Ep. 1071 - The Horrifying Creeps Coming For The Kids
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
A Yale professor brags about trans-ing three-year-olds, a prominent leftist “intellectual” defends censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, and Elon Musk says Republicans need to squish on immigration.
To view job openings at The Daily Wire and to apply, click here: https://utm.io/ueSX3
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Podium is a multi-product platform that’s modernizing the way local business gets done. See how Podium can grow your business! Watch a demo today at podium.com/KNOWLES
Stop funding woke corporate agendas. Switch to PureTalk instead. Save 50% OFF your 1st month when you enter promo code KNOWLESPODCAST at puretalk.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Sometimes the libs accuse conservatives of exaggerating our problems for political gain, especially when it comes to the so-called social issues.
That's why it's helpful when we can just play clips of the libs in their own words.
The woman you're about to hear is named Christy Oleseski.
She is a quack doctor, but she's not a fringe quack doctor.
She is a professor and practitioner at the Yale School of Medicine.
She heads up Yale's pediatric gender program.
Her job is to convince three-year-olds to begin a lifelong process of chemical injections and genital mutilations to make them look more like the opposite sex.
I'm a clinical psychologist by training and I am the director of the Yale Gender Program, which is an interdisciplinary program working with gender expansive individuals, 3 to 25, and their families.
We help individuals who are questioning their gender identity or who identify as transgender or non-binary.
We help them With their gender journey, thinking through that, thinking through the risks and the benefits of medical intervention, starting medical intervention, and also building supports around them.
I love what I do, so it's really, really wonderful to be working in this field and to be working with individuals who are gender diverse and gaining their support and helping them on their gender journeys.
3 to 25.
This woman works with individuals ages 3 to 25 to facilitate their gender journeys.
3.
The wildest predictions of the most alarmist religious right leaders of the past several decades did not predict this.
The slipperiest, slippery slope warnings did not predict...
The Ivy League, grooming three-year-olds to turn into castrati mutants.
Our nation's mainstream liberal institutions, not just the crazy radicals, the actual mainstream as establishment as it gets, Yale University, have become more extreme than any of us could have possibly imagined.
And the more predatory and outright demonic that the leftists get, the more insistent they become that it's us conservatives who have changed, that it's us conservatives who pose the threat to the country, that it's us conservatives who must be stopped by any means necessary. that it's us conservatives who must be stopped by any
And do not doubt for one second, people who gleefully sterilize toddlers will attack their opponents using any means necessary.
I'm Michael Knowles.
Michael Knowles, this is The Michael Knowles Show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Mark McConville, who says, My wife suggested a drinking game every time Michael says libs.
I now have a serious buzz halfway through the video.
Oh yeah, you'll be dead by the end of the video.
Because libs, it just sums it all up.
Some people want these really serious, self-serious terms, very specific terms.
Actually, it should be progressives.
Actually, you should talk about the leftists.
No, it's just the libs.
They're just the libs.
The libs are the libs.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We've got to reach people, and we've got to use really simple, clear terms.
When you want to reach people, you've got to check out Podium.
Right now, go to Podium.com slash Knowles.
If you own a business, you know the last two years have not been easy.
From supply chain issues to increased demand on top of everything else that business owners have to manage, the businesses that are thriving right now are the ones that are forward thinking.
Podium helps your small business stay ahead of the curve with modern messaging tools that make it easy for your customers to connect with your business.
From healthcare providers to plumbers, over 100,000 businesses are texting with customers through Podium.
Customers love the convenience, businesses love the results.
With Podium's all-in-one inbox, you can do even more than just chat.
You can get online reviews by sending an easy-to-use link.
You can collect payments fast from anywhere.
You can send marketing campaigns that actually get a response.
And it's so simple.
You do it all by sending a quick text.
See how your Podium can grow your business.
Watch a demo today at Podium.com slash Knowles.
That is Podium.com slash Knowles.
Podium, let's grow.
These pediatric gender clinics are cropping up everywhere.
There's one right here in Tennessee.
Tennessee, right in our backyard at Vanderbilt.
Pediatric gender clinic.
Absolutely horrifying stuff.
Obviously should be shut down.
Obviously this lady at Yale, Christy Olazeski, and all of the other psychos who are working with her to trans three-year-olds, these people should all be in prison.
First, we have to pass a law banning this stuff.
First, they need to lose their jobs.
Then we need to pass a law banning this stuff.
And then the second these people continue to groom the little kids, and you know they will, we need to put them in orange jumpsuits.
And it's just as simple as that.
This is spreading like wildfire, like a social contagion, and it's specifically targeted at little kids.
And it's not just coming from the pervert in the white van sitting in the bad part of the neighborhood.
It's not just coming from some sex trafficker, international criminal.
It's not just coming from the child porn producer.
It's coming from Yale.
It's coming from New York's Fashion Week.
Here's a story out of New York.
A 10-year-old child has just become the youngest transgender model to walk the runway at New York's Fashion Week.
This young boy goes by Noella.
He participated in the Trans Clothing Company show.
This was created by the designer Mel Atkinson, this according to Metro.
and Noella, this little boy who the adults in his life are dressing up to be a little girl, says, it feels good that I'm already inspiring trans kids to be themselves.
Now, obviously, what transgenderism does is the opposite.
They encourage kids and all people not to be themselves, to be other people or to pretend to be other people, to have a little boy pretend to be a little girl or vice versa.
I'm all for encouraging people to be themselves and not even just themselves as they are, but to be a perfect, good version of themselves.
All people, they can go bad or they can go good.
They can get into a lot of vice and sin and bad stuff or they can do good stuff.
Pursue virtue, sanctity, holiness.
And we should encourage the latter, not the former.
It's not just that you're born, some people are born good, some people are born bad.
That's not true.
We have free will, we have a conception of what's good and what's bad.
And we can know something about that and pursue that.
Here, we're getting the worst possible version.
We're encouraging people to only pursue really bad stuff and then to just pretend to be totally different than they are outright.
How on earth does a 10-year-old kid wind up doing a drag dance at New York Fashion Week?
Obviously because this poor little boy has pervert parents.
His current guardians, that's how it's described in the article, I don't even know what the relationship of these adults are to the kid.
I just know that they're perverts.
Ray and D. McMahon told Metro...
That Noella, who's this little boy, began socially transitioning at the age of four.
So you read that and you say, Ray and Dee, that sounds like normal people, right?
But I know they're not normal people because they're transing their little four-year-old.
So, of course, these guys or girls, I don't know what they are, are both sexual deviants.
They identify as non-binary.
And so whose fault is this?
The primary fault is the fault of the parents.
Or I don't know the parents, the current guardians, as this is ambiguously described in the paper.
But the parents are the fault of us.
That's really what this is about.
We can't just say those guys are perverts or girls or whatever they are.
We can't just say they're perverts, this is their child abuse.
Yeah, it is.
They're primarily responsible.
But we let this happen.
We let this happen.
How on earth did these people adopt a child or through surrogacy create a child?
I actually don't know if it's two guys or two girls or a guy and a girl.
The fact that I don't know that is our fault politically because we've radically redefined marriage so we have no idea what marriage means.
We tolerate all sorts of sexual degeneracy.
So men can pretend to be women and women can pretend to be men and they can pretend to be ambiguous.
People are having a surgery called sexual nullification.
That means they just chop off their genitals entirely.
And we tolerate this.
Not only do we tolerate this, we celebrate this.
And if you in any way criticize it, you're called a hater and you can be ostracized from society.
I'm not sure that this video will remain on YouTube.
I broadcast my show in part on YouTube.
I'm not sure that this will even be allowed to be kept up.
Because I don't think that these pervs should be allowed within 300 yards of a child, and I don't think they should be able to pretend that their union is a marriage, and I don't think they should be able to pretend that whichever one of them is a man, either or none of them is a man, is a girl, or vice versa, or that they're neither.
That's our fault.
We let it get this far.
We in the political community.
We let the libs go this far.
Because so many conservatives, what did they say?
Well, it doesn't affect me.
I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely.
Well, I don't know.
What people do in their bedroom between consenting adults, that's none of my business.
I think this is my business.
I don't want kids on drag...
Red carpets.
I don't want kids, little boys, dancing around like little girls for the satisfaction of perverts at New York's Fashion Week.
I don't want these Yale psychopaths to be able to trans three-year-olds.
That's a political problem.
That's why the government's always involved in marriage, by the way, because marriage is the fundamental political institution.
And the state, meaning the political community, obviously has an interest and obviously always has some kind of say in how to raise the next generation.
That's what it is.
That's what marriage is.
Marriage is a lifelong bond, a union between a man and a woman for the sake of the generation, the procreation, and the education of children.
We have a say about that.
Or we should.
Or we just let this go.
And I blame the libs.
But I expect it of the libs.
Really here, my special ire is for those squishy conservatives who Who let it get this far because they didn't have the moral clarity or even if they did have the moral clarity in a lot of cases, they didn't have the moral courage to say, no, sorry Ray and D. McMahon,
You don't get to pretend that your non-binary union is a marriage, and you don't get to either purchase a child or adopt a child or rent a woman's womb and create a child in this way that establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.
And it's not about you.
You don't get to do your weird stuff.
Sorry, there are rules and standards, and we are going to defend them.
When you want to have a good political order, you need to communicate this stuff clearly.
When you want to communicate, you've got to check out Pure Talk.
Right now, go to puretalk.com, enter promo code KnowlesPodcast.
Thanks to Bidenflation, you are paying way more money than you should for gas, for groceries.
Polls show that 94% of Americans are upset or concerned about the impact of rising prices, obviously.
95% believe that soaring inflation is very or somewhat serious.
As a result of this, Every business is trying to nickel and dime you.
How much can they squeeze out of you to offset their increasing costs?
Every business except for Pure Talk.
Pure Talk gives you talk, text, and plenty of data for just $30 per month.
No price increase there.
You're probably paying $90 a month for your current cell phone plan.
I am a Pure Talk customer.
They are incredibly reliable.
I know.
Everyone's so hesitant to switch cell phone plans, even if they hate their cell phone company.
I was that way, too.
And then I got Pure Talk, and I got it on a nice new Apple iPhone.
And I'll tell you, the 5G coverage is great.
The switch is super-duper easy.
You can do it in 10 minutes.
Right now, Pure Talk is offering their best discount ever, just to our listeners, one month free.
Lock in that talk, text, data on America's most reliable 5G network for just $30 a month, plus one month free when you make the switch today.
PureTalk.com, enter promo code NOLSPODCAST for this special offer.
That is PureTalk.com, promo code NOLSPODCAST. Speaking of fashion, there is a pastor in Kansas City.
I'm going to use that term pastor loosely.
I don't know what kind of bizarre sect this guy is a pastor of, but he calls himself a pastor.
He's got some sort of flock in Kansas City, and he's very upset at his congregation because his congregation would not buy him an expensive Movado watch.
See, that's how I know you still poor, broke, busted, and disgusted because of how you've been honoring me.
I'm not worth your McDonald's money.
Come on.
Come on.
I'm not worth your Red Lobster money.
I ain't worth your St.
John Knit.
Y'all can't afford it no how.
I ain't worth y'all Louis Vuitton.
I ain't worth your Prada.
I'm not worth your Gucci.
Mother, ooh, I'm saying this, and I promise you, Deaconian, it's not with respect and want.
I'm saying it because I want you to understand just what God is saying.
You can buy a Movado watch in Sam's.
Yes, you can.
Yes, you can.
And y'all know I asked for one last year.
Here it is the whole way in August.
I still ain't got it.
Y'all ain't saying nothing.
Let me kick down the door and talk to my cheap sons and daughters.
So I really get a kick out of this guy.
I know what he's doing is evil, but I really, it gave me a great idea.
Because I don't want a Movado.
Movado, I find, is a little too modernist.
It's a little too, but I would like a Patek Philippe watch.
And they're, you know, look, they're a bargain.
You can get those for anywhere from, what, $20,000 to a few million.
And so I think this guy can do it to his flock here.
I There are a lot of listeners out there.
You listeners out there, you're too cheap to buy me a Patek Philippe watch.
You're listening to this show every day.
Every single day I'm sitting here, you know I want a nice $200,000 Patek Philippe watch and you're too cheap.
You're too busted to buy me that watch.
You would probably be pretty offended if I said that.
I would like the watch, by the way.
But you would probably be pretty offended if I said that, and rightly so.
And you would have the right to be much, much more offended if I were speaking as a pastor.
I mean, that guy is dressed up like a priest.
He's obviously not a priest, but he puts on the uniform of a priest.
He has a little collar, a fake collar, whatever fake religious orders this guy took, and he's using that.
From the position of a wolf in sheep's clothing, which is very specifically warned about in the Bible.
And he's trying to fleece his flock to buy him nice jewelry.
We tend to have a more visceral and negative reaction to guys like this, even than we do to the atheists, even than we do to the radicals, perhaps even than we do to the blasphemers and the heretics and the libs.
I guess this guy is a heretic.
But we have a more visceral reaction to people who pretend to be on our side, but are actually coming from the position of our enemies and our opponents.
This actually explains why the conservatives are so revved up against Liz Cheney.
Because if you just look at voting record, is Liz Cheney worse than Nancy Pelosi?
No, of course, not even close.
If you just looked at voting record...
Liz Cheney is more conservative than her replacement in the House leadership, Elise Stefanik.
Elise Stefanik has a much more liberal voting record than Liz Cheney.
Now you might say, Elise Stefanik is from New York.
She's got a more liberal district.
Liz Cheney from Wyoming.
But whatever.
That's just if you look at the voting record.
But Liz Cheney puts on the Republican skin...
Puts on the Republican collar and uniform as a wolf in sheep's clothing because every time it matters, every time there's a vote that counts, she sides with the lips.
John McCain used to do this.
John McCain talked a good game.
He sided with the Republicans.
He even sided with Trump, whom he hated, I think, 83 to 85 percent of the time, even Trump.
And yet, on the crucial votes, on the Obamacare vote, the vote that he, John McCain ran his last campaign saying, I will vote against Obamacare.
I will vote to overturn Obamacare.
And when it comes to that moment, John McCain walks into the room, into the Senate.
He's going to be the deciding vote.
He votes no.
Wolves in sheep's clothing.
And we react naturally, and I think rightly against this, because we understand that betrayal is a very, very bad sin.
Dante keeps coming up this week.
In Dante's Inferno, in Hell...
The lowest sin, the absolute pit of hell that you find Satan frozen in a lake of ice is betrayal, specifically the betrayal of one's benefactors.
At the bottom of hell, you've got this three-headed Satan gnawing on three people in the three heads.
Judas, Brutus, and Cassius, people who betray their benefactors.
Judas, obviously, who betrays Christ.
That's why we react against that.
We're right to.
Do not betray your flock.
Do not lead one of the little ones astray.
There's that verse in the New Testament where Christ is saying...
People who lead even any of these little ones into sin, who cause even these little ones to stumble, it would be better for that man to have millstones tied around his neck.
And very often this verse is misinterpreted as talking about physically attacking a little one, or abortion maybe, killing a little one.
But it's actually causing the little one to stumble.
It's actually referring to scandal.
It's referring to wolves in sheep's clothing coming in and betraying their mission and betraying their flock and leading people astray.
Don't do that.
Don't do it for a Movado watch.
Don't do it for a Profile in the New York Times, don't do it for a cushy gig on MSNBC or CNN. Speaking of religion, one of the most famous or infamous new atheists of the 2000s, Sam Harris.
The new atheists, for those who don't remember, were Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett.
And it was more a publishing phenomenon than it was a real intellectual movement.
But it was a bunch of guys who said religion is bad.
And they did it because they were attacking Islam, because radical Islam was a big topic of concern then after 9-11.
And they used the specifics of Islamic terror attacks to attack religion generally, and a bunch of...
Very shallow-thinking teenagers thought this was really smart.
I was one of those shallow-thinking teenagers.
I was really taken up by it.
The new atheists have aged like milk, and now the new atheists are not even being applauded by the libs.
Because they've transgressed certain norms of wokeness and political correctness.
But it's worth remembering, these guys, Hitchens is dead, but Dawkins, Dennett, and Sam Harris, even though they sometimes contradict political correctness, they are men of the left.
Sam Harris just proved this when, in an interview, he said, look, yeah, it's bad that the Liberal oligarchy, Twitter and big tech.
It's bad that they covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story and they censored the New York Post and they stopped people from messaging the story, which was damaging to the Bidens to one another.
That's bad.
But, you know, look, it was to stop Trump.
So, yeah, censor away.
At that point, Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement.
I would not have cared, right?
It's like there's nothing.
First of all, it's Hunter Biden, right?
It's not Joe Biden.
But even if Joe Biden, like even whatever scope of Joe Biden's corruption is, like if we could just go down that rabbit hole endlessly and understand that he's getting kickbacks from Hunter Biden's deals in Ukraine or wherever else, right?
Or China.
It is infinitesimal compared to the corruption we know Trump is involved in.
Now, that doesn't answer the people who say it's still completely unfair to not have looked at the laptop in a timely way and to have shut down the New York Post's Twitter account.
That's a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump.
Absolutely it was.
Absolutely.
But I think it was warranted.
It was a left-wing conspiracy.
It was censorship.
It was wrong.
Maybe it was illegal.
I don't know.
But who cares?
It was all sorts of sinful and all sorts of terrible.
But it was worth it.
So, on the surface, this story is not that interesting.
Wow, one of the most famous atheists in America is advocating immorality.
Not exactly a man-bites-dog story, of course.
The guy has no real solid moral foundation.
He has tried to create...
Some way of justifying the existence of objective morality without God, that is a fool's errand.
That's not possible.
So when push comes to shove, when it gets to something he really, really wants, like kicking Trump out of office, he says, yeah, the ends justify the means.
It's immoral, but whatever.
You know, who cares?
Sure.
Sure.
The bigger takeaway here is that the libs will do anything to stop Trump and his supporters.
Even Sam Harris.
Sam Harris, by today's standards, is one of the more moderate libs.
And even he says, yeah, do anything to stop Trump.
Because they called Trump Hitler.
They said Trump is Hitler.
Trump is the embodiment of evil.
And so if they use that kind of language for Trump and his supporters, and you and me, folks...
And anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton, if they use that kind of language, then of course they will do absolutely anything to stop us.
We can't be surprised when people who kill the babies and trans the kids and rig elections and censor all sorts of material and who admit that these things are immoral, when they do those sorts of things, we cannot be surprised.
There's nothing they won't do to stop the evil orange man.
With We cannot hire fast enough.
We are actively looking to expand our team and add some new jobs to this non-recession economy.
I suggested we hire a dedicated team of cigar rollers.
Unfortunately, that was overruled for now, which is absolutely outrageous.
I'm looking for new employment as a result of that.
I just don't feel supported here.
Okay?
If I can't have a delicious...
Anyway, The Daily Wire is currently looking to hire exceptional performers to join our wonderful ad revenue team.
If you have experience in digital advertising, audio sales, and campaign optimization and client services, we would love to hear from you right now.
If you know how to roll a proper cigar, that is even better.
I would like to hear from you right now.
Go to dailywire.com slash careers.
View our openings and apply.
dailywire.com slash careers.
The Libs will go to any length to stop Trump.
And by Trump, we mean you and me and all the conservatives.
Trump is a symbol.
Trump is a vessel.
All political candidates are, to some degree, symbols and vessels.
And Trump, he said this himself.
He said, they're not just coming after me.
They're only coming after me because they want to get to you, and I happen to be in the way.
I'm the representative of you.
That's why they're going after me.
It's not just MSNBC and CNN.
It's not just the online atheist authors and public intellectuals.
It's the deep state, the actual deep state.
It's the blob.
It's the whole liberal establishment, starting with the media and big tech as the publishing platform of the media, the publishing platform of the publishing platforms.
You saw a tweet that came out just the other day from Edward Luce.
Edward Luce is an associate editor at the Financial Times.
Very mainstream, established paper.
He says, I've covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career.
Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous, and contemptible than today's Republicans.
Nothing close.
A ridiculous statement, which we'll get to in one second, but the real kicker here is that insane comment was retweeted by...
The former CIA director, Michael Hayden.
Michael Hayden says, I agree and I was the CIA director.
And by the way, Michael Hayden wasn't Obama's CIA director.
Michael Hayden was George W. Bush's CIA director.
He was a Republican appointee, albeit from the liberal wing of the Republican Party.
The Bushes, going all the way back to Granddaddy Prescott, have come from the liberal wing of the Republican Party.
This is why Reagan and Bush were a team together because they ran against one another in the primaries in 1980 because Reagan represented the conservative wing of the party and George H.W. Bush represented the liberal wing.
General Michael Hayden, military background, CIA background, he agrees with the statement that today's Republicans are the most nihilistic, dangerous, and contemptible force Ever.
That they've ever seen it in the whole wide world.
Not just in America.
ISIS? Oh, nothing compared to the Republicans.
Al-Qaeda?
The Chinese Communist Party?
Mean Mr.
Putin?
I thought Putin was the worst guy ever.
No, no, no.
Not compared to Ron DeSantis, I guess.
Not compared to Ted Cruz, I suppose.
Certainly not compared to Trump.
Now, it makes, of course, no sense.
The only political group that I would apply the term nihilistic to in America would be the left.
The left.
To be nihilistic is to believe that nothing really means anything at all.
To be just absolutely, totally black-pilled and just want to burn it down.
First of all, the libs literally burn the country down.
But furthermore, they're chopping up little kids right now because they don't think our bodies really have meaning or don't really have an objective kind of intrinsic meaning.
They're chopping up little kids.
They're killing babies.
850,000 a year.
They're trying to assassinate Supreme Court justices who are in any way threatening their right to kill babies.
They're upending our institutions.
They're defending rigging elections.
They're defending censorship.
If you're going to call anyone nihilistic, it's so bizarre to accuse the Republicans who say, hey, you know, hey, guys, would it be possible?
We're not even going to outlaw all abortions.
Do we just, like, have slightly fewer every year?
I have never seen a more extreme.
Hey guys, would it be...
Look, if we're going to chop off people's appendages and stuff and pump them full of hormones and turn them into castrati, can we wait until they're, I don't know, like five...
I've never seen a more extreme, evil, dangerous...
Hey, guys, could we...
You know marriage is fundamental in the unit of society?
Could we...
You know how there was a definition of it for all of human history everywhere until like five minutes ago?
Maybe you should...
I've never seen a more extreme...
You...
You probably don't even want us to go to monkeypox orgies!
Well, okay.
All right, fine.
That's what they say.
That's what they believe.
Michael Hayden is not just some crazy bluejack.
He is a crazy bluejack.
He is a lib, I guess.
But he...
The guy was the CIA director.
Okay?
The guy was a general.
This stuff...
Is in institutions that wield extraordinary, covert, clandestine, often abused, unaccountable power against you.
They're telling you that.
When people tell you what they're doing, you should believe them.
So what do the Republicans do in this case?
Elon Musk has an idea.
And I get a real kick out of Elon Musk.
The guy's doing a lot of good in many ways in the world.
But this one was a head-scratcher.
Elon Musk was asked by a donor what the Republican Party needs to do better.
And Elon Musk said that the GOP needs to be more compassionate on immigration.
He says that the GOP needs to be more compassionate to potential newcomers, and he noted that he believes this in part because he chose America for its opportunities.
He says, immigrants are vital to maintaining a dynamic economy.
How much more welcoming to newcomers can we be?
We let in millions of people every year.
We allow one million people to come into this country every year legally.
And almost no one is even challenging that.
Even though the vast majority of the American people on poll after poll reflect and express that they want to drastically reduce the number of legal immigrants who are brought into this country by about 60 percent.
Still, no one in either of the major parties really talks about that.
Very few people.
Then on top of the million legal immigrants we allow in every year, we allow 2 million illegal immigrants.
It's probably going to be more than that this year under Biden.
And we've done this for decades now.
The numbers have increased pretty dramatically recently, but we've allowed untold masses of foreign nationals to pour into our country.
And then we give them all kinds of goodies and we give them all kinds of resources and we allow them to participate in our government.
We give them the rights of citizens in many cases.
how much more compassionate can we be?
Okay.
I think we've been maybe a little overly compassionate, not compassionate enough to our own citizens.
I think we've been a little reckless, actually, and imprudent.
How much more compassionate can you possibly be?
This is an issue of meta-politics.
This is not just an issue of the immigrants.
It's an issue of meta-politics.
The movement of immigrants into America over the past 60 years or so is the largest migration of people ever in recorded history.
How much more compassionate can we be?
What that does is it changes our political landscape.
The reason the Democrats encouraged this, the reason the Democrats changed all our immigration laws is because they feel...
That by changing the makeup of the country, the actual people in the country, they will get an electoral advantage.
And the data bear that out.
Maybe not as much of an advantage as they think that they're getting, but it will give them an advantage, a generational advantage as well.
And they know it, and they brag about it, and they've been bragging about this in academic papers and in the mainstream media for 20 years now.
And the Republicans are supposed to, what, go even more in that direction?
I don't think so.
That's called, not only is that reckless, not only is that wrong, politically it's also suicidal.
You know, our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk.
You know how much I absolutely adore Pure Talk.
Go to Pure Talk today, select a plan, enter promo code NOELSPODCAST to get one month free.
Let's first, before we get to the written mailbag, let's get to the voice mailbag.
Hey Michael, I listened to you on Ben Shapiro's show the other day and you got to the mailbag part where you're talking about how we shouldn't give the death penalty to rapists because that would incentivize them to kill their victims.
But I feel like that's contradictory to things you've said in the past about how laws affect people's behavior because culture is downstream of politics.
And if you make harsher punishments for crimes, then that makes people less likely to do crime.
So why shouldn't we make harsher punishments for rape, i.e.
capital punishment, death penalty, so that less people would rape?
But you said on Ben Shapiro's show that it wouldn't...
Well, you didn't say it wouldn't decrease rape.
You just said it would incentivize people to kill their victims.
But the implication there is that it wouldn't decrease the amount of rapes.
It would just increase the amount of people who are raped and murdered.
Can you explain that to me?
Thank you very much.
You were right up until that very moment, and you even caught yourself, and you said, well, okay, you didn't say that it wouldn't decrease rape, but the implication was, but no, your implication, the thing that you inferred is not something that I implied.
Yes, it is true.
Harsher punishments for rape would disincentivize rape.
And because the law is a teacher, you would get less rape.
Sure.
But at the same time, simultaneously, you would incentivize the rapists who do commit rape to kill their victims if the punishment for murder and the punishment for rape were the same.
Because the rapist, in a regime in which rape is punished less severely than murder, the rapist has some incentive not to kill his victim, even though by not killing his victim, he increases the chances that he'll be caught because the victim could go to the police and say what happened.
But in a regime in which rape and murder get the exact same punishment, then the rapist has absolutely no incentive whatsoever, other than his own obviously malfunctioning conscience, or the conscience that he doesn't really listen to, not to murder his victim.
So you create an incentive for the rapist to do that.
So what we have here is a balancing of different incentives and different desirable outcomes.
And what we have to apply here is prudence.
I agree.
If you gave the death penalty to rapists, you might and very likely would reduce the total number of rapes.
You would never get the total number of rapes to zero, but you probably would reduce the number of rapes, but you would increase the number of rape victims who are murdered.
And I don't think that's worth the cost.
So from the position of prudence, I would say it is worth reducing somewhat the punishment for rape if you are going to decrease the number of rape victims who are murdered even if...
By doing so, you somewhat increase the incentives to commit a rape, or the prevalence of rape.
Again, I mean, we can't really know the degree to which these things would shift statistically.
But even granting the premise, I just think from a prudential point of view, by decreasing the number of rape victims who are murdered, that would be worth tolerating getting rid of one of the disincentives to rape.
But it's a judgment call.
It's a call for prudence.
It's not an exact science.
That's why statecraft is much more of an art than it is a sort of science that can just be plugged into a computer and formulated by a robot.
Next question.
Thank you.
Hey Mike, congratulations on the new little bundle of joy.
I hope it's keeping you up all night and have a question of utmost importance for you.
This is quite literally potentially a matter of life and death.
It is that important.
Are you A soda or a pop kind of guy?
Or are you one of those crazy psychopaths that calls everything coke?
Inquiring minds need to know.
Thanks!
Soda.
The correct answer is soda.
I agree with you.
The absolute decadent Many maniacs who refer to all different sodas as Coke, all of a Sprite Coke, they cannot be helped.
I don't know how to reach those people.
But I call it soda because I grew up on the coasts.
Grew up in New York.
We call it soda.
We're not nice, wholesome Midwestern people there.
We don't call it pop.
We call it soda.
Although these days, I don't drink a lot of soda.
I drink silly seltzer water because I am a millennial.
I drink black coffee.
I drink something a little more exciting.
A little more similar to a Coca-Cola, but not a soda.
Later on, after dinner.
And occasionally, when I'm feeling sweet and saucy, I will drink an egg cream soda.
But all the time, it's always a soda, not pop.
Next question.
Hey, Michael.
So, I have a funny story that kind of relates to what you were talking about in a previous episode.
So, in 2012, I believe, when Obama was running...
A felon from, I think it was Texas, beat him in a lot of West Virginia counties.
Like, it was 40-60.
Like, it was really close.
Made me laugh.
Complete topic change right here.
My sister, who's been struggling with infertility, we were talking, she asked me how I felt about Roe vs.
Wade.
I said, I 110% agree.
It shouldn't have even been decided in the first place.
Like, it was great that it was overturned.
And she said, I agree.
Abortion should never be used as birth control because, you know, women are responsible for their actions, right?
And then we got to the topic of rape.
She said, and I quote, if I went out today, got raped, and got pregnant...
Me being infertile, I would 100% no questions asked get an abortion.
That made no sense to me, and then she got really mad at me when I said, execute the rapist.
Don't execute the baby.
The baby had nothing to do with it.
So we went back and forth, and then she got really mad at me.
I mean, we're still cordial, like I'm close with my sister, but yeah, that argument made absolutely no sense.
Thank you.
A good point.
Yes, the argument doesn't make sense, but it's one that I've found a lot of pro-life people and conservatives stumble on.
They get tripped up on when they are confronted with it, which is, what about the case of rape?
Are you telling me that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, that you would make her carry that baby to term?
And of course, the percentage of abortions that take place in the context of rape is less than 1%.
So it's really just a distraction because the libs don't want to deal with, statistically, 100% of abortions which are elective.
So they bring that up, and this is the hard case.
But the premise here is that you can undo the rape.
You can make the rape all better.
You can make the rape go away if you just kill the baby.
And that's a ridiculous premise.
We should not accept that premise.
The woman is raped.
Now she's pregnant and confronted with a choice.
Do you kill the baby or not?
The two questions from a moral standpoint are completely unrelated.
The rape is bad.
The rape is a trauma.
The woman is going to have to work through that rape.
Spiritually, psychologically, perhaps physically.
Abortion isn't going to fix any of that.
Then you have the question, should the woman kill the baby in addition to that?
And by the way, if the woman does kill the baby and they're not going to tell you this in the pro-abortion lecture or class, if the woman does kill the baby, she's going to have a trauma from that too.
One, she's going to have to, in a sense, give birth to it one way or the other.
You've got to get the baby out of there.
And two, she's going to have the nagging guilt of the reality that she killed the baby.
So you're adding trauma onto trauma.
But even putting that aside for a second, nothing about getting the abortion is going to in any way change the rape.
So you've got to call them out on that.
You say, yeah, I don't think that women who have been victimized and raped should then have the additional trauma of committing a murder.
All right, next question.
Hey Michael, my name is Brayden.
I just listened to your episode where you talked about essentially the immorality of a homosexual couple adopting a child, just the concept in general.
My question is, what about those children that need a home, absolutely need a home, need to be adopted, what have you, and a broken home is better than no home at all, and you have a loving homosexual couple willing to take them in and be a caretaker, Well, we've got to distinguish between two radically different forms of adoption.
One is the adoption of newborn babies, and the other is the fostering of children who are in orphanages usually run by the state.
Those are very, very different types of abortion.
And the libs and the radicals who want to redefine the family and who want to mainstream things like single parent adoption or homosexual adoption, they try to conflate the two because it's helpful for their argument.
But I think we would all grant those are very different types of adoption.
And in the case of the adoption of newborns, the premise of your question ceases to make sense.
Because what you will hear is, as you said, what about all those babies who need a home and can't get a home?
In the case of newborn adoption in the United States, that doesn't exist.
That's completely made up.
Lump that away with the boogeyman and Bigfoot.
In the United States, there are an estimated 36 to 38 couples who are trying to adopt newborn babies for every single newborn baby put up for adoption.
It is incredibly difficult to adopt a baby in the United States.
It's very expensive.
People wait years to do it.
Friends of mine, family members of mine who have adopted babies have gone through years and heartbreak because of how difficult it is, because there's a dearth of babies.
In the case of orphanages and the foster care system, that's different.
Because in that case, you're talking about children who have been in terrible homes, who have very frequently been abused and neglected, children who are much, much older, children who could be even in their teenage years.
And so it's wonderful when people foster those children and take them into their own homes.
But that's just a totally different sort of circumstance.
And so if you're asking me, should homosexual couples or throuples or single parents be allowed to adopt, single parents of any sort of sexual persuasion, be allowed to adopt newborn babies?
I would say, of course, absolutely not.
That's insane.
A child has a right to his natural mother and father.
Men and women both have something to contribute to the rearing of children.
Marriage actually has a meaning, and it's the same thing that it's meant forever.
and not what the libs pretend that it means today.
And so, no, it would be wrong to deny a child of a real family, of a proper marriage, in that context to grow up in, just because of the politically correct fantasies that we live in today.
But, if you're asking me, and in that case you're saying, should the state...
Give an advantage to the real married couple that wants to adopt the child or say, no, we're agnostic.
Could be a single mother, could be a homosexual couple or 3-0, could be whatever.
In the case of the foster care, you're saying, should homosexuals or single mothers or whoever be allowed to take in children individually?
Who are languishing in orphanages, certainly outside the context of a marriage or outside of a family, who are much older, who are not as desired in terms of adoption as the newborns are.
That's a very different conversation.
I would be much more open to that conversation, obviously, because they're just kind of apples and oranges.
But the last thing we should do is to conflate the two.
Okay, before we go...
Let's get one question that's written from Steve.
Michael, you've probably answered this before.
Why do you use the term liberal to describe the illiberal left?
Everything about their behavior makes them Woodrow Wilson-style progressives.
As I listen to your live show right now, you're contrasting the concepts of liberalism, progressive, and leftism.
I think you are one who strives for precision in language.
Why not in this case?
Thanks, Steve.
I am being precise in this case.
There are two schools of thought among conservatives about liberalism.
Some people believe that the modern left is actually, they've betrayed liberalism.
They're not the real liberals.
We conservatives are the real liberals.
That's not my opinion.
Libertarians believe that.
Classical liberals believe that.
I do not believe that.
Some people believe that leftism, progressivism, socialism even, are natural conclusions of liberalism.
Not even just the modern liberalism, but going all the way back to those classical liberals.
Those enlightenment, quote unquote, era classical liberals.
They think that it's not a betrayal of liberalism, but the natural conclusion of it.
I'm very much of that opinion.
I think that the shades of difference between liberalism, classical or modern, leftism, progressivism, even socialism and Marxism, I think the shades of difference are minuscule because I think those are all rationalist ideologies that take the individual to be the basic unit of society that upend the traditional moral order or deny the traditional moral order.
And I think they're just not really conservative at all.
And they all kind of go in different directions, but I think they're all different sides of the same coin, or I guess Rubric's Cube or something.
I think the real alternative is...
The conservative worldview that says the basic unit of society is the family.
That says we shouldn't just overturn all traditions or upend all of society.
That we ought to do things that we have done.
We ought to recognize the moral order.
We ought to recognize that there is such a thing as the good.
We can know something about the good.
Ultimately, we have obligations to the common good and ultimately to our highest good, who is God.
That's my view.
Okay, we got the member block of the show coming up.
You do not want to miss this.
If you are not a member at Daily Wire, you've got to head on down.
Click the link in the description below and join us.
My producers have given me headlines of the week that I did not get to.
They've given me a bunch of real headlines, one fake headline.
I've got to guess which the fake one is.
Plus, we'll try to get to a little bit more of your mailbag.
On Friday, I've got all these good mailbag questions.
We don't have time to get to all of them.
I'll get to more in the member block.
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.
