Ep. 1032 - The List Of Republican Gun Control Squishes
14 Republicans squish and advance the Democrats’ latest gun control bill, the SCOTUS delivers a big win for religious liberty, and the international swimming association incentivizes child “transitioning.”
Join us for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
Watch our new Summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie” with Gina Carano: https://utm.io/ueFOe
Watch Matt Walsh’s new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com, and pick up your copy of the “What Is A Woman?” book here: https://utm.io/ueFMe.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Ring Alarm is an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe. Learn more at www.Ring.com/KNOWLES.
Epic Will is partnering with the DW to protect our staff and their families. Use Promo Code 'KNOWLES' at EpicWill.com for 10% off your will.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley Moore Capito, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Tom Tillis, Todd Young, and most of all, John Cornyn.
Those are the Republican senators who just voted to advance the Democrats' latest gun control bill.
The worst part of this vote is not that these senators squished on an issue that is important to conservatives.
These senators often squish on issues that are important to conservatives.
We have come to expect it.
Sometimes it's almost politically understandable for some of these people, at least in the blue and purple states.
The worst part of this vote is that they squished at a time when they had absolutely no reason to.
The political winds are entirely at the Republicans' backs.
Even Democrat strategists are expecting a red tsunami in the midterm elections.
Democrats are down historically on those midterm polls.
The GOP has momentum on virtually every issue.
American voters generally are extremely supportive of gun rights.
And polls show that even the voters who do not like guns don't really care about them relative to other issues.
The worst part of this is that it is completely needless.
A completely needless surrender by Republicans who have absolutely no idea what time it is.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from VS, who says, Weird Demon Mickey is my favorite impersonation that Michael has done so far.
Ha ha!
I'm so glad to hear it!
Ha ha!
Don't listen to your parents, kids!
Ha ha!
Just go spend all your time with drag queens!
Ha ha ha ha!
That's what they do.
This is what they do.
The Democrats take something that we love, that we're accustomed to, that's familiar, and then they kill it.
They kill it dead.
They beat it to a bloody pulp, and then they crawl inside of its body, and they reanimate it like a weird, spooky, creepy ghost zombie demon.
And then they use that thing that we have affection for to push their radical agenda.
That's what they've done to, I guess, every American institution.
And that's what they're doing to Mickey now as well.
It's not good.
We've got to protect ourselves.
And when you want to protect your home, you've got to check out Ring.
Right now, go to ring.com slash Knowles.
It's the summer.
People are going to be traveling a lot.
You see, I'm in a hotel room right now.
I'm traveling.
When you're traveling, whether you're traveling alone, whether you're traveling with your family, you want to keep your house safe.
Okay?
You want to keep your family safe, yourself safe, all that stuff.
So that's why you need a ring.
You know about Ring's video doorbell where you can see and speak to people wherever you are, in the house, outside the house, on the other side of the world.
You know about Ring Alarm, Ring's award-winning alarm system.
Now you gotta go pro.
Okay, now is the time.
It is.
It's the time to go pro.
Be a pro, just like me.
Ring Alarm protects your doors, your windows, your whole physical home.
Ring Alarm Pro protects your digital home as well.
Think of how much of your life you live on the internet.
Would you protect your physical documents?
Would you protect all your financial documents?
Would you maybe shred them, put them in a safe place?
Well, if you would do that, why wouldn't you protect your digital life where you've got so much more information?
Protect the whole thing.
Ring is the way to do it.
CNET calls it a giant leap for home security.
Go pro.
Be a pro like me.
Head on over to ring.com slash Knowles.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S. That is ring.com slash Knowles.
I understand.
It's very easy to sit behind a microphone.
It's harder to build political consensus in Washington, D.C. and get something done.
I do.
I get it.
It's why I don't take pot shots at politicians broadly.
I understand.
There needs to be compromise sometimes.
You need to work the levers of power.
I get it.
My issue with this stupid gun bill that these 14 squish Republicans are backing, my issue is, it comes down to one word.
Why?
Why?
Why are you backing this?
Well, because we have to do something.
Do we?
You're not doing anything about inflation.
You're not doing anything about immigration.
You're not doing all that much about giving us back our way of life after COVID. It was pretty much just a federal judge that let us do that.
You're not doing a ton on pro-life.
I will give Mitch McConnell credit for the judges, and then the judges might overrule Roe v.
Wade.
So okay, that's something.
The senators aren't doing a whole lot for that.
You're not doing much on a whole range of it.
You're not doing much about the debt.
You're not doing much about anything.
But this, this is the one issue, taking away Americans' Second Amendment rights.
That's the issue where we have to do something.
Why?
Well, because of the polls.
What about the polls?
You're doing great in the polls.
And a lot of Americans love guns.
And the Americans that don't love guns don't care.
It doesn't rank very high.
Even for the most anti-gun Americans, the furthest left Democrats...
Gun rights, the Second Amendment, is not at the top of their priority list.
You don't have to do any of this.
We don't know exactly what is in this bill, but it's nothing good, really.
At least the really consequential parts of this Democrat gun bill.
You've got red flag laws, which in principle sound fine, right?
But the devil's in the details because they can be so broad that the red flag just becomes you.
Did you vote for Trump?
Red flag.
Do you like buying guns?
Red flag.
Have you read the Constitution?
Boy, that's a red flag.
We're going to have to take away your constitutional rights.
So incredibly broad.
And what's the purpose of it?
I would even understand We're good to go.
To be stationed at the schools.
Maybe allow teachers who have the right to keep and bear arms to carry their weapons.
Really basic stuff.
And the Democrats won't go with any of that.
Because their object is not to protect the schools.
Their object is just to push the same stupid gun laws they've wanted for 50 years.
So the Democrats are not sincere on this at all.
Why do Republicans have to go along with this?
Why?
Why?
I hate to vent to you today.
You know I don't like complaining.
But why?
Why?
Do Republicans have to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Do you think that this is going to win over Democrat votes in the midterms?
It's not.
Do you think this is going to win over the centrists?
The centrists don't really care, and the moderates and the independents.
They're voting on gas prices.
They're voting on the economy.
They're voting on jobs.
They're voting on really basic stuff.
They're not voting on the Second Amendment.
Do you think this is going to help motivate Republicans to come out to the polls?
It's not.
It's going to depress the Republican vote.
Why is someone going to go vote for John Cornyn?
Well, they're not going to vote for John Cornyn, and he's not up for election.
He's probably not going to run for re-election, which is why a lot of these squishes are getting behind this thing.
They know that they're not going to have to face the voters again, so they can sell them out, which is what so frequently happens.
It's amazing.
It's not even just that, well, Republicans are doing really well on the economic issues, and the economic issues are going to bring us to victory in November, so we've got to downplay the cultural issues.
We're winning on the cultural issues too.
The issues that are actually pushing conservatives across the finish line are extremely cultural issues.
It's transgenderism in movies and schools.
It's critical race theory.
It's pro-life for that matter.
Great news just came out of South Dakota.
South Dakota just closed its last abortion center.
It's the last one.
Boom.
There aren't any more in South Dakota.
Governor Kristi Noem tweeted about this.
She said, Abortions have stopped in South Dakota.
We have prayed for this day and now it is here.
Now we must redouble our focus on taking care of mothers in crisis.
Help is available for you.
Adoption is an option.
You are never alone.
This is fabulous stuff.
Kristi Noem has...
Been a little bit squishy at times, at least on that transgender issue, and so conservatives are skeptical of her.
But this is great news.
Gotta give credit where credit's due.
And by the way, the very fact that Kristi Noem is the one pushing this is great news for conservatives, precisely because she has squished on certain cultural issues.
Precisely because she initially caved to pressure on transgender sports before she then reversed her position.
She's not above playing politics and figuring out which way the wind is blowing.
And she knows that on these cultural issues, in this year, the year of our Lord 2022, with the midterm elections right around the corner, all of the wind is in the sails of the Republicans on cultural matters.
What do the Democrats have to say in response to this?
What's the Democrats' best offering here?
This article from the Washington Post, I thought it was a spoof at first.
I thought it was satire.
The article says, The article online, on social media, it shows this girl taking care of the two twin babies.
It actually shows the babies, even as it insinuates that we should be able to kill those babies.
It shows the two little babies and mommy taking care of the two little babies.
I had to wonder, is there some secretly pro-life editor at the Washington Post?
How did this possibly get through?
Either the editors are so...
Completely oblivious.
So cold.
Such stone-cold psycho Patrick Bateman chopping people up in their freezers that they think that presenting a picture of a mommy taking care of her twin babies is going to convince people, yeah, we should kill them.
We should be allowed to kill those babies.
Or someone at WAPO is secretly pro-life.
I actually think I have to believe it's the latter.
In the article, You see, they say, sometimes Brooke imagined her life if she hadn't gotten pregnant and if Texas hadn't banned abortion just days after she decided that she wanted one.
She would have been in school, rushing from class to her shift at Texas Roadhouse, eyes on a real estate license, That would finally get her out of Corpus Christi.
She pictured an apartment in Austin and enough money for a trip to Hawaii where she would swim with the dolphins in water so clear she could see her toes.
When both babies finally started eating, Brooke took out her phone and restarted the timer that had been running almost continuously since the day they were born.
It would be two and a half hours until they had to eat again.
Are they serious?
I have to think they're being ironic here.
Or that someone involved in this article is being ironic.
Yeah, Brooke, she could have gone and kept working at Texas Roadhouse.
And then she could have gone and gotten an apartment in Austin.
You couldn't pay me to get an apartment in Austin.
Austin is a gross place full of derelict people who were doing all sorts of crazy things.
And homeless people and crime and all sorts of libs running around wreaking havoc.
Or she could feed her beautiful little babies.
And by the way, at the end of this article, the final bit is, she told herself that alternate life didn't matter anymore.
She had two babies she loved more than anything else in the world.
I do, she said, tears in her eyes.
Brooke pulled out her phone once they finished the ceremony.
One hour, 15 minutes, time to grab some lunch and head home.
The babies would be hungry.
Even the Washington Post is, wittingly or unwittingly, We're sympathizing with the conservatives, with the Republicans, with pro-life on a contentious issue, on the cultural matters.
All of that to say, now is not the time to squish.
Speaking of life, where there is life, someday there will be death.
That's why you've got to take seriously your future and go check out Epic Will.
This is something that people put off and put off and put off.
Do not put it off.
Do it right now.
It's going to take you five minutes, ten minutes.
You're going to be with the best guys ever who are protecting so many of us over at The Daily Wire.
Epic Will.
if you, God forbid, were to drop right now, what would happen to your kids?
What would happen to your stuff?
What would happen to your life?
Who would make the decisions for your kids and for your stuff and for your property and for your family?
Would it be people you trust?
Would it be in accordance with your wishes as you lay it out in your will?
Or would it be the state?
Or would it be institutions that hate your guts and do things to your kids and your stuff and your family that you don't want to have done?
Just go, do the responsible thing.
It takes no time.
It can start at just $119 dollars.
It takes five minutes to set up.
Go to EpicWill.com.
By the way, you'll get 10% off right now if you use promo code Knowles.
That's K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Go to EpicWill.com.
Use the guys that are protecting so many Daily Wire families.
Do it.
Five minutes.
You're done.
It doesn't cost very much money.
You get a 10% discount code.
Promo code Knowles.
EpicWill.com.
Speaking of young girls...
Two California teachers just caught an earful from an angry parent, really a room of angry parents, because these two California teachers, allegedly, we have to say allegedly, groomed, coached a 12-year-old girl into becoming transgender behind her parents' back.
These teachers come in and act as if they have nothing wrong.
They've done nothing wrong.
A mistake?
How long of a mistake?
How many mistakes are we going to take before my child almost lost her life?
They didn't tell me that my child was suicidal!
You allowed these teachers to open their classrooms teaching predatorial information to a young child, a mindful child that doesn't even know how to comprehend it all.
How do you not know what was going on on your own campuses?
Do you think that no parent would ever come forward?
You will not quiet me today.
I will stand here today and protect my child along with every other child who has not come forward yet.
Do they have psychiatry degrees that I was unaware of?
Because I didn't hire them.
I did not hire them to sit there and nitpick my child's brain.
You took away my ability to parent my child.
Even before I had any knowledge.
I didn't even get to show support.
You asked for support, I didn't get a chance.
You planted seeds, Ms.
Caldera and Ms.
Baraki.
Mr.
Baraki and you, Ms.
Cagarin.
Your job was to educate my child in math, science, English, etc.
Do your job and let me do mine.
The key here to this video, it's heartbreaking.
It's heartbreaking.
Could you imagine?
Could you imagine if it were you?
I was putting myself in this woman's shoes.
I guess it's sort of unclear even if the child is a daughter or a son.
Well, because transgenderism confuses all of those sorts of things.
And she keeps saying, my child, my child, my child.
Could you imagine if it were your child?
I don't know that I could refrain from violence against the teachers.
If I found out that some teacher were secretly grooming my sweet little baby boy behind my back and confusing him and giving him pathologies that are going to last the rest of his life and trying to convince him that he's a little girl and convince him to go on hormones and change his pronouns, change his government documents, chop up his body.
Someone was trying to harm my child.
Was actually harming my child like that.
I'm not sure I could refrain from violence.
I like to think I could.
I don't think it would be good to commit some act of vigilante violence, but that is the way that it would pull on a father's or mother's heart.
This woman is being positively restrained, even as she's screaming her head off and steam is coming out of her ears.
And you know the most amazing part of this video, it's not even, it's obviously not that the mother's getting angry, it's not even that the teachers, these creeps, these psychos, are grooming the little kid and screwing up the kid's life and having sexual perverse conversations with a little kid behind the parents' backs.
The most amazing part of the video is the unanimous applause from everyone in the room.
Everyone knows what's up.
Everyone knows that this is wrong.
Everyone knows what time it is on these allegedly controversial cultural issues.
All the people get it.
The only people that don't get it are in the crooked ruling class.
Are the teacher unions and the people who are controlling the institutions, notably the academic educational institutions, but corporate America too, and government America, and big tech, and the media.
Those guys, they don't get it.
Everyone else does get it.
We're not the crazy ones.
They're telling us that we're the crazy ones and we're abusing our kids.
You'd rather have a dead daughter than a living son?
You just don't understand.
You're just a knuckle-dragging troglodyte because you think that a man isn't actually a woman.
How dare you, you big dumb idiot.
You don't even have a degree in gender studies like I do.
Yeah, you didn't even get a master's degree in some fake thing.
You don't have a right to an opinion.
Everyone gets it.
Other than these people.
It's a message for the squishes.
It's a message for the centrists.
Now is not the time to squish.
If you are reading and consuming the establishment media and listening to all the establishment self-appointed geniuses who are running our country, you might be convinced this is a tough call.
Well, it's a complex issue.
It's not complex at all.
The people in that room didn't think it was complex.
No, the voters in Virginia didn't think it was complex.
The voters in Florida don't think it's complex.
The moviegoers who could have gone to see the Buzz Lightyear movie didn't think it was complex.
No one thinks it's complex except for the, the pudding brains, the absolute mushy headed perverts who are running our major institutions.
You do not need to squish.
We are winning on so many fronts right now.
Speaking of the schools, major, major Supreme Court win for conservatives, for Christians, for religious liberty.
Case called Carson v.
Macon.
Carson v.
Macon, me really happy that we have six quasi-conservatives on the Supreme Court, I'll tell you that.
The way that the case works, it's about a main law that allows public money to be spent on private schools.
Because Maine is, in many parts, a sparsely populated state.
And so every school-aged child has the right to a free public education.
In some places, in the rural districts, they don't have public high schools.
And so there's a workaround where they can take the public money and go to some private school with public assistance.
There was a law passed in Maine that said that you can't take that money to any Christian school.
So you can take it to whatever kind of wacky private school you want to.
It just can't be Christian.
The Supreme Court 6-3 struck it down.
Which means even Roberts, who frequently sides with the Libs, he's the swinging vote, he's the squish vote, even he sided with the conservatives here.
The left is losing their mind.
They're saying that this is a major attack on the firm wall of separation between church and state.
Sonia Sotomayor on the court says...
This court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the framers fought to build.
In just a few years, the court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits states to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires states in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.
Constitutional doctrine.
Would you mind, if you're not driving or something, would you mind maybe pulling up the text of the Constitution on your phone or on your computer?
And just do a quick little word search.
Search for wall of separation between church and state.
Separation between, you're not, it's going to come up blank because that's not a constitutional doctrine.
I feel like I want to, I'm in that meme of the psychiatrist talking to the lunatic young man in the padded cell walls.
Excuse me, young man, sir, this wall of separation between church and state, is it in the room with us right now?
Do you hear it?
Do you feel the wall?
Because it's not real.
It's not real.
It was never real.
That phrase, the wall of separation between church and state, it comes from a private letter from Thomas Jefferson.
It means absolutely nothing in the American law.
What it might sort of, kind of, maybe refer to is the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, which says that the federal government will not establish a church at the national level.
The reason that the federal government did not establish a church at the national level is not because we were going to be an atheist, secular country and have nothing to do with religion.
The reason we didn't establish a church at the national level is because there were already established churches at the state level.
And they persisted for decades after ratification.
Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment, one of the negative, possibly unintended consequences of the 14th Amendment, is that later on the Supreme Court interpreted that to mean that you would deprive states of the rights to do a whole lot of things and you would apply the federal constitution and the rights enumerated therein to the states, to override the states.
It's a Topic, I suppose, for another day.
You could go on at great length about that.
But it's not in the Constitution.
At the very least, we have to say the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
And it can't possibly be.
Because just zooming out from the legal constitutional perspective for a second...
Getting into the broad philosophical historical perspective, all states have to have something to do with religion because all law has to have something to do with religion because all civil laws and constitutional laws ultimately have to say something about and derive from the natural and moral law.
So it's just simply a fact when we come together in political society, We have to hold certain things sacred and certain things taboo.
We have to value certain things and we have to discard other things.
We have to encourage certain things and discourage other things.
The basic charge of statecraft is do good and avoid evil and have human flourishing and pursue happiness and give people the kind of society that we want to live in, especially when you're talking about self-government.
All you had with this main law that was just struck down was a religious discrimination against Christianity.
You could support the religion of The only religion you couldn't support is Christianity.
The only religion you're not allowed to support is true religion, traditional religion, the religion that animated our country and our civilization.
That didn't make a lot of sense, and so it's very good that the court struck it.
You know, really exciting news from the Supreme Court.
Really exciting news here in Nashville, because do you know what's coming up next week?
Daily Wire's biggest event of the year.
Backstage live at the historic Ryman Auditorium.
If you have not gotten your tickets yet, I think there might still be a few left.
Go check it out.
If not, you can stream it at dailywire.com slash Knowles.
This is the biggest, baddest, coolest, toughest event of the year.
If you missed it last year, check it out.
Welcome to the Daily Wire backstage live at the famous Ryman Auditorium.
It was amazing.
We were in the presence of greatness.
The energy of having everyone on the same page was amazing.
If your family member is still waiting for Fauci to give them permission to leave their house, it might be time to cut that off.
I'm actually pretty excited to meet all of them.
I love everybody's opinion individually.
I don't have a favorite.
I like them all.
I had found out a way to make football players cry in high school.
My high school experience had been a lot of fun.
I'm just excited to be here and be surrounded by like-minded people and to just, you know, feel that energy.
Who should we remove from office?
One politician.
The most powerful politician in the country.
Dr.
Fauci!
Dr.
Jeff, what are you talking about?
We're doing culture here.
I'm so thrilled to see this happening.
If they say to half of the country, you can't, that half of the country needs to say, screw you, we will.
Backstage Live happens right here in Nashville on June 29th.
Get your tickets now.
It's going to be incredibly fun.
I think there's a few tickets left.
You can head on over to dailywire.com slash Ryman if there are no tickets left.
If you cannot make it to Nashville, you can stream it.
Go to DailyWire.com slash Knowles.
You will get 25% off.
That's DailyWire.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S. You will get the entire Daily Wire content library.
You will get the Dr.
Fauci docuseries.
You will get our movie on the history of Roe v.
Wade, that legacy of death.
You will get What is a Woman?
You will get Terror on the Prairie.
You will get everything.
DailyWire.com slash Knowles.
25% off.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
Welcome back to the show.
Here's the rub with the big conservative win at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court says, and Carson v.
Macon, Carson v.
Macon, Michael very happy, 6-3, you can't discriminate against Christian schools.
If you're going to fund private schools with taxpayer dollars, you've got to fund the Christian ones too.
So here's what's going to happen.
The Satanic Temple, which is a group of left-wing atheists, They are going to start filing a lot of cases, a lot of lawsuits.
They're going to maybe establish some facade of a school, and they're going to try to get taxpayer dollars to teach Satanism.
The Satanic Temple is different than the Church of Satan, sort of.
The Church of Satan, they are very committed Satanists who worship the devil.
the satanic temple is a group of internet atheists who just worship Satan ironically?
It's just ironic.
It's just really funny.
Aren't they so clever?
And they hate Christianity.
They hate Christianity.
They want a firmer separation of church and state.
You'll notice, though, they always try to make this distinction between the church of Satan and the satanic temple.
They say, we're totally different things.
You see, they worship Satan earnestly, and we worship Satan ironically.
And my answer to that is always, are you sure?
Are you sure you can worship Satan ironically?
I'm not sure you can.
Your antipathies are both the same.
You both hate God and you both hate Christianity.
Your symbolism is the same.
You are both exalting symbols of Satan.
Your practical effect in society is the same.
You are both seeking to undermine good, virtuous institutions and religion and cultural practice and church and replace it with Hedonism and pursuing one's own will.
I mean, I think of Aleister Crowley.
I think of the more prominent Satanists in history.
They've said, the only moral law that you should follow is do as thou wilt.
Just do whatever you want to do.
That's the only moral law.
That's the true golden rule, they say.
And then you look at the ironic, hipster, lefty, atheist Church of Satan.
They say the exact same thing.
Yeah, just do whatever you want.
If it feels good, do it.
I feel for them, the ironic edgelord atheist Satan temple, because someday they're going to be in for a really big surprise.
Someday, when it's all over and they're facing the judgment seat, they're going to find out you can't ironically worship Satan.
More broadly, you can't do something ironically all the time and have it still be ironic.
Eventually, if you live your life, hipsters really were very guilty of this.
They were apathetic to everything.
They would just do things ironically.
Isn't that funny?
But if you do things ironically all the time, it just becomes sincere.
It's just earnest.
That's just what you do.
That is how you live.
And then it's over, and that was your life.
And then you're being tortured by the devil for eternity.
That's not good.
Don't do that.
You don't want to do that.
So, There's two reactions to the Satanists inevitably trying to get public funds in Maine to fund their satanic schools.
The first is, would it really be all that different from the public schools?
If actual outright self-styled Satanists formed a school, would the curriculum look all that different from what is currently being taught in schools?
Namely, Gosh, drag queen story hour.
Drag queens often dressed up like actual demons going around and twerking for little kids.
The teachers, like the ones in California, grooming a poor little child and convincing the child that the child should disregard his parents and should pretend to be the other sex and go on cross-sex hormones.
Frankly, I think the Satanists might blush.
I think that in some cases, the left-wing school teachers that are already around and the left-wing administrators...
Would out-Satanist the Satanists.
You'd have these Satanists in Maine, they'd say, yo, cool it, buddy.
I don't want to chop up little kids, all right?
Come on, don't we have any limits anymore?
So that's the first part.
The second part, though, which is a legitimate constitutional and legal question is, can we have limits?
Can we say, yes, we're going to fund Non-sectarian, secular private schools with taxpayer money and Christian schools with taxpayer money and Jewish schools with taxpayer money and Muslim schools with taxpayer money, but not Satanist schools.
Can we do that?
I think we can.
I think we can.
We have to undo some stupid concepts that have cropped up in our jurisprudence in the last few decades.
For one, the idea that the government has to be completely neutral on all questions of politics, culture, and religion.
That's a new idea.
The idea of viewpoint neutrality, which some of the squish conservatives defend, that idea dates back to 1995.
This is not something that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were defending.
If you went back to my rule of thumb, the old WWWD rule, what would Washington do?
WWFFD rule, what would the Founding Fathers do?
And you said, hey, this government that you're setting up, the brilliant ideas enshrined in the Constitution and this country, it naturally will follow from those ideas that we need taxpayer-funded satanic temples.
They would laugh at you.
Or they would look at you with bemusement.
Or they would chase you out of town on a rail.
So we know that that wasn't the idea from the beginning.
If you had told someone this in 1947, that this is how things would be used, they would laugh at you.
They would look at you with bemusement.
Frankly, even if you told someone this in the 60s, other than the radicals of the new left, they would laugh at you.
And yet, here we are.
So what went wrong?
A number of things went wrong.
The overt government discrimination against Christianity.
That went wrong.
Kicking prayer out of public schools, pretending that the Constitution prohibits prayer in public schools.
It doesn't.
Kicking the Bible out of public schools, pretending that the Constitution bans the Bible, the most important book ever written, even if you don't believe in it.
You have to at least admit it's the most important book ever written, without which Western civilization is completely incomprehensible.
That's the only book you can't teach in schools?
You think that's in the Constitution?
I don't think so.
You've got to go back and, and ultimately what you have to undo is what Sotomayor was talking about.
This fictional notion that there is a firm wall of separation between church and state.
There's not, it has never existed, it's never been a real thing, at least for the first part of our country.
It is a foreign concept that was brought about really in the middle to late 20th century, and it has not helped our culture.
Our culture has not gotten better in most ways since then, so time to get rid of it.
On this point of the ironic Satanists, this is just a minor point before we move on, I was reminded when I was reading about these ironic Satanists of this story that didn't get a ton of play.
Mike Cernovich posted it around again recently too, that at CERN, You know, the Large Hadron Collider, probably the most important site for physics research on Earth, there was a film that leaked of a satanic performed human sacrifice,
like a sort of show ritual, not a real human sacrifice, but a feigned satanic ritual at CERN in front of a Hindu deity.
And you look, you can watch the video.
It's really, it's people in these black robes with fire all around and then a light on, I think it's a statue of Shiva, and then a performed human sacrifice.
And you say, what the hell is, what are these scientists doing?
And then CERN made a statement about it.
And they said, oh, yeah, the footage was recorded as part of a prank by scientists at Europe's top physics lab.
CERN said that the ritual was just, it was just researchers and scientists coming to work at the facility and taking their sense of humor a little too far.
Ha ha ha.
Yeah, it's not a big, it's just a big funny ha ha.
It's just a funny little hoax.
You know when you joke, you go out with friends, and maybe you throw a couple back, you have one too many Coca-Colas, and then you perform a black mass in front of a Hindu deity, and you pretend to sacrifice a human being.
And then maybe you shoot some pool afterward, maybe you gamble a little bit too much, and you worship Moloch and Baal and the devil.
You know how that happens?
Ha ha ha.
You, jokester.
Oh, you, with your dry sense of humor.
I don't know about you.
That explanation doesn't suffice for me.
I'm going to need a little bit more before I just write this off.
Gosh, you've got gay frogs.
You've got weird stuff in the water that the EPA just admitted.
Now you've got devil worshippers at CERN. This is really shaking a lot of what I had believed previously about how normal politics is.
If you do that, if you engage in black satanic rituals, ironically, it's not ironic, okay?
And it's bad.
And the fact that this symbolism continues to exist and has existed for millennia, that should tell you something.
If you're on the side with the guys in the dark black robes and the fire performing the human sacrifices, you're on the wrong side.
Get on a different side, okay?
It's demonic stuff.
That transgenderism is demonic.
It's the only way to describe it.
It is a way, I'm not saying that the people who are under the sway of transgenderism and in the thrall of this ideology are intentionally worshipping demons, but it is a demonic influence that tells you that your soul and your body are in opposition to one another and you've got to mutilate yourself.
It's just so anti-human.
It's just so extremely destructive.
And the Whatever we know about the devil, we know two things.
We know he's a liar, and we know that he hates life.
He specifically hates human beings.
And so when people are really anti-human, when they're really anti-life, and when they ground their ideas on manifest lies, you've got to sense that the old devil might be lurking around somewhere, and you probably want to get on the other side.
On this point of transgenderism and demonic policy, there is a new policy from FINA, the International Swimming Association, that is being reported in some places as being really good for the conservative side and really tough on the transgender side.
Because they're tightening up the rules and they're saying, look, these dudes can't just willy-nilly compete against the women because they're going to beat all the women and so they're going to have to have transitioned before a certain age.
If they transitioned before the age of 12, then they can compete against the women.
But if they transitioned after, they can't do that.
And then FINA is going to try to create an open category for these sort of sexually confused people to compete against one another that isn't the male category or isn't the female category.
This is a bad idea.
They're trying to split the baby on this and it's not going to work.
First, did you catch what the worst part of this policy is?
It's right there at the top.
If you transition before the age of 12, then you can compete against the women.
That creates an incentive to transition, to go on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and chop up your body before the age of 12.
What happens when you create incentives?
You get more of that behavior.
So the result of this policy is going to be an increase in the number of poor little kids who get their bodies all chopped up and their lives ruined so that their psycho parents can get them to compete in the swimming race where they think they're going to win and get a scholarship.
That's the first part of it.
Second part of it.
This open category just punts the question.
Says, well, yeah, we just don't want to rule on it.
And so, yeah, men, they're not men.
They are men.
They're not women.
You can't split the baby on this, okay?
You have to come to an answer.
And the reason that people don't want to come to an answer is because they're squishes and because they're cowards in some way and because maybe they don't have moral clarity and also because they don't realize how How much common sense ordinary people have?
We are inundated with this crazy transgender idea from every corner, and so we think that it's a common popular belief.
It's not.
The vast majority of people know this is completely insane.
You can say that.
You can have confidence.
In fact, if you say that, you're going to be more politically popular.
You're going to win more elections.
You might be attacked by some of the prevailing institutions, but the people are going to be on your side, and they're going to be on your side because it's right.
Either a man is a man and not a woman, or a man is not necessarily a man and can be a woman.
You've got to pick though.
And if it's the latter, if you can really be a woman born in a man's body or vice versa, then we need to trans the kids.
And then that's fine.
And then we can incentivize it below the age of 12 or even younger.
Because it's true, right?
Then it actually would be cruel to let the kids go through puberty.
But if it's fake, which we all know it is, if it's just completely absurd, which we all know it is, then you shouldn't do it at 12 or 14 or 20 or 75.
It's wrong and destructive.
We haven't lost this issue.
There are some conservatives who want to preemptively surrender this issue because they're the surrender party, because they're the John Cornyn party, because they're giving in on very important issues, not just gender, talk about gun rights, talk about constitutional rights, without any need to whatsoever.
But we haven't lost this issue.
We haven't even lost marriage, by the way.
We just radically redefined marriage in this country, the Supreme Court did, within the last decade.
Changed the definition of marriage to something that is completely unrecognizable from all of human history.
And then what happened?
The squishes right away, they said, okay, it's over.
Move on.
Time to move on.
The squishes were thrilled when the Supreme Court redefined marriage.
It's over.
Gotta move on.
It's not over, guys.
It's not over.
Actually, people are still standing up on this issue because the truth is on our side.
There's a court in Japan that just ruled that the Japanese Constitution does not prohibit bans on same-sex marriage.
This is such a semantically complex sentence, it's hard to even make sense of it.
Because...
Because the marriage debate was never about whether or not you should ban gay marriage.
It was never about whether or not you should legalize gay marriage.
It was never about whether gay people should have the right to get married.
The marriage debate really was always about what is marriage.
It wasn't about hating gay people and wanting to go attack gay people and throw them off a rooftop.
It was not about any antipathy whatsoever.
It was about a very simple question that had been simply answered for all of human history until five minutes ago.
The question was, what is marriage?
And at the very most basic level, I think, every society, everywhere, forever, has said that sexual difference, the difference between men and women, has something to do with marriage.
The complementarity of the sexes.
The idea that you come together and have the openness to the possibility of life, making a family, having kids, that has something to do with marriage.
And it's not that everyone gets to have a kid.
It's not that there aren't problems and eccentricities in people's marriages.
But marriage looks like something.
And then the Supreme Court in Obergefell, Anthony Kennedy, the romantic poet, decided, nope, doesn't look like that at all.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's whatever I say it is.
Love is love.
Equal sign, equal sign, equal sign.
Well, this court in Japan just said, no, that's not true.
The Osaka District Court...
Sided with the argument from the country of Japan, which said that, quote, the purpose of marriage is reproduction.
And it agreed with the definition that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman to bear children and raise them together in cohabitation.
Osaka said that the marriage system is a system that exists based on the, quote, pragmatic purpose of the society protecting men and women to bear children and raise them.
That's true.
Why do I bring this up?
Why do I bring up this court case from Japan?
Just to remind you, this isn't over.
The surrender caucus, the squishes, don't need to give this up.
Why have the squishes in the conservative side gone weak on gay marriage?
It's a simple reason, and I sympathize with it, because they don't want to be called phobes.
And they legitimately don't want to offend their gay friends and their gay relatives, and they don't want to be seen as haters and bigots.
There's nothing...
Hateful and bigoted about saying that marriage has a meaning.
And people can pursue happiness as they see fit.
And people can have the intimate relationships as they like.
But no one has the right to redefine reality to something that it never was and is not now and never will be.
It's not good for anybody.
It's not good for the gay guys.
It's not good for the lesbian toys and toy story.
It's not good for anybody else.
It doesn't expand marriage and make it more inclusive.
It just destroys marriage.
Because if marriage has any meaning at all, it has to have something to do with sexual complementarity and at least the possibility, the logical possibility, of children.
If it doesn't, then what is it?
And why is it only two people?
And why can't it be?
What's the difference between a marriage and a town or a state or a country?
It's just relationships of people.
Love is love.
There are different kinds, of course.
Speaking of identity politics, there's a coffee shop looking to hire new people.
And this coffee shop puts in their sign to go hire people.
They say, white cis males are the last choice.
When you apply, if you're a black trans female, presumably you'll be at the top of the list.
But if you're a white cis male, you are the last choice.
And people know this is wrong.
But this policy already exists.
We're all going after this random coffee shop that Libs of TikTok found.
The policy already exists.
It's existed for decades.
It's called affirmative action.
And you see it in college admissions and you see it in hiring.
The idea that white people will be disadvantaged because of their race.
I'm not saying they're disadvantaged in life.
I'm not saying, oh, woe is the white people.
I don't know.
I got a suntan the other day.
I'm not sure I count as a white person anymore.
Swarthy people, where do we fall on that?
I don't know.
That's a topic for another day.
I'm not saying that there's...
Nope, the black people don't have certain...
Historical baggage in America.
I'm not saying that socioeconomically everyone's on the level.
I'm just saying at a very practical level there's a law, right?
The only legal racial discrimination that you can have is against white people and to some degree against Asians in favor of black people and Mexican people.
That's the law.
And so, yeah, the coffee shop is being honest about it.
The coffee shop's being a little provocative in your face about it.
But that's That's the rule for every other business, too, just about.
So if we have a problem with that, if we think that's unjust, then we should deal with that in our law and say, no, no more racial preferences, no more racial discrimination.
It's racist.
We used to call that racist.
Now we don't call that racist.
I think the majority of people are on our side there.
I think the majority of people get that.
The squishes don't.
The putting heads who run our institutions, they don't get it.
But the people do.
Frankly, even the heads of the liberal institutions are starting to kind of get it.
There was a report just came out of Mediaite about CNN.
It says that CNN's president, Chris Licht, the new president who took over for Jeff Zucker, just told CNN staffers to stop referring to Trump's election claims that the election was rigged as the big lie.
That CNN staffers, just like robots, had been referring to Trump's questions about the election as the big lie.
Republicans are pushing the big lie, the big lie.
And they're using that because it's a phrase that was used by Hitler and Mein Kampf.
But these guys are so dumb that they don't realize how Hitler was using the phrase.
Hitler was using the phrase and accusing the Jews of perpetrating a big lie when they were, when they themselves were criticizing and going after a German general.
So what's ironic about the whole saga is that CNN was putting itself in the position of the Nazis and Republicans in the position of the Jews, but they don't know anything.
They've never read a history book.
They don't know what they're talking about.
The reason that the new president of CNN is calling for the staffers to stop using that phrase...
The president of CNN is saying, guys, no one believes this.
It sounds dumb.
Most people know it's not true.
It's crushing our ratings.
Even these guys get it.
The wind is at the backs of the Republicans.
Not just the Republicans, the conservatives.
Not just the conservatives, the cultural conservatives.
Now is not the time to squish.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Production manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate producer, Justine Turley.
Audio mixer, Mike Coromina.
And hair and makeup by Cherokee Heart.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey there, this is John Bickley, Daily Wire editor-in-chief and co-host of Morning Wire.
On today's episode, Florida and the White House feud over vaccinating young children, explosive testimony reveals new details about the police response to the Uvalde school shooting, and Disney's new Pixar film Lightyear disappoints at the box office.
Join us and get the facts first on the news you need to know with our show, Morning Wire.
