Ep. 1668 - Libs Try to IMPEACH Trump After Just 16 Days

Trading shouldn't have barriers. When Robinhood started, it was built to make trading more

accessible. Now, Robinhood offers more sophisticated trading tools.
Experience the future of trading on

Robinhood Legend, the all-new desktop platform that harnesses intuitive design to deliver a

seamless experience for traders. Free to use with a Robinhood account.
The future of trading is fast,

powerful, and precise. Experience it now on Robinhood Legend.
Sign up today. Investing is

risky. Robinhood Financial LLC member SIPC is a registered broker dealer.
Other fees may apply. Everyone knew men and women's sports was insane.
The Daily Wire actually did something about it. First, we made Lady Ballers, the most triggering comedy of the decade.
Yesterday, President Trump signed an order keeping men out of women's sports. We're winning because of you.
Become a member at dailywire.com slash subscribe and make Lady Ballers your first watch. 16 days.
It took 16 days from the inauguration for Democrats to start trying to impeach President Trump. Here is Al Green, the Democrat congressman, not the singer, with the rationale.
And still I rise, Mr. Speaker.
And I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with a to whom

it may concern message. Yeah, I'm going to stop him right there.
In my experience,

most messages are addressed to people that they may concern. It's not the strongest start to an

oration, not the indication of the tightest logic in the world. Let's see if it improves.
To whom it may concern, ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not a joke, especially when it emanates from the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, when he has the ability to perfect what he says, ethnic cleansing in Gaza is no joke, and the Prime Minister of Israel should be ashamed, I rise to announce that the movement to impeach the President has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.
I'm going to stop him again. I don't think that is quite the constitutional standard.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer or anything, but I remember some language about high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis for impeaching a president. I don't remember reading anywhere in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers about the dastardly deeds proposed segment of Article 2, Section 4, anything like that.
Congressman Greene concludes. I also rise to say that the impeachment movement is going to be a grass-up movement, not a top-down.
The people have got to move forward. The people have to demand it.
And when the people demand it, it will be done. Grass-up.
What is grass? I think that is a combination of bottom up and grassroots, I think. So let's let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's got to be a grassroots movement, not a top down movement that it turns out is the most devastating blow to the Democrats impeachment efforts because Elon Musk and Doge have just revealed that just about the entire

American left is astroturfed and artificially sustained by your taxpayer dollars through

programs that the actual grassroots American people just voted to destroy. I'm Michael Knowles.

This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show.
A Japan Airlines plane just ran into the tail of a Delta plane. It didn't even run.
It like

slowly meandered into the tail of a Delta plane. What is going on on our tarmacs?

Have you checked lately to see if your home's title is still in your name?

With one forged document, scammers can steal your home's title and its equity.

But now you can protect yourself from this crime. Home title locks, million dollar triple lock

protection gives 24-7 title monitoring, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud does happen, they'll spend up to a million dollars to fix fraud and restore your title. Get a free title history report and access your personal title expert, a $250 value, when you sign up at hometitlelock.com and use promo code DAILYWIRE.
That's HomeTitleLock.com, promo code DailyWire. Beautiful discovery by Elon Musk and Doge and the broader Trump administration that is poking around the federal government and figuring out where are we spending all this money.
Caroline Levitt, White House Press Secretary today, with the bombshell revelation that the U.S.

government is funding the establishment news media outlets, the supposedly independent press that's speaking truth to power. They're actually funding them with your taxpayer dollars, which then builds them up and further entrenches them as the papers of record, thereby further justifying taxpayer money, creating

this. builds them up and further entrenches them as the papers of record, thereby further justifying taxpayer money, creating this feedback loop.
So upon coming out here to the briefing room, I was made aware of the funding from USAID to media outlets, including Politico, who I know has a seat in this room. And I can confirm that the more than eight million taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the American taxpayer's dime will no longer be happening.
The Doge team is working on canceling those payments now. Again, this is a whole of government effort to ensure that we are going line by line when it comes to the federal government's books.
And this president and his team are making decisions across the board on, do these receipts serve the interests of the American people? Is this a good use of the American taxpayers' money? If it is not, that funding will no longer be sent abroad, and American taxpayers will see significant savings because of that effort. We on the right often refer to the leftist establishment news outlets as state media.
We compare them to Pravda in the Soviet Union or state TV in North Korea or something. However, what we are finding out now is they're literally state media.
We have actual state media in America, like NPR, National Public

Radio, is publicly funded. That's the government funding a news outlet.
The news outlet pushes the priorities of the libs, the elite liberals who generally control our government. So you already see that feedback loop.
But here we're also talking about ostensibly private news outlets, Places like Politico and perhaps others.

Now, the argument for the government paying these news outlets is that they're the papers of record and they provide good information. Some of them do provide some interesting information amid all the left-wing opinion.
Some of them have some worthwhile information. Okay, so the argument is these are the papers of record, and therefore, we, the government, should subscribe to them so that the government workers can have access to that information.
But isn't this a little bit of a chicken-and-the-egg situation here? How much of their establishment credibility, how much of their authority comes from the fact that they are backed up by the state. And so, yeah, they become the paper of record because the government's spending a ton of money on them every year, subsidizing the subscriptions.
Some people who are going to defend Politico in this case are going to say, look, Politico has a lot of different businesses. Some of it is left-wing opinion.
Some of it is just nuts and bolts, beltway kind of reporting. And so subscriptions to Politico Pro are totally different from some stupid opinion column on the politico.com website.
Well, yes and no, money is fungible. Perhaps it is the case that the money, your money, your taxpayer dollars, they're coming from the government, are being used to just float the whole company.
And then it's floating the whole company, and then the company can afford to spend money on its stupid opinion programming that is left-wing and that you probably don't agree with. Can you at least get a login, you the American taxpayer? Can you at least get a login to Politico? I don't know that you would want one.
It's not just Politico. I don't mean to just pick on political.
I don't mean to just pick on the news outlets. To me, the clearest example of this, from Elon poking around in USAID and all this federal funding, is your taxpayer dollars get sucked up by the IRS.
The IRS distributes it to the federal government. The federal government distributes it to USAID.
USAID funds the Tides Center, a left-wing institution. The Tides Center then funds BLM.
BLM then goes, burns down your city, maybe robs or kills you, certainly shakes down businesses and individuals all around the country, takes all of that kind of money and demands that the politicians advance more left-wing priorities. And then what happens? That same government that has now been pressured by BLM to push even further to the left, that same government takes more of your money and gives it to the Tide Center, which gives it to BLM, which riots, which forces the government to move even further to the left.
And the whole thing is just artificial. The whole thing is astroturfed.
It is so funny that Al Green, when he is promoting his impeachment efforts against Trump 16 days in, wow, frankly, I thought they would have done it sooner. It's so funny that he says, this has to be a grassroots movement.
Man, we had a grassroots movement back in November. It was called the election.
And in that grassroots movement, most people voted for Trump. And nobody can accuse the Trump election of being some astroturfed feedback loop.
For goodness sakes, the man had every institutional disadvantage. He had the government trying to imprison him.
He had leftist activists and the government in some cases trying to kick him off of the ballot. He had the left-wing government justifying his assassination, which almost occurred twice, and he still won.
And he won with huge swaths of every voting group. If there was ever a grassroots election in American politics, it was 2024 electing Donald Trump.
And now we're beginning to see, okay, well, hold on here. How does the American left really operate? Chuck Schumer says, okay, Trump got a few more votes than the other guy.
Well, no, it's not really. It was a pretty clear victory.
But furthermore, the whole left was so astroturfed. It's been propelled by this well-oiled patronage machine.
This is why I think Elon and Trump are so justified in just killing USAID. It's not because in principle, USAID can't be used for good things.
It's not because America shouldn't promote influence around the world. It should.
It's because, as Elon said, USA ID, this patronage system for liberals within the government, it's not just an apple with a worm in it. It's all worms.
It's all, it's just a big ball of worms. Okay.
And so you got it. You have to scrap that and you have to create a new, a new kind of system.
It's not that we don't want there to be any influence. It's not that we don't want the government to incentivize any behaviors.
We certainly do. It's that we need something new.
We're about to embark on a major political and social experiment.

So we can test my hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that the American left is astroturfed, period.

And we're about to test that because we're about to cut off the funding. So if the American left continues to thrive over the next few years, if the resistance really grows, okay, all right, I guess I was wrong.
But if it doesn't, if you actually see the left continue to deflate as it is deflated, I mean, this impeachment effort by Al Green was ranting and raving about dastardly deeds proposed to an empty room in Congress, I think is a great image of the present American left. If the left just continues to shrink and deflate, then we were right.
This whole thing was a psyop. This whole thing was just a big charade, a big show, and it's a show that you paid for.
You paid for those tickets, even if you didn't want to take your seat. There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles. This country was founded on freedom, I'm told.
I'm reliably informed this freedom meant that we could separate from a country that forced us to buy overpriced tea. You know what what we did, we dumped their tea into the ocean.
Then they tried to blockade us. How'd that work out for them? Not too well.
Well, now's the time to throw your overpriced big wireless contract overboard too. That was a journey that we just went on to get to this excellent cell phone company, PureTalk.
You do not need to pay $100 a month just to get a free phone. Not all that free, is it? Pure Talk, my cell phone company, says no to inflated prices.
Their customer service is second to none. It's just absolutely fabulous.
With a qualifying plan of just $45 a month, you can choose an iPhone 14 or a Samsung Galaxy for $0. And yes, this is for premium service.
Unlimited talk, text, 25 gigs of data, and mobile hotspot for a fraction of the price of the big guys, all on America's most dependable 5G network. Get your iPhone 14 or Samsung Galaxy for $0 by visiting puretalk.com slash Knowles Canada WLS today.
Switching is easy. puretalk.com slash Knowles Canada WLS to claim your new iPhone or Galaxy with qualifying purchase from America's wireless company, Pure Talk.
Some other abuses in USAID. White House Rapid Response posted this one yesterday.
It says, we haven't even scratched the surface of the waste fraud and abuse within USAID. And here are some examples.
One and a half million for advancing DEI in Serbia's workplaces. That's one of those kitchen table issues, right? You're sitting around with your family saying, boy, these bills are piling up.
I don't know how we're going to pay for groceries this week. Johnny's medical treatment, oh, that's going to be tough.
The school supplies. And of course, we have to set aside money for DEI in Serbia's workplaces.
Of course, it's top of mind. $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala.
Oh yeah, that's important because while many Guatemalans are fleeing to America because they don't have any food there, the ones who are staying really, really worried about weird sex stuff. That's odd.
Okay, so $2 million for that. $6 million for tourism in Egypt.

They have the pyramids.

What do we need to fund their tourism for?

Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to Al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria.

We won't send meals to Americans

who still can't rebuild in North Carolina

after the hurricane.

They'll get $700 from Kamala Harris. But Al-Qaeda, well, they're getting hundreds of thousands of meals.
They're getting only the best shawarma available to them. Production of opium, which is, of course, the primary ingredient in heroin in Afghanistan.
We are paying to produce heroin. Cool.
A million bucks to help disabled people in Tajikistan to become climate leaders. Good, good.
That's good. Not just to help the disabled people and not just the people in Tajikistan, but specifically to help them become climate leaders.
I'm sure that's top of their mind, just as it's top of your mind. A million dollars to a Hamas-linked charity.
Not sure how charitable that group is. $15 million for contraceptives and condoms in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
It's an effective strategy to focus on how silly this is, how wasteful this is, how abusive this is. The amount of spending here is not particularly consequential.
You're going to hear this from the libs, and candidly, I'm going to admit that they've got a little bit of a point. Now, on the one hand, you've got to save pennies to spend dollars, so every dollar counts.
But on the other hand, when the libs say, these amounts of money compared to the whole federal budget are not that consequential, they're actually right about that. That's true.
It's not so much the amounts of money. It's what we're spending the money on.
The fact that this money uniformly is being used to advance leftism around the world. We are using our dollars, not a lot of money to us, a lot of money to these people, to force them to say, hey, if you want to live, if you want medical treatments, if you want education, if you want food, you need to promote LGBTism.
You need to trans people. You need workplace DEI.
You need to believe in the climate religion. That's the problem.
That's the big problem. Because while it is not a ton of money for us, it is a significant amount of money for all of these other people, and they are going to respond to that incentive by advancing leftism around the world.
And when they advance leftism around the world, it helps to advance leftism at home. That's part of that feedback loop too.
You give the money to USAID. It's supposed to go overseas.
It goes to the Tide Center. It comes back to America.
It funds BLM. BLM burns down your city.
Says, you better move left or we're going to kill you. And then the country moves to the left and they keep going.
Same thing. Look at all these advances overseas.
We're advancing transgenderism in Kandahar. All right.
Let's go. The whole world is moving to the left.
We're all in agreement on trans and climate change. And America, you better get on track too.
Now, speaking of the Middle East and speaking of rapid responses from the White House, the biggest news story of the week and probably for the next several weeks is going to be Trump's news conference with Bibi Netanyahu, during which he said, we are taking over Gaza, we will own it, and we're going to build it up. And it's going to be beautiful.
This was a claim that not only took Americans by surprise and Arab leaders by surprise, I think it took Bibi Netanyahu by surprise. I think if you look at Netanyahu, when Trump says, we're going to take it over, we're going to own it.
So he kind of looks, he starts shifting uncomfortably. He's looking out at the reporters.
Are you guys hearing this? I mean, I love Trump. He's my ally.
I love him. I need this guy on my side, but what? Well, the White House, taking a lot of questions on that and wants to be clear, here is Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt, this does not mean that we're sending American troops to Gaza.
In the Middle East, this plan seems like it could ultimately involve all of those things. Can you explain this reversal and how building and owning Gaza squares with America first foreign policy? I would reject the premise of your question that this forces the United States to be entangled in conflicts abroad.
The president has not committed to putting boots on the ground in Gaza. He has also said that the United States is not going to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza.
His administration is going to work with our partners in the region to reconstruct this region. And let me just take a step back here because this is an out-of-the-box idea that's who president trump

is that's why the american people elected him and his goal is lasting peace in the middle east for all people in the region and as i said in my opening remarks we've had the same people pushing the same solutions to this problem for decades and it's been very made very clear to the president that the United States needs to be involved

in this rebuilding effort

to ensure... problem for decades.
And it's been made very clear to the president that the United States

needs to be involved in this rebuilding effort to ensure stability in the region for all people. But that does not mean boots on the ground in Gaza.
It does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort. It means Donald Trump, who is the best dealmaker on the planet, is going to strike a deal with our partners in the region.
Okay, so this was basically my take yesterday on it.

And glad to see that my perception of things was right. Some other people also intuited that this is what Trump meant.
Though there were many on the left and many on the right who were pulling their hair out. Oh no, what is Trump saying? He's going to send Marines over to the gods.
Oh no, this is the worst thing ever he's betraying. I said, calm down, calm down.
Hey. Even just from what Trump said.
You remember, Trump's saying he's going to send Marines over to the gods. Oh no, this is the worst thing ever he's betraying.
I said, calm down, calm down. Hey, even just from what Trump said, you remember Trump sitting there, he said, and we're going to rebuild it and someone else is going to pay to rebuild it.
And I said, okay, well, if someone else is going to pay to rebuild it, that means that Trump is not proposing sending the Marines over because the Marines cost money. That means we're paying to rebuild it.
So what he's saying is we're going to take it over, we're going to own it, we're going to be exerting authority here. But it was obviously a negotiation tactic to off-foot not only the Arab leaders in the region, I think to off-foot Netanyahu a little bit too.
I think to just shake up the whole conversation, talk past the sale, and see where we're going to land. But what does this mean for the even greater charge? The charge that Al Green and the Democrats are now saying is worthy of impeachment, namely that Trump is going to displace the Gazans.
He says the Gazans

are not going to be allowed back. They're out of here.
This is ethnic cleansing, according to Trump's critics and according to some of Trump supporters, actually. And so what does that mean? Is Trump actually just booting out all the Gazans? We will get to the White House's answer in one moment.
First, I want to tell you about the yes or no game. You know about the yes or no game.
go to dailywire.com slash shop

and you can get your game

your own home version of the greatest show, the greatest game show on the internet. Mr.
Davies, I have a card here in my hand. Should we show the people how to play the game? I think we shall.
I think we should also comment in the comments there as Yes or No to see if they know you better than me. Okay.
Comment here. Let me know what you think my answer is.
I would kill baby Hitler. Professor Jacob picked this prompt.
I've not seen it. I would kill baby Hitler.
Okay. I don't think you would.
I think you would say no. You're calling me a Nazi? No, I would not kill baby Hitler.
I'm calling you a Catholic. Why would I kill baby Hitler? He's a little baby.
He hadn't done anything. He hadn't done the beer hole putch at five months old.
He's an innocent little baby. I'm not some consequentialist.
I'm not some utilitarian. I'm a man with a traditional understanding of ethics, and it wrong to kill little babies the libs would not only kill baby Hitler they'd kill as many babies as they could as they found convenient did you get it right? I'm talking to you and not you Mr.
Dave I know you got it right did everyone else get it right? well I hope that you did and even if you didn't go to dailywire.com slash shop, get the yes or no game. You can also check out my yes or no episode with Tim Poole.
The average 4B woman oath will last as long as Tim's cancellation of IRL. Wow.
To be fair, it was never an actual cancellation. It wasn't a full-on, it was a raising the prospect of canceling.

Yeah.

But for the 4B women, these women are just sad and angry about other stuff.

That's one way to put it.

I'd say histrionic.

Yeah.

Go watch the Is Your No Game, Michael Knowles' YouTube channel, and you can get it at dailywire.com slash yacht. Is Trump going to ethnically cleanse the Gazans? Here's what the White House says.
Can you confirm that under the president's plans for Gaza, any and all Palestinians who want to stay in Gaza on their land will be allowed to do so. I can confirm that the president is committed to rebuilding Gaza and to temporarily relocating those who are there because as I've showed you repeatedly, it is a demolition site.
There is no running water. There is no electricity.
The president wants these individuals to live in peace. Okay, so you see that word that the press secretary added in there, temporarily.
Now, it seemed as though what President Trump was suggesting is they were going to be gone permanently. It's not that we're going to build nice places for them.
They're not going to want to go back because the places we're going to build are so nice. The White House, though, is walking that back a little bit, saying temporarily they'll be out because there's no place for them to live it's all rubble but we'll rebuild it and then maybe they can come back okay uh in this case i am quite glad to say i told you so i told you i said don't he's not about to send in the 101st airborne there's no evidence that he he wants to engage in nation building in Iraq, Syria, or Gaza, for that matter.

Okay, this is not necessarily Bush 2.0. But on the question of the ethnic cleansing, this is going to be a thornier issue to solve, because I've gotten in a great deal of trouble, but I don't care, for making the point from the beginning, when this question of ethnic cleansing comes up that the rational strategic objective of both belligerents in this conflict is the ethnic cleansing of the other.
Israel doesn't say that, but it would seem implicit to me. And I think the more clear-minded Israeli strategists understand that to be the case.
And from the Palestinian side, the Palestinians openly state that the ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Israel is their goal. From the river to the sea, Israel will be free.
So that's just a fact. They're talking about moving popular, not necessarily genocide, not necessarily killing everybody.
If you listen to the Palestinian side, they're a little more open about that. But moving people out of certain areas, which has happened many, many times.
It happened after World War II. Alan Dershowitz was making this point recently.
It happened after World War II with ethnic Germans out of conquered territories. It happened with Muslims and Hindus during the partition of India.
It happens, okay? And it's a little unclear from international law just how condemned that all—genocide, obviously, is totally prohibited. But the forced movement of peoples, it's ugly, it's nasty, people don't like it, they certainly don't want to talk about it.
But it has happened multiple times since World War II. So not even in the way distant past.

And if Israel has concluded, if the state of Israel has concluded that the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza is an unacceptable security risk. Because the moment that the Palestinian Arabs get a state in 2005 or a quasi-state, they have an election and they elect Hamas.
they say that's an unacceptable security risk because they're just going to keep doing the October 7th attacks, as they've repeatedly said. What are they supposed to do? And if the Palestinian Arabs say, we simply will not accept the existence of the state of Israel and we're just not going to come to the negotiating table.
Okay. All right.
What do you expect, man? I don't know. Don't attack me for being the messenger of what is obviously the rational strategic objective of both sides here.
Now, speaking of war, remember Zelensky? Vladimir Zelensky is the leader of Ukraine. He's the guy who's always asking us for money, and then we give him a lot of money, and then he whines that we're not giving him enough money.
He's like a kid on Christmas. You give him 15 Christmas presents.
He says, but I want more. I want more.
Give me more. It drives me nuts.
It's like a bum on the street. I remember this when I was a kid in the Bronx.
My mother, we didn't have a lot of money. My mother gave a bum a dollar because he asked her.
And then the bum said, hey, cool, can I have more? She says, she goes, look at my car. You see the car I'm driving? That's a 15-year-old car.
Give me my money back.

That's how I feel with Zelensky.

Anyway, Zelensky, true to form,

just appeared on Piers Morgan's show.

That's one thing that Zelensky and I have in common, I suppose.

Zelensky goes on Piers Morgan's show

and demands that America give him a nuclear weapon.

Which support package?

Which missiles? Will we be given nuclear weapons? Then let them give us nuclear weapons. Will they give us the missiles in the quantities that we can stop Russia? And I'm not sure of that, but I think it would would help.
Otherwise what missiles can stop Russia's nuclear missiles? That is a rhetoric question. So let's do it the following way.
Give us back nuclear arms. Give us missile systems.
Partners, help us finance the one million army. Move your contingent on the parts of our state where we want the stability of the situation.

Yeah, no thanks.

I don't think so.

I don't think we're going to give you nuclear weapons.

You lunatic.

Are you kidding me?

Notice what he says.

He says, give us back nuclear weapons.

What does it mean give us back nuclear weapons?

What it means is after the breakup of the Soviet Union, there were nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And Ukraine argues that because we all made Ukraine give up those nuclear weapons, it's now our responsibility to assure their security.
And if they had those nuclear weapons, they'd be totally safe. Now, it's a little bit of a weak argument because they did have nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but those were Russian weapons.
Those were Soviet weapons. I don't think Ukraine had the launch codes.
Ukraine did not really have control over these weapons. They weren't that useful to Ukraine.
But they were there, and they lost them. And they say that Ukraine gave up its Cold War nuclear arsenal in the 90s for nothing and would seek nuclear bombs again.
No, they didn't give it up for nothing. It's that they were basically good for nothing and we made them.
So no, not a chance. We're not doing that.
I get Zelensky's argument. If I were Zelensky, I would make the same argument.
There's a kind of logic to it, but no. We don't want to give this guy another greenback, much less a nuclear weapon.
So what's he doing here? Well, is he talking past the sale? Is he learning a lesson from President Trump and he's demanding a nuclear weapon so that we'll give him more conventional weapons? Maybe. What this means, though, if you take Zelensky's argument for face value, he's saying, look, without a nuclear weapon, we can't beat the Russians.
Okay, I guess it means you can't beat the Russians. Because the cost of giving a nuclear weapon to Ukraine is simply too high.
I'm happy to lose Donetsk or whatever. Okay, I'm happy to little territory of Ukraine.
I understand the American argument for continuing the war in the Ukraine. And I think actually some conservatives fail to appreciate the American argument.
The American argument, the generally liberal kind of neocon American argument for continuing to fund the war in Ukraine is that the war in Ukraine kills a lot of Russian soldiers. That's the real argument.
It's not about freedom. It's not about democracy.
What democracy in Ukraine? They haven't had an election in how many years now? The argument, the actual strategic American argument for continuing the war in Ukraine is that it is a cheap way. It doesn't require American soldiers.
It doesn't require much American effort. It's a relatively expensive way to slaughter a lot of men in the Russian army.
That's it. And the argument is Russia is a geopolitical adversary.
Russia's got nuclear missiles pointed at the United States. So if we can kill a bunch of their military, great.
That's the argument. You might find that argument to be repugnant.
You might find that argument to violate conditions of just war. But that's the argument.
And there is a logic to it. I do kind of get it.
But if you don't want Ukraine to just continue to be a meat grinder for moral reasons, philosophical reasons, or if you believe what Zelensky is saying, which is that, well, even if it does continue to be a meat grinder, we're running out of meat. Okay, pretty soon this war is, we're going to lose if we don't have a nuclear weapon.
Okay, then what does that mean? That means that we need a negotiated peace. Or the U.S.
just continues to arm Ukraine to the hilt and we keep just chopping up Russians as Putin sends them into Ukraine. Okay, it could be that.
But at the end of the road, at the logical end of that, whenever that may be, two weeks from now, two years from now, two decades from now, there will have to be a negotiated peace. Unless you want to take, believe Zelensky when he says that, unless you want to give Ukraine a nuclear weapon, which I don't, there will be a negotiated peace.
Now, speaking of disparities of strength, men in women's sports, this preposterous social fad that has seriously harmed women, concussed women, cracked women's skulls, I mean, to say nothing of stealing some 900 trophies from women, stealing scholarships from women. That is coming to an end thanks to an executive order from President Trump, which I'll just point out before we get to the story is another big win for Daily Wire.
Everyone agreed that men and women's sports was unfair and dangerous, but DW took action. We made and released Lady Ballers, among other activities.
We also made and released Lady Ballers, written, directed, and starring Jeremy Boring, featuring the entire Daily Wire cast like you've never seen them before. Why a comedy? Because sometimes the only way to make people listen is to make them laugh.
It worked. Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order to finally start keeping men out of women's sports.
First, Lady Ballers triggered the libs, then it triggered policy. Watch the movie that triggered the libs, then triggered a landmark new policy protecting women and girls.
Lady Ballers streaming now exclusively on Daily Wire. Plus, that commercial over, I want to get to my favorite comment yesterday, the drummer's workshop, Norm's Music.
Who said, man, he's got so many good comments because I don't, as I've mentioned before, I don't look at who sends the comment. I just pick my favorite one.

And he just consistently has the good stuff for years.

He says, developing a Middle East Riviera would be easier than obtaining permits

to rebuild a house in California.

That's true.

That's just a fact.

It's just a fact.

Overcoming thousands of years

of ethnic blood and soil conflict,

to say nothing of religious conflict,

actually probably would be

easier than trying to lay some concrete in Malibu right now. I agree.
I agree with that. President Trump, with a stroke of a pen, ends the farce of men beating up women in sports.
In a few moments, I'll sign a historic executive order to ban men from competing in women's sports. It's about time.
My administration will not stand by and watch men beat and batter female athletes. From now on, women's sports will be only for women.
In recent years, the radical left has waged an all-out campaign to erase the very concept of biological sex and replace it with a militant transgender ideology. We're honored to be joined today by many incredible advocates for women's sports, including the brave swimmer at the forefront of this battle, and Riley Gaines is a person that I've been watching.
In my action this afternoon we're putting every school receiving taxpayer dollars on notice that if you let men take over women's sports teams or invade your locker rooms you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding. There will be no federal funding.
With this executive order the war on women's sports is over. We are restoring sanity and common sense, defending the rights and safety and pride of the American people.
This is great. All good stuff.
Awesome. Trump, greatest president of my lifetime.
Love it. I also love, it's very Trumpy, even this announcement.
Because Trump, every president, when he signs an executive order like this, he brings in the people who might be affected. If you sign the Disability Act, you're going to have a lot of disabled people around you.
If you sign the Black People Act of 2025, you're going to have a lot of black people. If you sign whatever it is, you're just going to have the people of that group.
And so in this case, you're talking about women and girls especially. But Trump doesn't just have the usual half dozen or so members of the group behind him.
He has dozens. It's always got to be bigger, flashier with Trump.
So he's got all of these. And he even, as he was saying, he says, come on in here.
Secret Service doesn't want you to come close. But if we're afraid of these people, we got problems.
And they all come close. And the objects just look so great.
Okay, so now what? Why was it wrong for men to play in women's sports? Well, he says, because we don't want to see men beating up women. Right.
So I guess we need to get women out of military combat, don't we, if we're going to be consistent? I agree. Part of the reason I want men in women's sports is I don't want to see a man beat up a woman.
Well, if I don't want to see a man beat up a woman in a boxing ring, I definitely don't want to see a man beat up a woman in Afghanistan or shoot her. Ideas have a logic to them, and they have a momentum to them.
If it's wrong for men to play in women's sports, there are going to be a lot of implications of that for all other sorts of areas in public life. Maybe we're talking about women in military combat.
Maybe we're talking about transgenderism more broadly. Why were the men in women's sports? Well, because they had bought into a transgender ideology that says a man can become a woman.
So if we're now concluding that that is wrong, then I guess that the premise is wrong, the premise of transgenderism. But if the premise of transgenderism is wrong, it can't just be wrong for little kids.
It's got to be wrong for everyone because it's about human nature. So I guess not only are we going to eradicate transgenderism from the 11th grade girls volleyball team, that means we need to eradicate transgenderism from public life entirely, the whole preposterous ideology at every level.
If transgenderism is wrong, that means that there really are distinctions between men and women. If there really are distinctions between men and women and one can't become the other and those distinctions are really meaningful, then maybe we need to rethink that redefinition of marriage thing.
Because that redefinition of marriage is predicated on the logic of transgenderism, the notion that the sexes are basically indistinguishable and indiscernible. Ooh, wow.
Okay, now we're really digging ourselves out of whatever hole we've been in, because now we're going all the way back to 2015, which is when we redefined marriage at the level of the Supreme Court. But just based on what Trump said yesterday, if we follow that logic to its conclusion, the logic of redefining marriage isn't going to hold up.
And if the logic of redefining marriage falls apart, and we're now recognizing as a matter of public institutions that men and women really are different and that not all kinds of relationships are exactly the same, well, then the logic of the broader LGBT movement is probably going to start to unwind. Maybe the logic of radical feminism is going to start to unwind.
Maybe just as the left was rolling with its ideas for years and years and decades and decades, you go from Gloria Steinem burns a bra to some hulking dude cracks a woman's skull in a volleyball game. Well, just as logic took you in one direction, maybe we're going to start going in the other direction as well.
Speaking of the trans issue, really good news for a personal friend of mine and for the public, Ryan T. Anderson, a marvelous scholar and political writer, has a book with the greatest title.
None of us are ever going to beat it for a political book. His title for a book on transgenderism is When Harry Became Sally.
This was years and years ago. It was really, really good.
And it was up and it was being sold. And then Amazon took it down because it was hate speech.
Well, now Amazon announced yesterday When Harry Became Sally going back up on Amazon. They said balancing free speech and content that could be construed as hate speech is one of the most difficult adjudication decisions we make as a company.
Is it? You're a bookshop. Read banned books.
You remember that? Remember when the loser always said, we need to read banned books, but they weren't any actual banned books. They were like some trans porn that they put in kindergarten, which the state mandated during the Biden administration.
It was never real banned books. Real banned books are like Mein Kampf, okay? Which I'm not saying, I'm not encouraging you to read it, but those are the actual banned books, okay? And frankly, even Mein Kampf, you can still find that in a library.
You're actually probably much more likely over the past four or five years to find Mein Kampf in a library or a bookshop than you are to find a basic book by a perfectly polite and respectable and serious intellectual like Ryan T. Anderson called When Harry Became Sally.
So this total nonsense from Amazon, it's such a hard, difficult decision. A few years ago, we removed When Harry Became Sally from our store after concluding that it violated our guideline prohibiting books that promote hate speech.
That was not an easy decision and was hotly debated. Since then, many other retailers, that is, for example, Barnes & Noble, Walmart's, Powell's, etc., have continued to sell this book.
We've continued to receive feedback from customers that the ideas presented in this book, while controversial, should be available for those who want to read and understand the perspective of its author. Controversial.
Boys and girls are different. Well, no, it's controversial.
But some people want to hear these wacky, kooky ideas that everyone agreed with until 2015 the combination of our pure retailers continuing to sell the book and the ongoing feedback made us re-examine our decision as was the case when we reviewed the book a few years ago it was not an easy decision but we concluded that we erred on the side of being too restrictive last time and decided to return the book to our

store oh yeah yeah is that what happened amazon i don't think that's what happened you know what i think happened i think trump won i think trump won and most people voted for him and that spooked you a little bit just like it spooked the rest of corporate america that went over with along with the head of Amazon to go kiss the ring

during the inauguration.

And then I think the conservatives had the power, and they realized they could punish you. Just as corporate America was being punished and rewarded in a self-reinforcing feedback loop by the American left for many years and really decades.
So too now, the conservatives have the power, and these guys are running scared. So that's very good.
It's a cultural shift. It's a cultural shift, and that's all great, and I'm glad cultural moves have helped to sway public opinion in a grassroots way.
That's all true, but it's a political shift too, okay? I am glad that we

no longer just repeat ad nauseum the slogan, politics is downstream of culture. There's a truth to that statement.
I'm not knocking it, but it was exaggerated and it was bellowed from the rooftops even to drown out other truths and realities such as culture being downstream of politics. That's something we learned from Elon digging into Doge,

is just how clearly, how dramatically culture is downstream of politics, that the entire American left, just about, could be manufactured by moneyed elites in government for years to give the illusion of grassroots bottom-up support. That is an important lesson that the right now with unified government needs to learn, not merely condemn, but take to heart and perhaps even wield.
Today is Theology Thursday. The rest of the show continues now.
You do not want to miss it. Become a member.
Use code NOLSCanada.

Be really as a checkout for two months free on all annual plans.