that you want to have healthy kids and you want to be healthy yourself. And what this woman is saying is, no, no, no, no. The less healthy you are, the better. The less healthy our society is the better. which is really ironic because it completely undercuts the left-wing argument when they say, our radicals, we just want to give people health care. No, what you're saying is you want people

to be unhealthy. It's also this woman's speech is perfectly socialist because she herself looks fine. I mean, I guess it's hard to tell behind the mask. But when she says everyone should be morbidly obese, which is her implication, notice she is not morbidly obese. She could probably use a trip to the hair salon, but she looks fine. I don't know. She looks okay. She's basic. She looks like she's showered. She's basically well, right? She's like, again, you know, she could do up her hair a little bit. Maybe the shirt is fine. I don't know. Maybe fewer chains or something. But she looks okay. It's classic, you know, do as I say, not as I do. And it's also, again, not to stereotype too much. But is this just a mating strategy for some very liberal women to try to encourage all the other women to make

themselves look ugly so that they are more attractive in the dating pool? Is that I don't know. Now I mean, now I'm getting to psycho babble, so I don't want to do that. But on this point, point of socialism, we turn from the left to the right because there are people, especially among the more establishment conservative types, who are accusing the Trump administration of socialism for reforming a welfare system to not only incentivize single motherhood. This is one of the stranger cries that has come out of the GOP establishment in a long time. We'll get to that in a moment first, I want to tell you about balance of nature. Go to balance of nature.com, use promo code Knowles.

Modern people have this odd habit of assuming that if something is complicated, it must also be sophisticated. The longer the ingredient list, the more technical, the explanation. The more elaborate the routine, the more impressive it must be. I increasingly suspect the opposite is true. Real sophistication often looks like simplicity. That is one of many reasons I love balance of nature. They're not trying to reinvent nature or isolate some supposedly magical component.

their whole health system brings together 47 ingredients of real whole fruits, vegetables, spices, and fibers and keeps the focus on the whole food ingredients themselves. They use a tailored vacuum, cold process designed to help stabilize the naturally occurring phytonutrients while keeping those ingredients close to nature through minimal processing. There's a certain humility in that. Nature got quite a lot right before we arrived to improve upon it, and Balance of Nature makes those whole food ingredients simple enough to incorporate into an ordinary day. Go to balanceofnature.com, subscribe to the whole health system, or any subscription

receive an additional 10% off with promo code Knowles. That is Code Knowles, CanadaWLAS. That also gets you a free guiltless snack with your order. Balance of Nature.com promo code Knowles. I mentioned this at the top of the show yesterday. The studios were closed. No one was in the office, and I still insisted on doing at least a little bit of a podcast yesterday. And in part, it was because of this new policy that was leaked through the New York Times,

so take it with a grain of salt. But it was leaked from the Trump administration. Reportedly, the administration is really big on this policy, and it's being spearheaded by the vice president, J.D. Vance. And the policy would take an existing welfare program, which is the Child Care and Development Fund. This has been around since the 1990s. It was a Clinton-Newt Gingrich era change to welfare. It's a fund worth about, I think, $12 billion a year that pays women below a certain income threshold. It pays single mothers, I guess theoretically single fathers too, but it's the vast majority of single mothers, below a certain income threshold.

it pays them to send their kids to daycare so that they can go work in the widget factory. That's what the program does. It's been around for 30 years, and the Trump administration is coming out reportedly and saying, okay, well, we already have this fund. It's mandatory spending. It's been around for 30 years. But right now, it discriminates against women who want to take care of their kids in a different and, dare I say, better way. So we have this fund that is supposed to help mothers take care of their kids, below a certain income threshold with all sorts of criteria. Well, instead of only giving that money to single mothers so that they can pay the money to daycare programs so that they can go work in a factory all day, maybe we should also give some of that money to married women who, rather than paying a daycare center to watch their kids, would like to stay home and watch their kids themselves. And so we'll have certain criteria, which is you have to be married and your spouse has to be working more than 35 or plus hours per week. And you're going to have all these qualifying criteria. But if the whole point is to help mothers care for their kids when they don't have a lot of money, and we have to spend this money

anyway, rather than discriminating against the married mothers who want to take care of their kids themselves, also the kind of mothers who vote Republican, unlike the other program, which is mothers who almost exclusively vote Democrat, rather than discriminating answer as married mothers, what if we just open it up to them as well? No change in the levels of spending, no creation of a new program, no law passed by Congress, no nothing. It's not. It's a very much. It's just a reform to the eligibility for this program. Because of this, many members of the GOP establishment, I should say the conservative movement establishment, are accusing the Trump administration of socialism. And I'm scratching my head. It's very, very difficult to understand this. Now, the first way that I

could understand this is this is all kind of shadowboxing for the 2028 Republican nomination. Because the reporting says that Vice President Vance is really pushing this through the administration, okay, there are some people who don't want Vance to be the nominee in 2028. Even though his polling is very high, Trump has already effectively endorsed him. Okay, there are people who want it to be someone else. DeSantis, Senator Cruz, Rand Paul, I don't know. Probably the chief object of desire for these people who don't want it to be Vance is Marco Rubio, even though Rubio has signaled many, many times he's not going to run against Vance.

Probably he'd run with Vance. But regardless, they say, okay, well, maybe a way to help Rubio, in the shadow 2028 race and hurt Vance is to attack this program. But that's insane because this reform that is coming out of the Trump administration that is largely being attributed to Vance actually uses a lot of the same language from legislation that then Senator Marco Rubio had proposed. So this comes from Rubio's 2024 Respect Parents Child Care Choices Act. And so it's not, this can't be a Vance versus Rubio thing, they got a lot of the language from Rubio. And Vance himself is definitely owning this issue.

He's been talking about these kinds of issues for a long time. So there, for the shadow boxing of 2028, there you see a phenomenon that I've been calling out for a long, long time. As people have been trying to pit Vance and Rubio against each other, I said, it's could be hard to do because Vance and Rubio seemed to agree on basically everything. And Rubio has endorsed Vance for the nomination. And very likely, Rubio could be the running mate if you wanted to be. So that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The attacks on common good language in political discourse, which are being lobbied at Vance. Once again, Marco Rubio is the guy who coined the phrase common good capitalism. So it doesn't work to pit Vance against Rubio. So what's the issue with the program? I could understand the objections if Trump were proposing making a new welfare program. Oh, I understand those objections all day. But that's not what's happening. I could understand the objections if the new policy would require additional spending from the White House.

In other words, it's not a new program, but it requires a lot more spending. But it doesn't do that. And in fact, it can't do that because Congress has the purse strings. So you would have to bring that to Capitol Hill. And all of the leftists, all of the Democrats have signaled, they totally oppose this reform from the Trump administration. You've got the feminist groups coming out. The national organization of women lawyers have come out against this. They said, this is terrible. You can't allow mothers to access this program to raise their own kids. No, no, no. The whole point of this program is just to force mothers to pay child care companies so that they can go work in the widget factory. In other words, it's a subsidy for corporate America to encourage single motherhood. So what's the objection here? Well, the one objection I've heard, and this one, this is pretty crazy.

You see it floating around social media. I won't name names of the establishment conservatives, but there are a number of them who are pushing this. They say, well, no, you know, the real thing we should do if we want to fix this problem, if we want to encourage stay-at-home mothers, the real thing we should do is just abolish this welfare program altogether. Some will go so far as to say, we just need to abolish the whole welfare state and cut taxes and abolish the whole welfare state. Okay, so hold on, if I understand this correctly. The establishment conservatives' objection to this very smart common-sense reform from the

Trump administration is that we cannot reform a 30-year-old welfare program. to stop only incentivizing single motherhood because it would be better to abolish the entire 91-year-old welfare state which no one even pretends to think is possible? What? Seriously? That is not a serious proposal. Even the people who are saying,

well, we just need to abolish this whole program and give the money back to the people. One, that's not how it actually works. But two, none of these establishment conservatives were calling to abolish this program three days. ago or at any point before that. Most of them didn't even know it existed. In other words, it seems to me that their function in politics is just to preserve the liberal policies of the past and not ever to change them, even to make them incrementally better. It's a very, very strange

behavior, that that is somehow socialism. The final point on this that I think is pretty nuts is conservatives have made a lot of hay on the issue of school choice. School choice has been a big winner saying, look, we have all this mandatory funding that goes to public schools, but a lot of people don't want to send their kids to public schools. So you know what? A lot of people want to send their kids either to a private school or a more religious school or they want to homeschool. And Republicans have done great work going in and saying, well, you know what, we're going to take some of that mandatory funding to the public schools, and we're going to have the government send it back to parents so that they can homeschool their kids,

get a little break home schooling their kids or sending them to a parochial school or a religious school. Conservatives seem to all agree on school choice just about. But this is the exact same thing, only on a much, much smaller scale. What would the argument be? If people were to be consistent here, they would say, okay, we don't want this reform of the welfare program to help state-home mothers, and we also don't want to fund public schools. So we're not going to have school vouchers.

We're not going to have school choice because it would be better to just abolish public school funding entirely. Well, you're not going to do that. So what's your next best option? Indeed, basically no Republican has cut the size of the government, cut government spending like ever, other than minor circumstances right after wars, right after major financial crises, after World War II, for instance. But in terms of normal, ordinary operation of the government, that's never happened. So what's the argument? To me, that gives away the game. If you support school choice, if you say, you know what, maybe some of that government money that taxpayers are paying, and maybe some of that should go to

parents so they can make their own decisions for their kids. That's exactly the same argument as we see in this reform of the Child Care and Development Fund. Only again, with school choice, that's at a much, much larger scale. That involves much more involvement with the government and a dealing with the bureaucracy and the welfare state. And you never hear the school choice advocates being called socialists, totally incoherent argument. I think it's basically just based on ignorance. Because a lot of the people who are coming out against this, they came out and they said, well, it's creating a new program, it's expanding a new program, and that just isn't true. So there's no, you're seeing this weird fight right now, and it's between conservatives and

traditionalists and some of the populists on one side. And the people who are opposed to this program are Democrats, basically all the Democrats. And then some libertarians, some like kind of libertarians, and a lot of the people who were never Trump in 2016, so I think there's a little score settling going on there too. But in any case, the socialism approach, the socialism accusation, I think it's just totally insane. It wouldn't, the opponents of this program would fail that measure even on the other policies that they support. Okay. Now, I think there are bigger fights out there than the reform to, though it's a very good policy. I love it from the Trump admin, but there are bigger fights out there. Namely, as we approach the one-year anniversary of the murder of Charlie Kirk,

there are leftists on social media who are once again celebrating his murder. We'll get to that momentarily first. I did not pick this comment. This went to the producers. And all my producers are out today. Not all of them, but a lot of them around. Mr. Davies is on vacation. Professor Jacob was sent to Dallas in anticipation of the RNC.

So basically right now, I don't know. I think it's a daily wire employee Jack with his saxophone just like pushing random mutton's in the control room. Anyway, they picked the comment from Trevisar who says, you know, I forget sometimes that other people have lives and jobs outside of my four-day weekend. What a treat to start off my Monday. Thank you, Michael. Oh, the fact that I did, you know, I love doing the show. I feel very blessed that I get to do a job that I really enjoy. And because not everyone gets to do that. And at different points in my like, I've done jobs that I don't really enjoy that much. And so I figure, for Labor Day, I know the studio's closed, I don't care. If my job is saying what I think about politics and selling cigars, delicious Mayflower cigars available at a brick and mortar near you, if those are my jobs, I'm going to do them,

even on the day off. Okay. The libs are once again celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Here is some lady on TikTok. Heather Second Chance, it's a kind of older woman. It says getting my playlist of songs that remind me of Charlie, ready for the Kirk of a party. And she is very unfortunately jiggling on a dock.

She's jiggling her whole body on a dock. And by the way, she's not 21 years old. I guess it would be preferable. And now she's, as she's dancing, she's joking about a gun shooting through the neck. But this is

the demo, man. This is, again, I don't, you know, I guess the theme of today's shows I don't want to stereotype. I don't want to make two broad sweepers. statements about men and women. But this is that woman. A lady never tells her age, but this woman's in her 40s or 50s. She's wearing sunglasses, but one can intuit the SSRIs. You know, one in five American women is on those kinds of drugs. One in four American women is on psych drugs more generally. And that involves emotional blunting. It's a little bit of a chicken or the egg,

because you can't figure out if the ladies were nuts before they took the drugs or if the drugs made of more nuts or if it's like an auriboros and it just keeps going. But regardless, there are lots of reasons to believe this woman is a sociopath, not the least of which is she's dancing and joking about the murder of an innocent man who only ever tried to talk it out with his political opponents, a young husband and father, and she's joking and dancing about his death. And the reason I keep mentioning her appearance and her age is because it would be better if she were a 19-year-old orange-haired, septum-piercing, crazy young chick. looking for attention. It would be better because she might grow out of that. Because young people do

stupid things. That's one of the defining features of being a young person. This woman's like 50. She's got gray hair. She has the body of a 50 year old. And she's doing that. This was the second scandal. This was the aftershock of the murder of Charlie a year ago. The fact that a leftist would murder a conservative speaker on campus really was not that shocking because they had been trying to do it for 10 years to like all of us. Okay. Any conservative who spoke on campuses for the previous 10 years, any conservative with any kind of profile had some run in with this with the increasingly violent protesters, with attacks, with being chased down the hall, with having people throw stuff. We all knew with, and they were open about wanting to harm us. So the fact that,

that one of them succeeded at killing the most important one of us at the highest level is, I guess it was shocking in degree, but it wasn't shocking in kind. It wasn't shocking that it happened. I think the real aftershock, the thing that really surprised a lot of people, was that lady. Because that lady sits next to you at work, and that lady was happy that Charlie was murdered, which meant that that lady would be happy if you were murdered for your belief that taxes should be a little lower, and we probably should close up that border and maybe we shouldn't expose kindergartners to pornography. For those beliefs

maybe your belief that we shouldn't murder children in the womb. For those beliefs, the lady who says next to you at work was fantasizing about slitting your throat or shooting you in the neck. And a year later, they're still doing it. I spoke yesterday. I was on a podcast with Laura Trump and Mary Margaret Olahan. There are a lot of shows that are

reflecting on one year since Charlie was killed. I'm going to be speaking. They're going to do a memorial event at the campus at which Charlie was murdered, Utah. And I'm going to go out to that. TPSI asked if I would come out to that. I was very honored to be invited. And I'll be there on Thursday. So I'll give my fuller recollections and thoughts about Charlie's murder then. I won't do it here. But something we talked about last night on the show that I'll mention here just briefly is. politically speaking, basically everything has gotten worse since Charlie was murdered, because Charlie was murdered. The left scored a big victory by murdering Charlie Kirk, not for their own souls, not in the long run, perhaps, but in the short run, they certainly did. And we don't want to admit that, and we want to pretend that, you know, we're going to be even stronger now.

And that's what we said right after Charlie was murdered. And I always knew that was a cope, and I always knew it wasn't going to happen. Assassinations work, that's why people do them. and a year later, the right is at each other's throats over crazy conspiracy stuff, over factional infighting, ideological infighting, over non-traversies, like this welfare reform policy coming out of the white, it's a very modest policy that says, hey, maybe we should take some of the pre-existing money and support stay-at-home mothers rather than just single-parenthood. I don't know.

Like, to me, that's a pretty minor political fight, but we're at each other's throats over everything. And Charlie was this guy who could maintain the coalition. Charlie, that was his chief contribution to politics. He had others as well, but that was his chief contribution, and he was the best at it. A year later, the right is in a very bad spot because of Charlie's murder. And the left is unified. Now, the one hope is that the left is so crazy, is so repulsive. of pushing this radicalism.

The chick who sits next to you at work, who's dancing and joking about Charlie being shot through the neck, all the way up to Abdul al-Sayyad and Mamdani giving a 9-11 commemorative pen to an al-Qaeda lawyer and all the way. The whole left going in on castrating the little kids and flooding the country with illegals and rapists and murderers. You'd like to hope that the left is so repulsive that we won't get totally blown out of the water in 26 and 28.

But that is right now probably the best thing the right has going for it. You're getting some wins out of the Trump administration, which I mentioned at the top of the show. But a year after the murder of Charlie, the right is substantially weaker. And the left has not learned any lesson. In fact, the only lesson that the left learned was that assassination's work and maybe they should keep it up. Which is why they have elevated Hassan Piker, not just weirdos on the internet, but the candidates, Abdul al-Sahed and Mamdani and AOC, they have elevated Asam Piker. It's not even just them. The New York Times has elevated Asan Piker. The entire American Left has elevated a guy who said, yeah, we need to keep killing Republicans for being Republican.

That's where the left is at a year later. Not a good situation. Speaking of the Left celebrating violence, I mentioned it a couple times in the show today, we're approaching the 25th anniversary of 9-11. I am a New Yorker. I was in New York on September 11th. I had schoolmates who lost parents. My mother saw the tower fall from the city when she was commuting into. I grew up in the suburbs. She was commuting into work. And she saw the tower fall. I mean, this is a very viscerally felt experience for New Yorkers especially, but for all Americans. And the phrase that emerged out of 9-11 was never forget. Never forget. And we We forgot. Not to be a doomer because I was pretty chipper at the top of the show with all these policy wins, but we forgot. We elected this radical and Muslim to be the mayor of New York for the 25th anniversary. And as he's signing the proclamation to commemorate 9-11, Mom Dani hands the pen to an al-Qaeda lawyer. There you have it. So what's crazy about this, we have reporting here from the New York Post on this. What's crazy about Mamdani handing the pen is, whenever politicians sign, proclamations or bills into law. They have these pens and they hand out the pens as mementos from this event. They're all sorts of people behind. And there are a bunch of people behind Mamdani here. So he turns to the police commissioner and he hands her the pen. But he doesn't hand her the pen for herself. He hands her the pen and asks her to pass it to the guy next to her

who was a lawyer for Al Qaeda. So he hands it to Jessica Tisch, whispers to her, can you pass this? And she hands it to Mamdani's chief counsel. Ramsey Qasem, who snuck into that press conference. It's not even totally clear why he's there. He gets into the press conference and he gets the pen. Ramsey Qasem was a lawyer for the al-Qaeda operative, Ahmed al-Darby.

This is too many coincidences just to be accidental. He's not even passing this out. And here's to one and here's to the other. pens. No, no, no. He says, if anyone's going to get it, it should be the police commissioner. He says, no, no, you pass it to the Al Qaeda lawyer. This is making a mockery of 9-11. This is confirming the worst fears that New Yorkers especially, but that Americans generally had about so around Mamdani. On the 25th anniversary of 9-11, he is downplaying. He's mocking 9-11. You see this around the country. It's not just Mamdani.

Abdul al-Sayat, his comments on 9-11 have been repulsive. He says, oh, yes, I, I, you know, mourn the deaths of 3,000 people that day. The deaths? This is like when people talk about the death of Charlie Kirk, as if Charlie Kirk had a heart attack, as if Charlie Kirk got cancer. He didn't. He was murdered by a leftist. Don't tell me about the death of Charlie Kirk. Tell me about the murder at the hands of the leftist political radicals. Don't tell me about the deaths of 3,000 people on 9-11, like a piano fell out of the sky in Looney Tunes. an airplane was flown out of the sky by Muslim terrorists. That's what happened. And we have to grapple with that, and we probably shouldn't be rewarding al-Qaeda lawyers. The fact that Mamdani would do such a thing tells you everything he thinks about New Yorkers and 9-11. Okay, I want to get to.

James Talariko is doubling down on his Islamophilia. Milo Yanopoulos, the right-wing provocateur, who was just, oddly enough, deported as an illegal alien. This is one of the big Trump supporters from 2016. Then he kind of turned on Trump. Now he's gotten deported. Apparently, he was here illegally. But now Milo, who was this sort of flamboyantly,

homosexual, secular guy. Then he had this big conversion to Catholicism. But now he's posting these pictures as a Muslim in the UK. Went in Rome, I guess, do as the Romans do. Any case, I want to get to all those stories, but we're out of time. So I'm a real tease. We'll have to get to it tomorrow.

All of these Islam stories, though, do remind us. that we have a movie coming out. It's called Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels. Every significant movement in history has started with protesting. You're not traitor. Uncle Tom. This is our generation's civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should have figured as polarizing as Clay Saunders

can even be allowed on campus? Can you hear me okay? Saunders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Friedman. This is a decision I cannot fight. Islam will conquer the West. Islam al-a-a-u-a-u. Are we paying attention? They've taken over the building.

They're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. Mohammed is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those S-O-Bs into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go.

leap product. Start your wild and listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling. The timing seems about right, especially as we've all forgotten. So anyway, you have to subscribe to the Daily Wire to watch Run Hyde Fight Infidels, which however unhinged you think it's going to be, it's about a billion times more than that. Like a lot of people are really, really going to enjoy it and probably find it very cathartic. So go check it out at Daily Wire.

You have to be a member. today's Tehee Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member use code, Knowles Canada, WLA, so check out for two months free on all annual plans.