C (11:56)

And I'm quite sure that it would.

A (11:58)

Indeed be so I can confirm that I love this line here. This was kind of a throwaway line but it was really significant. Putin says, look, Trump has claimed that had he been president, had Biden not been installed as president, we would never have invaded Ukraine. He goes, I can confirm that the war would not have broken out had Trump remained president. Now some people are gonna say, well Putin's just flattering Trump, he's just buttering him up cuz he's got him just where he wants him and he's getting all these concessions from Trump and this is it. Trump is so gullible to believe all this stuff. That is not flattery. What Putin just did to Trump is not flattery. I once had a very insightful diplomat explain to me the difference between flattery and diplomacy. Flattery is when you lie to someone, to ingratiate yourself to that person and to butter em up. Diplomacy is when you say true things but only the good, positive sounding true things. But there's a big, big difference. Flattery is lies. Diplomacy is the truth, even if it's often a partial truth. What Putin just said is obviously True. What's the evidence? Putin invades a country on George Bush's watch, invades Georgia, then he invades a country on Obama's watch. He invades Crimea, then he stops invading countries on Trump's watch. Then Biden becomes president, he goes further into Ukraine. That's just what happened. So when Putin says, yeah, I wouldn't have done it had Trump remained president, there's good cause to believe that that's true. There is another apparent protocol breach here, which is that Putin spoke first at the press conference. Usually, the American president would speak first on American soil at this, but Putin spoke first again. Trump's critics are going to say he gave Putin just what he wanted. He gave him legitimacy on the national stage. He gave him deference. He gave him this, he gave him that. I say, what's your evidence that the opposite strategy has worked? Obama talked a real tough game on Russia, and Russia ran roughshod over Obama. George Bush talked a tough game on Russia eventually. Initially, he was trying to do the Trumpy diplomatic strategy. Then he talked tough around Russia. Russia ran roughshod over Bush. Russia ran roughshod. Joe Biden talked the toughest game on Russia, and Russia flicked their finger under their chin and they invaded a country under Biden, and Biden was impotent. So if you got one strategy, which is talk really tough and then look weak, then act in a weak way, and you got another strategy, which is talk nice, speak softly, but carry a big stick, it seems to me the Trump strategy is at least worth a shot. The other ones have failed spectacularly. Obviously, the Trump strategy is worth a shot. It's just called a little bit of diplomacy. Okay. I think Trump's earned some grace on that. Trump's enemies, they don't know what to make of it. They can't really criticize any particular aspect of the conference because it's just unclear even what happened. So what they've honed in on. Did you see this headline? What they've honed in. This is a headline from npr. Government papers found in an Alaskan hotel reveal new details of the Trump Putin summit. These idiots, these idiot Trump administration people, they left documents from the summit printed in a hotel. Oh, what a security breach. What a bunch of nincompoops. Oh, what a. This is an international incident, a geopolitical disaster. Okay, what were the documents? Let's see. What. What new details of the Trump Putin summit were revealed? Well, we have the documents right here. I have them. There's screenshots, but I have them right here. They are. First one. It's a list of Russia participants and US Participants. And who's on the Russian list? The Minister of Defense, the Minister of Finance, and the Representative for Economic Cooperation. Is that like a state secret? The Minister of Defense came to the peace summit. Is that like a big. Wow. New details. What about the US Participants? This is my favorite one. US Participants. President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant. Stop the presses. Stop. Hold on. Two big stories here. The President of the United States went to the US Summit in Alaska and they. Well, now we know that. Cuz there was a document. It doesn't seem like a big state secret to me. What about the other document? Michael, Michael, Michael. Admit that there was another document left in the printer. That's true. It was the lunch menu. This is. I hope I don't get in trouble with the FBI, CIA, NSA for revealing highly classified information. The first course was going to be a green salad with champagne vinaigrette dressing. Does that. We can blur this out in post production. If that's going to imperil United States interests around the world, then we can blur out the fact that they were going to have sourdough bread with rosemary lemon butter and then filet mignon with. Ooh, with brandy peppercorn sauce. That's spicy. Or halibut. And for dessert, a creme brulee. Whoa, whoa. That's big stuff. Can we redact that menu? They got nothing. They have nothing. They have nothing really to attack in the summit. This, I think, in part is also Trump's strategy. You just leave things a little bit up in the air. It's hard for your enemies, not just your enemies in Russia to pin you down, but your enemies in the US Press. I don't know who poses a greater threat to U.S. interests. Before we move on from Russia, though, one last bit. There's a meme going around and all the libs were posting it. It's a picture of Obama and Putin. And Obama's looking real tough. He's meeting Putin. He's looking real tough. And the tweet says, just for those who may be a little confused, this is how an American president should treat Putin. This look at Obama, he looks all tough. Trump, he shook Putin's hand and smiled. But Obama's looking all tough. Allow me to transport you back in time, especially the liberals who have no memory. Here's a piece from April 2016. It's called the Obama Doctrine, written by Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic. Of the Atlantic. A liberal Magazine. Jeffrey Goldberg was the liberal journalist who was caught up in that Signal chat fiasco. Okay, look how thick. For those of you who are watching, you can see how thick the Obama. This is probably the definitive piece on Barack Obama's geopolitical foreign policy doctrine. Here is Jeffrey Goldberg quoting Obama. Just a few little excerpts. This piece is very, very long. Quoting Obama. Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control. There. Pause right there. The liberals are criticizing Trump for engaging in Realpolitik and recognizing that Russia has a traditional sphere of influence and that Ukraine was not the most independ, free, liberal, democratic state in the history of the world, but was rather a client of two great powers, one being the regional power Russia. And then after the Maidan in 2014 of the United States. That's the criticism. You're not treating Ukraine like an independent country, the beacon of democracy and liberalism and independence. Well, hold on. Here's Obama quoted by an ally of his, Jeffrey Goldberg, in the Atlantic. Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp, meaning Ukraine was a client state of Russia and it was slipping out of his GRASP because of U.S. involvement, because the CIA was on the ground after the Maidan revolution that we funded because Russia was going to lose Ukraine to the United States. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country, but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on. Okay, yep, Russia has this major interest in Ukraine. And then Goldberg goes on. Obama's theory here is simple. Ukraine is a core Russian interest, but not an American one. So Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there. People are attacking Trump because they're saying he's making America look weak. He's weakening the American empire. Trump is not. You know, just remember World War II, when we won everything and the other side didn't concede anything. We dominated the whole globe. And every conflict is supposed, supposed to be like that. We're giving in. We're recognizing that the Russians might have a say in countries around their own. That's weakness. That's a betrayal of democracy. Well, Obama said the same exact thing. Said the same thing quoted by an ally of his in the liberal magazine. The fact that Ukraine, which is a non NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do. That's what the fact is, according to Barack Obama, Ukraine, non NATO country are going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do. That's what Trump is saying. When Trump is sitting in the Oval Office, he says, you guys don't have the cards. And the liberals all attack him. How dare you? You're betraying the great democracy. That we could save Ukraine if we would only give him a little more money. Obama said, you can't. Obama said the same thing Trump said. I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic. It's realistic, but this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we're willing to go to war for. This is exactly the Trump point. This is exactly the J.D. vance point. This is exactly what the conservatives and the Republicans are saying right now that we're being pilloried by the liberal media for. You forgot Jeffrey Goldberg. This wasn't even that long ago. This was nine years ago. This was the doctrine. What's the difference? The liberals all cheered Obama for articulating the exact same views that Trump and Vance are articulating right now. The only difference is that the Trump administration has actually had success advancing them. That's the only difference. They're speaking the same way. The only difference is Obama couldn't actually put those views into effect. He failed on foreign policy spectacularly, and Trump has succeeded. That's the only difference. Remember you guys, did you know you liked it? Do you remember when you liked it? Now the libs are. They're getting very confused because you remember the libs before the election, they were talking about how we need to defend the Constitution. Trump's a threat to the Constitution, an existential threat to our democracy, and now they're changing their tune. They're actually calling on a New York Times podcast for the abolition of the U.S. senate and the packing of the U.S. supreme Court, and a complete rewriting of the Constitution. It's amazing. Wow. What changed? Hold on one second. You gotta go to puretalk.com knowles, how many times have you told someone, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? That's great advice for most things, not so much for a cell phone. You see, over time, the battery life fades, the processor can't keep up, and it's fallen on the floor one too many times. Fortunately, thanks to PureTalk, your cell phone is something you can replace without feeling guilty. When you switch to PureTalk this month, they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy A36 for free with a $35 qualifying plan. That's 35 bucks a month for talk, text and data and a free Samsung smartphone with scratch resistant gorilla glass and a battery that lasts all day. All on America's most dependable 5G network. I love PureTalk. I've had my PureTalk for, I don't know, what, five years or something. Now you just get the people think that you're getting. Oh, you're getting a good network, a good 5G network. You're getting the best 5G network. You're getting the phone that you want. You get to deal with customer service that's easy to use, very simple switch, and you're supporting a company that supports you for less than half the price of the other guys. Pure talk's a great thing. You win by cutting your cell phone bill in half. They win by hiring more Americans, helping more vets make the switch right now in as little as 10 minutes. PureTalk.com Knowles K W L E S to get your free phone today. That's PureTalk.comKnowles to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, PureTalk. We must defend our sacred institutions, our democracy, our Constitution. That was the liberal line. October 2024. Now we turn to Osita Nguynivu, who has a new book, the Right of the Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding, explaining what the left is thinking today.

D (25:14)

I think it's time for us to consider to the extent that people are angry about Donald Trump again, what are the elements of the system that allowed Donald Trump to rise as a political figure and that have sustained them? I think to an ironic extent, some of the elements that the founders hoped would prevent somebody like Donald Trump from coming into power. Now actually something is being acted upon in states across the country to move to a national popular vote by interstate compact without needing a constitutional amendment. I mean, the amendment process itself is one of the things that needs amending very, very hard. I've advocated in the past for adding new states to the Senate. I think that there is an ideological imbalance now for all kinds of reasons. Puerto Rico, D.C. the territories.

A (25:58)

Right. So an ideal Senate, or would there be a Senate at all?

D (26:01)

Well, that's another question. That's another question. I mean, I think that's worth exploring. Kind of radical idea. But it's an argument that you have to make on the basis of getting people to understand not only that the system is not democratic, but like, what is the value of democracy actually to begin with?

A (26:16)

I love it. Libs October 2024 we have to defend our democracy. Trump is an existential threat to democracy, Libs. After the democracy elects Trump. I mean, what's the value of democracy anyway? You know, what's the value of that democracy? I hate that democracy. Libs. October 2024. Our sacred constitution is imperiled, and we need to defend that beautiful, precious piece of parchment. Libs. Libs. Today burn the thing to the ground. Light that vellum on fire. I hate the Constitution. We need a new one. Yeah. Oh, okay. Wow. What changed? Oh, all the things you said that you were defending actually chose to keep you out of power and to put your enemy into power. And so now all the things you previously said you wanted to defend, you want to destroy. Even the libs have had it out for the Supreme Court for a while. They previously loved the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court was just inventing new supposed rights. When the Supreme Court invents the right to kill babies, then the Supreme Court needs to be the ultimate political institution in the country. They need to dominate the legislature and the executive. It's all about the court. The court is the final say. When the court is redefining marriage based on thin air, then the court is the final word and the president and the legislature can go stuff it. But when the court starts to overrule Roe v. Wade, all of a sudden the court needs to be packed. When the court starts to question transgenderism or whatever, the court needs to be destroyed. So what about the legislature? The libs at least love the legislature, right? It's so Democratic. It's the most democratic part of the government. We need direct election of senators. We need to empower the legislature. We want the House and the Congress, the Senate, rather to dominate the other two branches, except when the Republicans control both houses. Now we need to abolish the Senate. We need to seriously think very hard about. It's a radical idea. We need to think about abolishing the Senate. You might notice that the way that the left thinks about politics is purely from ends. The ends are we need power. We need power to do the things that we want to do. And they make procedural arguments about means, and they make procedural arguments about instruments and institutions, but they change on a dime. The lib's opinion of the Senate and the Supreme Court and the electoral college and the Constitution, and all of that will change on a dime based on whether or not those institutions give them power. That's all it's about. And look, there's something to be said for thinking about substantive goods in politics, but the arguments that the left is making right now are completely hypocritical. Completely outside the scope of morality, tradition, jurisprudence, the law. It's purely a matter of power. That's it. And the most offensive part of it to me because look, I've had the left's number on this for a long time and some people are seeing it now too. The thing that's most offensive to me is. Guys, what's his name? Osita Nuanivu. Osita Nuanivu. The most offensive part is that he has the temerity to dress and make his voice sound so reasonable when what he's saying is forget about reason, Forget about reason, forget about logic, forget about argumentation, forget about any guardrails that exist in any ordered political society. We're gonna burn this to the to get power. But he has. Look, I did my tie, I did a four in hand tie today which looks a little bit casual. It's kind of prep and look, I just think it's very important. I mean, if you've studied, if you've read all the books, if you are a reasonable person like me, you need to burn our whole government system to the ground because we lost a single election and that's not acceptable. Pathetic. Pathetic. Very funny. What's the value of democracy now? Also speaking of Ross Douthat show, that was a clip from New York Times columnist Ross Douthat show. And there's another clip going viral. Gotta tell you, Ross Douthit's great. He's one of my favorite commentators, pundits. But he works for the New York Times, which is awful. New York Times. You gotta give the devils their due. They did one smart thing which is let this guy have a show. They actually have adapted to the new media space pretty well. He's getting the clicks because he's bringing on voices from the left who are articulate and representative of broader left wing thinking and extremely radical. He's showing them for what they are in their own words. And nowhere is this clearer than on designer babies I've been hearing about. Someday we're have designer babies. You're going to be able to order your baby and pick all of the attributes. So he's going to be tall and good looking and really smart, really athletic and really this and really that and you're gonna be. But then what happens when you can't afford that? To have the designer baby through this woman's company orchid costs 2,500 bucks per embryo. Not per baby that is born, but per embryo. And that's a big part of this too. What about the people who can't afford that. Now you're gonna have. The lower classes are gonna have their ugly, stupid babies, and the elite classes are gonna have their beautiful, genius chemically enhanced babies. And you're gonna have a horrifying caste system based on money. Talk about subverting democracy and human solidarity. So Douthit has the founder of this company, Orcid, Noor Siddiqui, on the show, and here's her pitch.

C (31:56)

What Orcid can do is it gives parents the power to protect their children before pregnancy begins. So what happens today in IVF centers is that, you know, they're operating essentially almost blind, right? So this really, really critical decision about which embryo to transfer happens with extremely limited information. So what happens is that the embryo that looks best under the microscope kind of wins this morphology beauty contest is often the one that's selected. Other times, there's a very limited genetic test that's offered that looks at a tiny fraction of genetic diseases that could affect a future baby. So Orcid completely changes that. We're the first company in the world that allows parents to actually sequence the entire genome of an embryo. So sequence 99% of the bases in an embryo's genome, which allows parents to detect risks for some of the most serious conditions. So heart defects, birth defects, pediatric cancers, developmental disorders, things that are massively change the trajectory of a child's life. The vast majority of these diseases don't have cures. So what's really exciting about this possibility is that now parents have this ability to protect their children from an entire category of disease that previously we had to just hope for the best and wish that our children wouldn't be affected by them.

A (33:27)

Sounds great, right? You see that phrase? She keeps coming back to protect our children. It allows parents to protect their children before they're born. We're offering protection for children how? By creating a bunch of people, creating a bunch of embryos in a laboratory and then slicing off little parts of them and checking their genome. And then if there's any imperfection, Orcid will. Orcid doesn't actually do this directly, but Orcid makes the recommendation that is then carried out by other companies. They'll kill them. If there's any imperfection. He's going to be. He's going to have a limp. His IQ is only going to be 97. He's going to be a little short. He's going to be a little fat. There's something that's a little wrong with him. Kill him. You're going to go kill him. We're just giving you the information and you're going to decide to go kill those children so that you can have the perfect baby who doesn't have any problems. And who knows? What if the baby accidentally comes out and his hair is brown instead of blonde? Do they get a refund? Do they get a partial refund? Because what does this cost? This costs 2,500 bucks per embryo to then decide like you're Caesar in the Coliseum, thumbs up, thumbs down. Do we kill the baby? Do we let the baby live? Costs 2,500 bucks and your kids and maybe your soul. What does this? What is this? I'll tell you exactly what this is, and it's really ironic. This is the thing that the libs were just criticizing eight days ago. This is eugenics. This is one of the most horrifying forms of eugenics I've ever heard. We'll get to that in our own words. First reminder, New Daily Wire plus annual memberships are 40% off for a limited time. This is your chance to see what's happening now and you can be the first in line for what's coming next. That includes my brand new series. The Pope and the Fuhrer are the secret Vatican Files of World War II. I take you inside 80 years of hidden Vatican documents to reveal the truth about Pope Pius xii, the pope that history is called silent, but whose story is a lot more complicated than anyone seems to know. This fall, Isabel Brown joins DailyWire with the Isabel Brown show, telling the truth, asking the biggest questions and showing people the difference between what's real and what's fake. Get breaking news, live ad free daily shows, investigative journalism and exclusive entertainment with your new Daily Wire plus membership, 40% off for a limited time@dailywireplus.com I want to tell you my favorite comment on Friday. It's from Matthew Hubley, 7282, who says, you know, you've gone off the rails when Joe Rogan corrects your theology of the canon. Yes, I like, you know, Joe Rogan. Very, very intelligent guy. Very inquisitive, thoughtful guy. He's no Bible expert. I don't think he would call himself a Bible expert. And yet he had that Republican Congress lady on and she starts babbling about aliens in the Bible and how the evil Catholic Church and the Council of Rome in 382ke the alien books out or whatever, and he's just looking at her like she's a crazy person. He says, have you considered speaking to anyone intelligent about this? Almost his exact words. Have you Considered learning anything about the thing that you're talking about? No, I haven't. I haven't. I'm just gonna talk about how they took the aliens out of the Bible. Okay, Here is the founder of Orchid, the custom baby company, describing the great moral defenses of her company.

C (36:52)

IVF is also met with a massive amount of pitchforks and concern. 12 million people wouldn't exist today if IVF wasn't invented. So I think people discount future people too much. Right? Like those 12 million people that wouldn't exist. And then at the time, people were so against the idea of ivf. So I think people, when thinking about this technology, really need to consider future people.

A (37:15)

Right? Future. We got to consider future people. But notice what's implicit here. We ignore present people because she says there are 12 million people who wouldn't exist without IVF. I think that number might be fair. But then I looked up the telegraph. It says this. Official statistics show that almost half of embryos used to help a woman conceive through in vitro fertilization were thrown away during or after the process. About half. So she says, look, there are 12 million people who wouldn't exist without IVF. But you could point to that and say, yeah, there are 12 million people who have been conceived and murdered because of ivf. Basically the same number. If the telegraph statistic is true, then, yeah, for every baby where you say he was born because of ivf, see, someone else was murdered because of ivf. This is just think about the future people. But how about you think about the present people, lady? Because what is the end goal of this? The end goal is we're gonna eliminate suffering. That's what she's saying. We're gonna eliminate all disease. We're gonna eliminate. We're gonna have to kill a bunch of people to do it. The actual cost is not $2,500 an embryo. The actual cost is you have to have a system probably sponsored by the state. She says it requires a kind of state funding to avail this to poorer people. But you're gonna have a system that kills most people who are. It kills most people or at least half of people. But under this, if you're gonna pick that really the perfect embryo, it's gonna kill the vast majority of people. But then, as a consequence, you're gonna eliminate suffering. This is the clearest Faustian bargain I have ever heard offered, at least since the Garden of Eden. Hey, don't just commit an immoral action to get a potential good. Commit basically the most immoral action you can Possibly conceive of, Namely killing most babies who are conceived, parents killing most babies of their own. Babies that are conceived in order to eliminate suffering. What? Go back to the Garden of Eden. Give me a break. And in the process, you divorce sex from procreation. And she talks about this explicitly. She says, look, sex is for fun. Orchid is for procreation, Orchid's for babies. Sex is for fun. But this science is for babies. So then you eliminate the connection between sex and procreation. And what? This is the fulfillment of the liberal people referring to their spouses as their partner. You know how they do that? Not just the gay ones, but the regular ones too, Even though it's a very gay thing to do. You say, oh, this is my partner, Sally. This is my partner. Like you have an accounting firm or, you know, you're lesbians or something. This is my partner. It's so clinical. It's so cold. It's so sterile. Well, yes, that now it is. That is what it is. Sex, if you have it at all, is going to be purely indulgent, just about your own pleasure. And babies are going to be about becoming gods, I guess. Babies are going to be about eliminating suffering, making yourself into God, and killing most of them. The libs were criticizing Sydney Sweeney for promoting eugenics through blue jeans eight days ago. It was like, eight days ago. And now the liberals are openly cheering the most extreme form of actual eugenics practiced that we've seen since the 1930s. Okay, speaking of mating rituals, a redhead girl has gone viral on the Internet because guys did not want to date her. This clip from some random show has everyone wondering, what does a girl have to do to get a date in 2025?

E (40:54)

I'm Riley. I'm 24, I'm from Houston, Texas. And honestly, I am down for any good adventure. I just got scuba dive certified and I'm planning to go to Australia this summer. So I'm super excited about that. And then I just picked up skiing, like, two years ago. And I honestly love any themed party. Like, those are, like, my favorite things to go to, my favorite things to plan. And I'm looking for someone that wants to be my adventure buddy, and it's someone that I can trust in and is going to be there for me.

F (41:24)

If any gentleman would like to get snow.

A (41:26)

Riley, Mark, please step forward. No one steps forward. It's a poor girl. No one. Two guys are kind of giggling. No one wants. No one's getting up.

E (41:39)

Anyone?

A (41:40)

Come on.

F (41:42)

Hey, Riley, we're gonna have you sit down.

A (41:44)

But thank you. All right, see you, Riley. Okay, now I played the real clip. The thing that was going around on the Internet that was dishonest, I think was it was just the picture of Riley and then the picture of the guys. And you couldn't tell there was a curtain in between them. So it seemed like the guys were not picking her because they didn't find her attractive. Perfectly cute girl, perfectly good looking girl, but it's not. They couldn't see each other. On top of that, this is not just a regular dating show. This comes from a TV show called the Altar. And it's a very specific kind of dating show. It's Mormon blind dates.

F (42:19)

Hi, I'm Remington and welcome to the Altar. We've gathered together 10 single men and 10 single women all across cross Utah Valley. They'll be coupling up and going on a journey of love. Starting from love at first sight and ending at the altar. We'll be eliminating couples over three rounds until we have one couple left. Who will win our date.

A (42:48)

Now this is important context because it tells you why poor Riley didn't get a date. There are structural issues here. Okay, the first one is. It's called the secretary problem. It's this problem of optimal stopping, which is like a math problem or probability problem, which is you don't you have 10 girls, only seven of them you're gonna match up with. You think there's gonna be a better one coming up next. So that's just built into any kind of selection process like this. On top of that, she was the first one to go. So also likely that she would be picked over. On top of that, there are some lessons for men and women and Riley to learn from this. Why beyond all the structural issues, the Mormon thing. Look, these people might get married. There's all sort of built in structural specific issues. But beyond that, why, I think part of it is she was the first one up. And guys, they don't want the girl to be too eager. If the girl is too eager, it signals to guys that other men aren't pursuing her. And so you don't have the social proof that she's desirable. And that's the first red flag why she's too. Oh, she. Women are to be pursued. So that was her first mistake. The second mistake is speaking about what she wants from a relationship in really friendly terms. I actually am in a moment of candor. I hate the phrase I married my best friend. But in a moment of candor, I'll admit sweet little Elise and I are very. We're buds too. Also chase her around the house. But there is an actual friendship within a good marriage. And so that you want the friendship thing, but I have buddies. I don't need a wife. So I can go smoking cigars or out drinking or skiing or scuba diving or whatever. I need a wife to be a wife. I want a girlfriend to be a girlfriend. And so the way she's talking about it, you want her to get up there and say, there's somebody that I'm longing to see. Do, do, do do. Someone to watch over me. That's what you want to hear from a woman. And I want to bring this to the table. And I want to do this for a guy, and I want the guy to do this for me. And I want there to be complementarity there, not indiscernibility. That's the second thing. 2. It's all just these adventures, these experiences. Yeah, okay. Scuba diving is fun. Going on vacation, but it's kind of like getting up there. And she says, you know, I just really want somebody to go on vacation with. Well, that's not what I care about in a wife or in a girlfriend. I want the day to day. What does Tuesday look like? That's what matters a lot more. What are we building? What are we actually doing? So I think those were Riley's mistakes. She's very. Seems like a very sweet girl, very cute. I'm sure she'll find a. Find a guy anytime soon. But for the women watching, trying to draw some gender lessons, that's a good lesson to learn. Okay, before we go, there's a story I have to get to. This is a much, much sadder story than the alter show. It's gone viral because an illegal alien driving some kind of Mack truck made an illegal U turn and killed three people in Florida. It's not just any kind of illegal alien. We think of an illegal alien being from Venezuela or something. This is an illegal alien, seems like from the subcontinent. Harjinder Singh. So already it's calling to mind. Oh, the illegal alien problem is not just that we gotta plug up the Rio Grande. The entire globe is committing illegal immigration against us. He entered the country illegally, reportedly, according to officials, in 2018. So somewhat recently, he obtained a commercial driver's license in California. He's been charged with three counts of vehicular homicide. Now, some people would say, well, 2018, Trump was president. Yeah, Trump was president. Trump was president. He tried to close the border. He very effectively did stop illegal immigration. But there were all those roadblocks all those roadblocks being put up by the courts, being put up by the liberal legislators, all the Democrat congressmen going and crying and trying to gum up the works. So I think it's completely disingenuous to say, well, if an illegal entered when a Republican was president, you know, it's on the Republican. No, the Republicans have been trying to close this border with great determination, doing everything they can. It's the Democrats who have stopped it, explicitly tried to stop it. So the Democrats own illegal immigration. And then when Democrats are officially in power, they welcome them with open arms as they cross the border. Come on, come on down. Not only did he enter the country illegally, he got a commercial driver's license in California. How's that? Because the liberals insist on giving out regular driver's licenses. And I don't know how he got a commercial driver's license. The victims are confirmed to be a 37 year old woman from Pompano Beach, a 30 year old man from Florida City and a 54 year old man from Miami. The big takeaway on this, the open borders crowd and the beltway crowd and the policy want crowd. They're gonna say, well, you know, look, it's a very sad incident, but just look at the statistics. Statistically, illegal aliens don't commit much more crime than the native population. That's a little dubious and we can debate, but statistically, they're not more likely to get into car accidents. I don't know whatever they're gonna say statistically, statistically, but it's simply a fact. If the Democrats had not cynically undermined our laws passed by the representatives of the people that every sensible nation has had for all of history. If the Democrats had not done that, this guy would not be in the country and three real people would be alive today. And three real families would not be grieving and have had their lives forever changed and in some cases maybe ruined. And we don't know the identities other than a few details over the victims. Did they have kids? Then a bunch of kids would have their parents. Real kids, real people who are our fellow citizens. All these people had parents. Those parents would have their sons and daughters. Real people had real Democrats who are in office and who have been in office, not been so selfish and exploitative and cynical. Three real people and countless others downstream, kids and siblings and parents would be around today and have their family members today. That's what illegal immigration is. That's what it. There's a guy down the street. There was a guy down the street, he had a chicken shop. He was a really nice guy. Chicken shop. Been working on it for like 10 years. They were just dismantling the shop the other day. Why? Because a year or so ago, year and a half ago, an illegal ran him over in his own parking lot. Killed him in his own parking lot. If particular Democrats had not pushed this, that guy wouldn't be in the country. That guy would be alive, that chicken shop would be around, that family would be doing. But that's illegal immigration. That's what illegal immigration looks like. And no amount of whitewashing and soft soap is gonna get the blood off people's hands. That is really what it looks like. And anytime any statistical argument, which is probably dubious anyway, is really just around to obfuscate the particular victims of that. These people, these Democrats should be given no quarter for what they've done. Okay, on that happy note, no member block today. We gotta move on. But there's all will be revealed in time. I'll see you tomorrow. I'm Michael Knowles, this is the Michael Knowles Show.