B (3:27)

Did they? Yeah.

C (3:28)

Incitement is incite to riot. And you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. You don't get 10 years, you don't get one month, you get one year in jail. And it goes on your record. And you will see flag burning stopping immediately.

B (3:42)

Now, first of all, we should all be able to agree at the end, you will see flag burning stop immediately. Well, actually, you know what? Maybe we won't all agree on that. Even that is gonna be one of these wheat from chaff tests to distinguish the conservative from the mere libertarian, because they come at things from different premises. One, the libertarians have this idea that if you ban something, you get more of it. It's a little bit of the mag. I don't mean to be too tough on our libertarian friends and our classically liberal friends, but there's a little bit of magical thinking that goes on with all of liberalism, because liberalism is based on false premises about human nature. One of those is if you ban something, you'll get more of it. They say, for instance, the real way to reduce marijuana usage is to legalize all of it. They have this idea that when you legalize something, when you decriminalize something, you could get less of it, but when you ban something, you get more of it. Because, I don't know, people are just really naughty or something like that. But that's not how it works. The classical idea, the conservative idea, the idea that has existed and been proven correct from classical antiquity to the present, is that when you ban something, you get less of it, and when you subsidize something, you get more of it. That's how it works. But let's get to the meat of the eo. Trump says that he's going to prosecute people who burn the American flag. In fact, I have the text of the EO right here. Says, our great American flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America and of American freedom, identity and strength. Fact check. True. It's not the most sacred symbol in America. Probably you would say the crucifix is the most sacred symbol in America or some other image of Christ, a God, truly a godly sacred image, but the most sacred and cherished symbol of America is the flag. Fact check. True. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, which we'll get to in a moment, the court has never held that American flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, or that is an action amounting to fighting words, is constitutionally protected. And he cites Texas v. Johnson from 1989, which we'll get to, as I mentioned, in a moment. So notice what he's saying here. He's saying, yes, the Supreme Court has already ruled relatively recently to outlaw to outlaw laws that ban flag burning, but the Supreme Court has never ruled that American flag desecration that is conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action is protected. That is not so. He's setting up where he's saying, look, I'm not intentionally creating a fight with the Supreme Court here. I am going to prosecute flag burning in a way that is allowed by the Supreme Court even after the Supreme Court overruled laws that ban flag burning. And then finally, the EO is much longer. But just the final point I mentioned on it, he says, my administration will act to restore respect and sanctity to the American flag and prosecute those who incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating the symbol of our country to the fullest extent permissible under any available authority. This is really great. I love this. I saw someone on social media say I haven't seen any actual Trump supporters who are defending the CEO. Well, you got one here, buddy. I'm your huckleberry. I love this executive order. Trump gets it. Trump gets it in a way that many self styled conservatives, most self styled conservatives in my lifetimes don't get it. The depths of this man's conservatism go a lot deeper than many people who call themselves principled movement conservatives. What he's saying here is not a direct challenge to the court, but it obviously will be open to legal challenges. I hope there are legal challenges because the supreme court rulings from 1989 and 1990, respectively, that overturned laws banning the burning of the American flag were wrongly decided. And we'll get to how that is in a second. So this, in a way is akin to more of a hate crime law. It's like a hate crime law for the right. The left has its hate crime laws. That allows them. It doesn't give them the first opportunity to prosecute their enemies. Their enemies, that is us, will commit a crime and then the left will use hate crime laws to jump the charges up a little bit. This is kind of like hate crime laws for the right. It's much more justifiable than the left wing hate crime laws. They're saying, look, if you are inciting a riot, if you are inciting imminent lawless action, if you are engaging in fighting words and you're burning an American flag on top of that, well, we're gonna prosecute you to an even fuller extent and we will put you in jail for a year. I really, really like this. Have I made it clear how much I like this? I wanna focus in, though, before we get to the Supreme Court decisions that are at the heart of this battle. Notice the word that keeps popping up here. Sacred. It's the most sacred symbol of America. It's. We're going to restore sanctity to the American flag and we're not gonna let people desecrate this symbol. The Supreme Court has never held that flag desecration is protected in this or that manner. Notice the word sacred. The sense of the sacred. This is key. This is something Trump gets that conservatives used to get that modern people don't get. One of the chief problems of our political era is we have lost the sense of the sacred. Why uphold any law? Let me ask you that. Why do I care what is in the Constitution? The whole battle is supposed to be over what is constitutional and what is not. Does the Constitution permit burning of the flag? Does it not permit burning of the flag? This whole. Why do I care what the Constitution says? Why? It's just some piece of parchment with ink on it. Why do I care? Because one, because I'll be put in jail if I don't. Maybe. Maybe we can duke it out over what it means. Why do I care at all? In a larger, abstract sense, why do I care? Because we hold that the Constitution is sacred, that there is something sacred about the founding of our country, about our political order. We hold it in reverence. Maybe not the reverence that we hold for God. I'm not saying we worship it as we worship God, but we hold it to be kind of sacred. You know, your grandpa dies and your grandpa leaves you his watch or something. I don't know. Grandpa leaves you his World War II medals, Grandpa leaves you his favorite leather jacket. And you treat those things differently than you would treat other objects. Even objects that superficially look the same because it was your grandpa's. You treat it with a little more respect. You hold it in a kind of reverence. You treat it in a way where it's kind of sacred. We do it because we love our grandpa. And love of country, patriotism is an extension of the love of your family of filial piety. Okay? That's why we hold it with a kind of respect, because this is what holds us all together. It's what allows us to have some peace so we can exist, we can flourish in a way that is conducive to the common good of all. Okay? We have lost a sense of the sacred, but the sacred is at the heart of these fights. Texas v. Johnson, that's the case. That's the case that all of the liberals are gonna be citing. And it's the case that even many well meaning self styled conservatives and all the libertarians are gonna cite. And they are specifically going to cite Antonin Scalia's view, because Antonin Scalia voted with the majority in Texas v. Johnson, the case that overturned laws banning the burning of the American flag. And this is the argument that Antonin Scalia made in his own words, why? You believe that people who burn the flag in America should be allowed to do so, and yet you personally, if you had the chance, would send them all in jail.

D (11:41)

Yeah, if I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea. I hate the government. The government is unjust. Whatever.

B (12:20)

Okay? That's the argument that Scalia made. That's the one that the squish conservatives and the libertarians are going to cite. And Antonin Scalia, though a great man who got most things right, got this one wrong. We will see how in a second. First, I want to tell you about fast growing trees. Go to fastgrowingtrees.com, use promo code Knowles. Fall is planting season. Did you know that many plants and trees actually do better when planted this time of year? But you have to know where to start. That is why I love fastgrowingtrees.com doesn't matter if you live in the sunny south or if the air is getting chilly where you are. Their plant experts can help you find the perfect fit for your space. Fast Growing Trees has everything you need to create your dream yard with 6,000 locally grown varieties, fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs and more. Order online. Get them delivered to your door in just days. Thanks to their Alive and thrive guarantee and 14 point quality checklist, each plant gets individual care based on its specific needs so they arrive happy, healthy and ready to thrive in your yard. I was never the most green thumb guy out there. Then when I got my first real yard, you know, I bought my house and my family and everything. You start to know I want that kind of tree, I want that kind of shrub. Oh, I want maybe let's start to get ideas this fall. Have your ideas. They have the best deals for your yard, up to half off on select plants and other deals. Listeners to our show get 15% off when they use Code Knowles at checkout for their first purchase. That is 15% off at fastgreentrees.com using code KNOWLES@ checkout. Now is the time to plant. Use Knowles to save today. Offer is valid for limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Check out the link below or in the show notes and support the show. I love Antonin Scalia. He's one of my favorite political figures of my whole lifetime. He's a conservative Catholic of Italian descent. I feel a great deal of kinship with Justice Scalia, the late great man. But no man, no mere mortal, is perfect. And Scalia, he got 99.7% of things right. He got this one wrong. This is one of the few examples he got wrong. Texas v. Johnson. The first question you have to ask yourself is if it's so clear cut that the Constitution protects burning the American flag, how come nobody figured it out before 1989? You know, countries founded 200 years before that. The country has roots dating back some 300. What is it, 360 years before that? 369? 70 years before that? How come they only figured it out that the American tradition, and specifically the Constitution from the late 18th century bans, or rather permits the burning of the American flag. How come they only figured it out in 1989? Is it possible that our perception had simply changed by 1989, that this isn't the view of Adams or Madison or Jefferson or Washington, but this is the view of modern people, even modern people Putatively on the left. Next question, you gotta ask yourself, why is it that 48 out of 50 states had laws banning the burning of the American flag? If it was so obvious, if it's so clear that this is what. And how come that was only challenged by 1989 successfully? Really strange. Then the last thing you gotta ask yourself, Texas v. Johnson, was a 54 decision. It was a very, very close Supreme Court decision. How come the majority, which said you can burn the flag, was made up of all the Court's liberals, plus Scalia and the minority? The dissent was made up of all the Court's conservatives, minus Scalia. In other words, everyone's going to be citing Scalia on this. But Scalia was the weird one. If you take Scalia out of it, it was all the liberals say, the Constitution demands we must allow flag burning. All the conservatives say, led by Rehnquist, who is an amazing jurist, say the Constitution does in fact allow states to pass laws against burning the American flag. What did Rehnquist say, since he's a conservative icon who led the conservative wing and dissented here? He said, the American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying the nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence. So people are going to say, trump, he's constitutionally illiterate. Trump, he's betraying conservatism or whatever. Trump's executive order is almost identical to the great Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in the case that is at the heart of this whole controversy. Are you gonna call Rehnquist a dummy? Are you gonna say Rehnquist is constitutionally illiterate? You gonna say Rehnquist wasn't conservative? Give me a break. This man is a pillar of American conservatism and jurisprudence, was the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. But he says, pace Scalia. I know. I understand your view. You're saying that this is obviously political speech and expresses a political point of view, opposition to the government. Say, yes, I understand that, but that's actually not what it's doing, because the flag doesn't just represent the government or a certain kind of regime or a certain political party. He says, that's not what the symbol means. It is the visible symbol that embodies our nation. It's not the symbol of the Republican Party. It sometimes seems that way because Democrats hate the American flag. Cause they hate our country. But the Republicans love the American flag. Democrats, would you rather wave the gay thing or whatever. But it is in principle and explicitly the symbol unifying our whole nation. In other words, it's not merely partisan political speech. It is a symbol of the whole political order. And in a way, it's above the political order. The self perception of America can change. But this is a symbol of America as herself. America per se. Okay? Millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence. This is in a society that is largely secular and economic and materialist and has a low but solid grounding. This is one of those things that is sacred. And all societies need things to be sacred. Because you need something that you revere in common. You need something to make you cohere. That is especially true in a nation that does not have a unified ethnicity, does not have a unified true religion. We're talking about the civic religion that does not have much unity at all. You need to have a symbol to hold you together. Okay? Rehnquist goes on. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the act of Congress. There's an act of Congress, right, that says that you can be prosecuted for burning the American flag. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the act of Congress. The laws of 48 of the 50 states which make criminal the public burning of the flag. Beyond Rehnquist. John Paul Stevens had a great point on this. He compared the burning of the American flag, permitting the burning of the American flag to permitting bulletin boards on the Washington Monument. You know, the Washington Monument sticks up like a needle obelisk. In Washington, D.C. we have free speech, don't we? We support free speech. We support political speech, especially political expression. Well, that's talk about a political symbol. You're not gonna put a bulletin board on there. Why not? Stevens writes a bulletin board. Permitting a bulletin board on the Washington Monument might enlarge the market for free expression, but at a cost I would not pay. Yes, we support the expression of ideas, but not anywhere, under any circumstances, in any mode. There are limits on that. These things are circumscribed, of course. And if we do not in some way have a taboo on destroying the very symbol of the country. Not a symbol of one political partisan view or some other partisan view or one policy or another. But we're talking about the whole country. Then how do we have a country? What is holding us together? This is the notion that Chesterton explains what Chesterton famously writes. There is a thought that stops thought, and that is the only thought that ought to be stopped. It is an incoherent act to burn the American flag because you are relying on the supposed freedoms promised by the United States to destroy the United States. That is incoherent. And we are supposed to be logical. We are not merely grunting baboons advancing pure will. Last point on this. You look at the majority opinion I mentioned to you. It was all the liberals plus Scalia saying you can burn the flag. It was all the conservatives minus Scalia who said that you can't burn the flag. Who are those liberals? You have Justice William Brennan. Brennan was the leader of the court's liberal wing. He authored the opinion. You have Thurgood Marshall. Thurgood Marshall was so thoroughly liberal that he tried to make taxpayers pay for abortions. Luckily, he was shot down on that. Harry Blackmun. Who's Harry Blackmun? He wrote the opinion in Roe v. Wade. You want to talk about liberals? Anthony Kennedy. Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion. Obergefell, which was just romantic poetry to redefine marriage. And Scalia, again, please don't think I'm beating up on Scalia. I adore the man. Talk about people we hold in reverence, veneration. I adore the man. But he was not a demigod. He was a mere mortal. He sometimes. He rarely got things wrong. He got this one wrong. And nature is healing. And Trump is on the right side of this. And conservatives should get on the right side of this. We are not. And if you're confused about how conservatives ought to view free speech, you should check out my number one national best selling book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. It's still available. Where's my bell? Wow. Because I haven't done a plug in a while. Still available for sale and still correct all these years later. Okay, more great news. The immigrant population in the United States has declined for the first time in almost half a century. We will get to that momentarily. Why that's happening, why that's a great thing. First, though, I want to tell you about Shopify. Go to shopify.com knowles Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US we even use it for our own daily wire shop to make sure things are running smoothly and efficiently so you all can get the goods. Now, you might be asking, what if I can't design a website? What if I'm worried people haven't heard of my brand. No problem. Shopify's got you covered from the start with beautiful ready to go templates that match your brand style and help you find customers through easy to run email and social media campaigns. If you need a hand with everyday tasks, their AI tools created specifically for commerce can help enhance product images, write descriptions and more. Plus their award winning customer support is available 24. Seven to share advice if you ever get stuck, turn your big business idea into With Shopify on your side. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com knowles shopify.com knowles shopifY.com kn O W L E S head there right now makes it so so easy. When I was starting my early businesses I wish Shopify had been around. You can get it now. Shopify.com knowles New York Times lamenting. You can hear the teardrops falling in this article Immigrant population in US Drops for first time in decades and analysis of census data by the Pew Research center found that between January and June the foreign born population declined by nearly one and a half million. Huge, huge number. So I remember I read to you back in March. I think it was a study from the center for Immigration Studies that showed that there seems to have been a drop of about a million foreign born in the United States just in the first three to five months of the year since Trump Trump took office again. Then I read you another one a few weeks ago. So this is jumping even higher. A little over 2 million 1.6 million illegal aliens dropped out of the workforce. Well now they're not identical numbers, but they're in the ballpark. Pew Research and the New York Times finding the same thing. In June, the country had 51.9 million immigrants. That was down from 53.3 million six months earlier. Now that includes legal immigrants and illegal aliens. This is good news for political reasons, for certain economic reasons. But this also shows you a shift in the politics. So I think this shift from traditional conservatism, which said things like you should not be able to burn the American flag, 48 out of 50 states agreed. The federal government agreed that that had been the case for much of American history. There was a shift away from that toward this libertarian proceduralism. Well, you know, I might not like the Amer burning the American flag. I'm a but by golly, I can't find a strict liberal reason to oppose it. So I don't want to be an authoritarian. So I don't want to tell people what do so who decides? We'll just let it all be this licentious kind of government. There was a shift away from traditional conservatism toward kind of libertarian infused license. Libertinism in the 80s 90s into the 2000s probably reached its peak around the Tea Party era. There's much to recommend the Tea Party era, but they got that thing wrong too. Then we've moved away from that back toward a more substantive conservatism. Same thing here. There used to be a healthy skepticism of mass migration for most of the 20th century, for actually really most of American history. I suppose you would say immigration was severely restricted. This notion that America's always had totally open borders and has been begging for the poor huddled masses yearning to be free because of that stupid socialist poem on the Statue of Liberty which was a gift from post revolutionary France. Why are we paying attention to what they tell us to do anyway? That's a myth that does not accurately represent most of American history. The deepest strains in American history. For most of history we've said, look, we don't have all that much against immigrants. It's not like we hate people just randomly. But we're a country and so you gotta control who comes in and we gotta make sure that people are well assimilated and we don't lose the American identity. Then we shifted into this proceduralism where there were two views you were allowed to have on immigration. Flood the country. Legal, illegal, we don't care. That was the liberal view and the supposedly conservative view was flood the country, but make sure it's done legally to listen. We are absolutely fine with the same substantive outcome that the Democrats want, but we want you to fill out a different form first. Okay? It's what's very important. Flood the country with people who don't speak a lick of English, who compete for wages with blue collar Americans, who move into their own ethnic segregated enclaves and disrupt American unity and social solidarity, who also have ties to gangs and all sorts of crime and are a drain on resources. But just make sure you fill out that paperwork first. Okay? But now there's a third option which is actually the more traditional option and it's to say we don't want any illegal immigration and we want to drastically reduce legal immigration too. Not because we hate Nicaraguans or something, not because we hate Tibetans, but because we have a huge record high foreign born percentage of the population and we're having a breakdown of social solidarity and we just need to chill for a little bit. It's not you, it's us protecting our own country that's what's come back. That's a shift once again away from procedural norms into substantive goods that's happening. This is very good news. Some people, some radical left wing organizations are very upset about this. They hate the deportations, including the self deportations and the reduction in the people who are trying to flood into our country. Notably the most famous or infamous deportee, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. I won't belabor the point, Kilmore Abrego Garcia is this guy who apparently he like, beat his wife. And there was a protection order taken out against him and he was found by multiple judges to likely have associations with MS.13, a violent gang, a satanic gang, actually. He was in this country illegally in the first place and he was deported. And the libs lost their minds over it. And Democrat Senator Chris Van Hollen from Maryland ditched all of his constituents, all of his actual taxpayers voting citizens, ditched them to go check out his boyfriend in El Salvador. And they had a romantic lunch date together. Chris Van Holler would wake up in the middle of the night, cold sweat. Kilmar? Kilmar, Honey? Honey, you're talking in your sleeping. Huh?

E (29:33)

What was that?

F (29:34)

Huh?

B (29:35)

Honey, what were you saying? Oh, nothing, nothing. No, go back to sleep, honey. It wasn't. I miss you, Kilmar. I miss you. So anyway, he goes down and I thought that was weird enough, but now I realize I don't even know what they were talking about at that lunch because Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who's awaiting deportation to Uganda, just held some rally. So lax are our immigration rules in this country. Held a rally and this freaking guy does not speak English.

E (30:03)

Gracias a mi pareja de vida. Mij posa Jennifer Mirmano, Cesar, mi madre Cecilia y toda mi familia.

G (30:16)

Thank you to my life partner and wife, Jennifer, to my brother Cesar, to my mother, Cecilia, to my children, to my nieces and nephews, to all of my family.

E (30:29)

Gracias a casa. Mis e unda casa amis indicato esmar atodolo pastores a tod a la higlesias organizaciones y mijequipo legales.

G (30:44)

Thank you to casa my second home, to my union, Smart. To all of the organizations, all of the faith leaders, all of the partners, and my legal team.

B (30:57)

Gracias, gracias. This guy has been in this country illegally, I think, for 14 years. He is the poster child for illegal immigration put up by the Democrats. He's the best one they could find. Yay. It Says plausible gang associations. Looks like he beat his wife, but this is it. He's the face they're going to bat for. Kilmar, this is the guy. He never learned English. He doesn't appear to know a single word of English. While we're talking about executive orders and laws, forget about him beating his wife. Forget about the Ms. 13. Forget about the human smuggling charges if you're in this country. I have a great deal of sympathy for foreigners who were invited into this country by Democrats and they don't know what to do and they've been here. I actually have a great deal of sympathy. I'm making some jokes now. I feel bad for them. I'm not saying I feel bad enough to let them stay, but I feel bad for them. If you're in this country for 14 years, I don't care if you're the most law abiding citizen I can imagine. Non citizen, I can imagine. If you're in this country 14 years, you never even try to learn a word of English. That should be automatic deportation. I don't care if you never jaywalked. I don't care if you never got a parking ticket. That should be automatic. What a level of disrespect. What disrespect for our country. Who supports this? I'll tell you who it's not. Most Democrat voters. Democrats double down on this, they're gonna lose every county in the country. You know who does he heard? He said, Kaza. He said, I want to thank Kaza. Kaza is like my second Kaza, like my second home. Kaza is this radical anti American group. It's been around for decades. Hates the country. America's always wrong. Other countries are always great. It exists to subvert our laws. That's what he says. These are my guys. Casa, gracias, Gracias. Casa. I hope he's the face for the midterms. This is it. That's who you're voting. This is the best they could muster. And it's actually kind of a knock on Republican operatives that we didn't figure this out beforehand. This should have been day two of reporting. Their number one guy doesn't speak English, tells you everything. Now here's the related story. And here's another reason it's really good news that we're seeing a reduction in overall immigration, migrants leaving the country. Even the New York Times is admitting the Democrats might be set up for a generational political loss. A shift to congressional apportionment and a shift of the electoral college. That might completely obstruct them in winning the presidency again. They'll have to totally rethink their coalition and their path to the presidency because of shifts in population. I'm sure you've noticed we've been rolling out a lot of new content at Daily Wire. Journey to the UFC, Dr. Jordan Peterson's answer the call, my new four part series, the Pope and the Fuhrer, just to name a few. And there's plenty more on the way. The Isabel Brown show premieres September 8th. Our brand new show, Friendly Fire brings the whole crew back together live September 10th as we celebrate a decade of the Daily Wire. No scripts, no filters, just the entire Daily Wire crew debating live, clashing over the biggest stories of the day. And it's gonna get loud. Plus, that night we'll be announcing even more coming to DailyWire. Plus, what I'm telling you is do not miss what's coming next. Go to dailywireplus.com, use code summer save 40% on a new annual membership. My favorite comment yesterday is from Sharon Bizriguez, who says when talking about AI, a lot of people put emphasis on intelligence rather than artificial. So true. They only pay attention to the eye. You know, it's artificial. It's not really intelligence. We don't know what we think because we think we're just robots. We think that the robots are humans because we think that we're no better than robots. We don't realize that intellection, that thinking is not a physical process, that the intellect is actually an immaterial substance. But that's a story for another time. Here's a story related to the migration reduction. New York Times, Very, very upset. How the Electoral College could tilt further from Democrats. Huge, really long story in the Times. It's got four authors just read you a little of it. The year is 2032. Studying the electoral College map. A Democratic presidential candidate can no longer plan to sweep New Hampshire, Minnesota and the blue wall battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and win the White House. That's the current path to victory. Okay, you know, you win, you win Minnesota, whatever. You win some and then you win the battlegrounds and you're at the White House. That's what we were all waiting on in the 2024 race. That's what we were looking at in 20. Saying that could change. A victory in the swing state of Nevada would not help either. That is the nightmare scenario many Democratic Party insiders see playing out. If current US population projections hold after every decennial census every 10 years. Like the one coming up in 2030. Congressional seats are reallocated among the states based on population shifts. Those seats, in turn, affect how big a prize each state is within the Electoral College or how a candidate actually wins the presidency. In the next decade, the Electoral College will tilt significantly away from Democrats. This is part of the reason why the Democrats are trying to change the way that American presidential elections have been conducted from the founding of our country onward. So they realize, shoot, if we play fair and square, we're going to lose. Deeply conservative Texas and Florida could gain a total of five congressional seats. And the red states of Utah and Idaho are each expected to add a seat. What is this about? This is about populations moving, but in different ways. Texas and Florida are going to gain congressional seats, take illegal immigration out of it for a second. They're going to gain seats because people are leaving New York and California and Chicago and all of these liberal places, and they're moving to Tennessee and Florida and all the conservative states. This is not even one of the ways in which Democrats have tried to swell their numbers and gain an unfair advantage in the Electoral College and in Congress is by importing illegal aliens into the country. Because congressional apportionment is based on total population. That's not just citizens, that's everyone, including illegal aliens. So if you ship millions of illegals into blue states, that's gonna increase their representation in Congress. Their votes are gonna matter more. The votes representing actual citizens, and it's gonna affect the Electoral College. The problem is, even with all of that, you're having people moving into the red states, Texas and Florida. Now, Texas has plenty of illegal aliens, sure, fair enough. But a lot of illegal aliens in California, a lot of moved to New York. A lot have moved to the blue cities, and a lot of move to swing states. And even so, so many people, so many citizens are fleeing those blue states, coming to the red states. I myself did it. I was born a New Yorker. I lived in Los Angeles for a long time, but now I hang my hat in Tennessee. So much of that because of how much the libs have blown it. People are moving to the red states, the red states are gonna gain in power, and the Democrats are gonna have to fundamentally change their strategy to win the presidency, which is why they could either try to fix their states, they could either try to keep their populations in. They'd probably build their own Berlin Wall if they could to keep their populations locked in. But because they're not gonna actually fix their own states, what they're gonna try to do is upend our Constitution. They're gonna whine and complain about Trump prosecuting people according to a traditional American principle that you're not allowed to burn the American flag. Or at the very least, the states are allowed to pass laws against burning the American flag. They're gonna whine and complain about constitutionality there. Then they're gonna try to upend the way that the Constitution tells us to elect presidents because they can't win fair and square. Because this is watching the chickens come home to roost. Ten, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, people were saying, man, these Democrats are really blowing it in their cities, their cities and their states, and there's murder and the high taxes are crazy and you can't do business. And the Democrats thought they could get away with it forever. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. They might not be able to win the presidency anymore. Okay, very important story I have to get to before we go Snoop Diggity do dog D O double G. Not the most right wing Republican out there. I don't think He's a huge fan of Trump. He's said very nasty things about President Trump before. Not exactly a cultural warrior for the right. And yet he just went on. Was it the Giving. It's giving podcast? And he went on to complain about all the lesbians in Lightyear by Pixar.

F (39:55)

I took my grandson to see. What was the movie with Buzz Light?

G (40:02)

Toy Story.

F (40:03)

Not that one, but.

G (40:04)

Oh, the new. The new Buzz. The Light Year.

F (40:06)

I think it's Kiki Palmer is in that movie.

G (40:08)

Okay, okay.

F (40:09)

She plays like the daughter. So we watching it. And the lady, which is Kiki's mama, they move on into the space years. They move down the line. They're like, and she had a baby with a woman. Why my grandson in the middle of the movie, like, Papa Snoop, How'd she have a baby with a woman? She a woman. Oh, I didn't come in for this. I just came and watched the movie. Hey, man, watch the movie. They just said she and she had a baby. They both women. How does she have a baby? The movie ain't over with. So it's like, me, I'm scared to go to the movies now. Like, y' all throwing me in the middle of that. I don't have an answer for.

G (40:55)

What was your. What'd you tell them?

F (40:57)

Watch the movie. Eat this popcorn.

G (41:01)

You said, we don't know.

B (41:02)

We don't know.

F (41:03)

It threw me for a loop. I'm like, what part of the movie was this? These are kids that we have to show that at this age, like that, that part. They're going to ask questions.

B (41:14)

Yeah.

F (41:15)

They are going to ask. I don't have the answer.

B (41:17)

Yeah.

G (41:18)

And I don't even know the answer that's rehearsed. What am I supposed to say? Is this is this is this is this is what was the lady used to be a did I got questions now.

F (41:29)

And I was just there to go to sleep and watch the movie. The woke me up. I'm in there. Huh? They just said that she and she had a baby. How they. Both women. Oh, man. Here, eat your popcorn.

B (41:46)

Here, eat your popcorn. I want to talk about this. I don't even know what the answer would be if I wanted to explain it. When the libs lose Snoop Dogg, they've lost too much. I made this point the other day with the state of Israel, whatever Israel was doing. I said, look, guys, there were actually a few things, I think. And I said, I'm broadly supportive of the state of Israel. I have, like, the least popular opinion on Israel of anyone on Earth, which is that I don't accept the historical or religious claims of Zionism, but I also recognize we've been fighting Muslim expansionists for 1400 years. And I am broadly supportive of the state of Israel, but with significant caveats and nuances. So I said, when you're losing me, you got a big problem. Because I'm pretty supportive. So if I'm the enemy, you got a big problem. You see this sometimes Snoop Dogg is a reliable liberal Democrat, okay? He is reliable. When you're losing him because you're pushing lesbianism in a kid's movie, you've just lost. You've now lost so much of the electorate. This is why I think that transing the kids was maybe the big issue of 2024. People are gonna laugh at me when I say that. They say, oh, it was the inflation. Oh, it was the immigration. Oh, it was the economy. Nah, man, I don't know about that. I actually don't know about that. I've been talking to a lot of Republican operatives on the ground since the election onward, and they tell me, you know, big shift in our polling is when we started focusing on that men and women sports issue or transing the kids or the bathrooms or whatever. Why? Why? Is it just because of the church lady? Oh, won't someone please think of the children? I don't think it was just that because it showed that the Democrats had totally lost the common sense. And so Snoop Dogg's there. He wants to just like smoke his pot and wrap his rap and be a huge lib. Except. Whoa, now you're making me explain weird lesbian stuff to kids. And hold on, I can't even explain it because. How about Snoop's grandkids question. The question is, how do two women have a baby together? I guess they could adopt. I guess that's one answer. You could adopt. But how do they do it beyond adopting? Well, well, grandson. Well, well, well. Let me explizzle grandson. How the lesbizzles make some kizzles. They go to the baby store and they buy a man's spermizzle and then they go, they look through the booklet of all the donizles and they pick the one that they think is the bestizzle. And then, I don't know, I'd say like the only Snoop thing I can recall that he ever. Anyway, he. And then what they do is they get a turkey base dizzle. Okay, I'm not gonna get. I don't want to be too specific. I'm just kind of trying to imagine how probably actually even forget about the turkey based dizzle for a second. What they'll probably do is they'll give it to some extremely unethical scientizzle and he'll probably take a petri disle and he'll mix the embrizles in the dish and then he'll make like a billion nizzle of them and then he's gonna lock em all in a refrigerizzle indefinitely until he kills them. Like that is so horrifying. And that's. If you think about it, most people can't even get that far. The Dems losing Snoop, they lose the culture. The best example that they can come up with of illegal immigration is Kilmar Abrego Garcia doesn't know how to say hello and goodbye in English. You're losing the culture. The Democrats can't even keep people locked up in New York and California to maintain their congressional apportionment and their electoral college. I can't even say advantage anymore, but their electoral college ballast because everyone wants to move to the red states. You lost, guys. You just lost. And the Republican argument moves on, moves on from the defensive posture of the procedural norms toward greater substantive goods with greater confidence because of the improbable to some. But I think at this point quite well established conservative political clarity of Trump. Simple as. Okay, today's tee hee hee Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles Kennedy has a checkout for two months free on all annual plans.