Republicans oust their Speaker of the House, antidepressants and contraceptives are linked to all sorts of problems, and liberals get terrorized in major cities.
Ep.1344
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7
Get your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/knowles
Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation
Text KNOWLES to 200-300
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Kevin McCarthy is officially out as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Mr. McCarthy is the first Speaker in history to be ousted from the job by a vote.
And he is out.
Because Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz led a rebellion of just eight Republicans to vote against the Speaker.
Since the GOP majority in the House is so thin, eight Republicans was all it took to defect, and along with the unified votes of the Democrats, who didn't want to vote to save McCarthy, they all brought McCarthy's brief tenure to a close.
Here is Congressman Gaetz defending the uprising.
Look at that big ass, look at that big juicy booty.
Sorry, that was an audio clip of AOC over a picture of Ilhan Omar licking her lips, literally licking her lips while staring at the backside of Congressman Gaetz yesterday.
I'm not sure how that video got in there.
Here is Matt Gaetz defending the uprising.
Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he has failed to take a stand where it matters.
So if he won't, I will.
I make no apologies for defending the right of every hard-working American to afford a decent life for themselves and their families, and we have a greater opportunity to do that and to build coalitions under new leadership.
We have to rip off the Band-Aid.
We have to get back on a better course.
And Mr. Speaker, I don't know how this vote's going to go.
Usually when a vote comes to this floor, it's pretty predetermined.
And this one, I'm not so sure.
But I am sure that we've made the right argument.
That this place deserves single-subject spending bills.
That we should have 72 hours to read a bill.
That something that spends more than $100 million shouldn't be put on the suspension agenda such that we can't amend it.
And there shouldn't be secret side deals made On a continuing resolution to lump Ukraine in with border security.
That is not right for Ukraine or border security because it fails to give either of those issues the dignity that they would require.
Let's get our act together.
Let's get on with it.
Let's vacate the chair and let's get a better speaker.
I yield back.
All fair points.
All fair.
The only thing that wasn't totally fair about that was the tailoring on Matt Gaetz's jacket.
He needs a better tailor.
But otherwise, he sounded great.
He looked great.
He raised a lot of totally legit points.
But now the question that we are left with is, what now?
What happens now?
McCarthy wasn't great, but he was far from the worst.
In fact, and this is probably damning with faint praise, but it's still true, Kevin McCarthy is probably the most conservative speaker that Republicans have had since Joe Martin in the 1950s.
He was certainly better than Paul Ryan, certainly better than John Boehner, arguably he was more conservative even than Newt Gingrich.
But he lost the trust of some key conservatives.
So now he's out.
And now there is a vacancy for the worst job in all of American politics.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
There are some studies out that suggest that antidepressants are linked with stunted sexuality and that birth control pills are linked with divorce.
We'll get to that in just a moment.
First, though, I don't want to move off of the speaker issue too quickly, and I know a lot of people are asking, Michael, who should be the next speaker?
Is Kevin McCarthy going to run again?
No, he said he's not going to run again.
He could have just run again, maybe whittled away at those eight Republicans, given them more concessions.
But he says, no, I don't want the job.
Some people are suggesting, well, it could be Matt Gaetz.
Matt Gaetz is never going to get those votes.
Maybe Jim Jordan.
That would be amazing.
I love Jim Jordan.
He'd be a terrific speaker.
But I like him too much to wish such a terrible job on him.
There's no way, you know, he hasn't really expressed his desire for the job.
In fact, the one prominent person who has put forward his name to be the next Speaker of the House is Matt Walsh.
And so I would like to officially and fully endorse Matt Walsh for Speaker.
Matt has a lot of experience in Washington.
I know that he's been busy dancing, but I think that he could bring to bear all of that work that he has done for the Vice President and others in Washington to the Speaker's chair, to that gavel.
So Matt Walsh has my full ringing endorsement.
And the top reason why I am endorsing Matt Walsh, or really anyone, over myself, because, you know, you don't need to be a member of Congress to be Speaker, in theory, the reason is because Under no circumstances would I ever seek the Speakership of the House of Representatives because it is the single worst job in Washington, D.C.
One would probably rather clean out the portable latrines on the National Mall than be the Speaker of the House.
It is absolutely terrible.
It is herding cats at best.
And you'll be thrown out and called a bum and called the worst person in the world.
You get absolutely no glory.
You get absolutely no thanks.
And the recent Republican speakers have ended their careers in shame.
So, no.
No, who would want that job?
Why is it so bad?
It's not the worst job if you're a Democrat.
People love Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi was able to accomplish a lot of things.
Not very good things, but she was able to accomplish a lot.
She has a lot of influence.
She has a lot of prominence in the Democrat Party.
She's helped shape the Democrat agenda.
She's still lauded as one of the leaders of the party.
The same cannot be said of Paul Ryan.
The same cannot be said of John Boehner.
Even Newt, he was the most effective one we've had in a long time.
Perhaps other than Kevin McCarthy.
Although, Newt Gingrich was certainly more effective than Kevin McCarthy.
Kevin McCarthy might have been a little bit more conservative.
But regardless, why is it that the Democrats do better in the job than the Republicans do?
The reason is because, for the Republicans, it is an impossible job.
Because the Republican Party is split in far more distinct ways than the Democrats are.
The Democratic Party is split between Extremely progressive people and slightly less progressive people.
There aren't really very many conservative Democrats at all.
Maybe Henry Quellar of Texas would be, but he's probably the only one, okay?
So you've got the extreme far-left liberals, you've got AOC and Ilhan Omar, and then you've got the slightly less extreme ones like Nancy Pelosi.
But they're all on the same page.
Directionally, they're all facing the same way, and so it's easy to wrangle them.
With the Republicans, You've got the conservatives, mostly in the Freedom Caucus, and then you've got the liberals.
Who are the moderates?
Who are the ones who agree with Democrats on a lot of issues?
But they're at least nominally Republican and they vote with the Republicans on some issues and we want them to be with the Republicans so that we don't get completely blown out in these votes.
But how do you reconcile those things?
When it comes down to foundational premises of politics, all of the Democrats are on the same page.
When it comes down to foundational premises of politics, the Republicans are split.
You got the conservatives and the liberals.
And the two will never get all that close together.
So anyone who's going to wrangle them is going to have to be able to be a little bit squishy, which is going to irritate the conservatives.
And the conservatives, rightly, are going to say, well, I don't want to go along with that.
If the choice we have in Congress is between super-duper liberals and slightly less intense liberals, then what's the point?
That's not a choice.
That's an echo.
And so they're going to pull their support.
The ousting of Kevin McCarthy Should not come as a surprise to anyone.
It's been occurring in slow motion, but it should not come as a surprise to anyone.
This was baked in the moment that Kevin McCarthy gave in to some of the demands of the conservatives, which is he offered them the motion to vacate.
The fact that they could just with one member stand up there and say, no more speaker.
He offered them all sorts of concessions on committees.
He offered them, which is one of the arguments as to why he wasn't the worst speaker we've ever had.
He offered them A lot more prominence, and he made them promises that he was not able to keep, and so they ousted him.
Who takes over now?
A few names have been floated beyond Matt Walsh, which is Steve Scalise, House Majority Leader, and Tom Emmer, House Majority Whip, and Donald Trump.
We'll get to which of those it should be in one second.
First though, What are you looking at online?
Do you think, I'm not talking, not that, I'm not, you shouldn't be looking, not like bad stuff, you shouldn't be looking at bad stuff, but are you reading conservative websites?
Are you reading things that are perhaps a little subversive to our liberal regime?
You probably don't want the powers that be, very vindictive powers, to see that.
That's why you gotta check out ExpressVPN.
Right now, go to ExpressVPN.com slash Knowles.
Have you ever heard of data brokers?
They are the middlemen collecting and selling the digital footprints that you leave online.
They can stitch together detailed profiles of your browsing history, online searches, and location data, then sell it off to advertising companies who use the information to serve you targeted advertisements.
No biggie, right?
Well...
You might be surprised to learn that these same data brokers are also selling your information to the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS.
To mask my digital footprints, I am so pleased that I can protect myself with ExpressVPN.
One of the easiest ways for brokers to obtain data to tie it back to you is through your device's unique IP address, which also reveals information about your location.
When you're connected to ExpressVPN, your IP address is hidden, making it more difficult for data brokers to identify who you are.
ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network traffic, keeping your data safe from hackers on public Wi-Fi.
I have the ExpressVPN app, and look, you know I'm a Luddite, okay?
So...
You can get it on your phone, you can get it on your tablet, you can get it on your computer, you can get it on your home Wi-Fi router, and it's simple enough that even I can use it.
You tap one button, turn it on, boom, you're protected.
That easy.
Make sure that your online activity and data are protected with the best VPN money can buy.
Visit expressvpn.com slash knolls, K-N-N-W-L-E-S.
Use my link to get three extra months for free, E-X-P-R-E-S-S, vpn.com slash knolls, expressvpn.com slash knolls.
Who's gonna be speaker?
Probably not going to be Steve Scalise.
Steve Scalise would be a great choice for it, but he is suffering from a pretty brutal cancer diagnosis, so it's probably not going to be him.
Elise Stefanik, the Republican from New York, who's a little bit lib, but she has played her cards pretty well, and she's been on the right side of Trump.
She is the House GOP conference chairman.
However, she is being talked about as a potential VP pick for Trump, so she probably doesn't want the speakership.
Tom Emmer is the House Majority Whip.
He is kind of on the wrong side of Trump, and whether you love Trump or hate Trump, Trump's a big figure in the Republican Party, not a great place to be.
When he was NRCC chairman, that's the Congressional Campaign Committee for the Republicans, he encouraged Republicans not to mention Trump's name on the campaign trail.
He was pretty critical of Trump in 2016.
I don't know.
I don't really... Maybe Emmer gets it.
He's probably the most likely candidate right now.
He's definitely in the top three.
McCarthy says he won't run again.
Thomas Massey.
I can't imagine, he's extremely conservative and he was opposed to the motion to vacate for the same reasons that I said.
Because he said McCarthy, I'm not saying McCarthy is great, but he was the best we've had in a long time.
And I don't know that we're going to do much better.
So who could it be?
Could it be Trump himself?
I think it should be Trump.
Assuming Matt wants to focus on his dancing career, I think the speaker should be Donald Trump.
Because that is the funniest of all options.
And because there aren't any notably better options before us.
The best option probably would be Jim Jordan.
Jim Jordan has said repeatedly he has no desire to have the job.
He would much rather stay where he is on the Judiciary Committee.
He's doing excellent work there on the Judiciary Committee.
I like him personally.
I really like Jim Jordan.
I don't wish such a terrible job on him.
And Trump would have a lot of fun with it.
And it would just, because we're in this moment.
Of political upheaval, where the Democrats have destroyed basically all of the norms of our political order.
And they're focusing all of that destruction on the person of Donald Trump.
Then the way to bring all of this to the fore would, of course, be to put Trump in the number three position in the entire US government.
And then you just kind of wait to see what happens.
If, for instance, well, here's a great reason why it should be Trump.
Donald Trump right now has been threatened with a gag order.
So the judge in one of the zillion trials of Donald Trump, the judge in this financial trial where they're trying to take away his companies, and they're trying to pretend that his companies aren't worth very much money, even though we know that they are.
They're pretending that Mar-a-Lago is worth $18 million.
Mar-a-Lago does $25 million a year, just the business.
Forget about the property.
The property is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
But they're trying to take this away, and they issued a gag order on Trump.
Judge Arthur N. Goron issued this limited gag order.
Against everyone in the civil case to stop verbal and social media posted swipes at members of the staff, because Trump took a swipe at one of the judge's staff members and pointed out that she's a huge lib.
Alison Greenfield is a big lib.
She's a big Democrat.
And Trump said, this is a crooked case and I'm just being politically persecuted.
And look at all these big libs on your staff.
And the judge says, you can't talk about how we're all big libs.
Or if you do talk about it, we're going to put you in jail for 30 days.
So here's my proposal.
Donald Trump becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives.
He then, as the leader of the lower body of one of the branches of government, he has open debate on the floor of the House, and he gets to say whatever he wants.
And the judge can't do a damn thing about it, because that would lead to a constitutional crisis.
More of a constitutional crisis than we're already in.
He's probably not going to be Speaker, but it would be really funny.
Could you imagine?
Could you imagine sitting there at the State of the Union?
Gung, gung, gung.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, here's the president, okay?
I'm the president, not that jerk.
Okay, speaking of speaking out, and even assuming that Donald Trump, by the way, is not the Speaker of the House, Trump should violate this gag order.
He certainly should violate the gag order.
I'm not sure that I would have said a week ago that he should call the members of this judge's staff big libs, but now he must.
He has to do it because.
All of these prosecutions are a ridiculous farce.
None of them have anything to do with any crimes that Donald Trump supposedly committed.
He's not being brought up on rape charges.
Give me a break.
In New York, he's not being brought up on insurrection and the evil, horrible crime of calling the Secretary of State of Georgia when you're President of the United States or this, that.
I don't even remember all the charges.
Now, of overvaluing his businesses?
Give me a break.
He's not being brought up on any of that because they are crimes.
He's being brought up on those things because the liberal ruling class wants to destroy the former president and current leader of the political opposition.
That's all it's about.
It's all just about 2024.
And so Trump has to speak out.
Let them put him in jail.
There are still some people, probably not you if you're listening to this show.
I don't care if you love Trump, if you hate Trump, if you're a left-wing Democrat.
If you're listening to this show and you pay attention to politics, you know that this is a political persecution.
But there are some people, very unfortunate people, who perhaps don't yet listen to this show, who naively think That these trials are really just about the blind law being evenly distributed to everybody, and Lady Justice wears the blindfold, and so Donald Trump, he's just going to be held to account if you do anything wrong.
Some people naively still believe that.
Let them put him in an orange jumpsuit.
Let him sit in a jail.
Let the reality of this political persecution set in, of what a banana republic the Democrats have made this country into.
Let that set in.
I think it would help Trump's campaign.
I think it would, even if it hurt Trump's campaign, I think it would be good for the American political order, because we would have to confront a very nasty reality, which is that we are no longer governed like a bill up on Capitol Hill and all the other BS you learned in your civics class.
If we were governed that way, we are governed that way no longer, and we're not going to fix the problem until we acknowledge it.
Speaking of speaking out, speaking of people with power, Pope Francis.
has signaled an openness to a sort of same-sex blessing, not gay marriage exactly, but kind of a same-sex blessing, and potentially even a type of women-woman priestess sort of maybe situation in the Catholic Church.
This is all extremely complex.
One, because the libs lie as journalists.
But I don't want to blame everything on the Lib journalists here.
Two, because the Holy Father tends to speak in a way that might be a little bit ambiguous.
Three, because the Jesuits, and Pope Francis is a Jesuit, the first Jesuit Pope ever, they have a habit of being a little cagey about the way that they speak.
Four, because the Catholic Church being 2,000 years old, and at least in my view divinely instituted, has a lot of layers to it.
You know, there's mystery there, and so it can't be easily, you know, jotted down in five bullet points on the back of a napkin.
That is why, even though I usually, when Pope Francis is in the news, I say, oh, who cares?
I'm not concerned about that.
Things will sort itself out.
But it's not, it's probably being misrepresented.
But here, this is really worrisome because the Catholic Church is headed for something called a synod, unsynodality.
What is that?
Your guess is as good as mine.
It is a meeting of bishops and laypeople and Non-Catholics, for some reason, who are all joining together.
It's not an ecumenical council.
It's not... People don't really know what it is.
And it's potentially a campaign to restructure the very constitution of the church.
And there is the possibility that the Church, which has uniquely held firm against these errors of modernity that have infected other institutions, things like the contraceptive mentality, things like abortion, things like the sexual revolution, you know, especially we've seen those three things in the last 60 years.
The Catholic Church has held firm.
Even supposedly liberal popes, like Pope Paul VI, held firm.
Issues Humanae Vitae, which says no contraception, no abortion.
No, none of that weird stuff.
Pope Francis has said you cannot bless sin.
Pope Francis has said things that seem pretty orthodox, pretty Catholic, but then we see in response to questions that were posed to him by his cardinals, He seemed a little ambiguous about whether priests can issue blessings of same-sex situations, let's call it, situationships maybe, and of women's roles in the Church.
So, my takeaway, perhaps we'll get to this on Theology Thursday because this is a big deal and the Catholic Church being the bedrock institution of Western civilization, even if you're not Catholic, you probably would agree with that statement.
If there are big disruptions afoot in the Catholic Church, that is going to affect everybody, whether you're Catholic, Yet, we're not.
Ultimately, I'm not concerned, because I believe that the Church is divinely instituted, and I believe that our Lord will never leave His Church, and I believe He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.
But this, we could be heading for a very, very scandalous moment, so we've got to peer into that.
I think it was Pope Paul VI who said, the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican, that there was this period of intense upheaval and danger that we were entering into.
When things enter your home, how do they enter?
Sometimes by the windows.
That's why you got to check out Renewal by Anderson.
Right now, text NOLS to 200-300.
For most homeowners, window replacement is not something that they've done before.
For many, it's not something that they want to do, but something that they've got to do.
Have you put off replacing the windows in your home because it's too expensive?
Then I've got great news.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and a free quote From Renewal by Anderson.
I heard, totally unsolicited, from a carpenter who just listened to me do a read for Renewal by Anderson.
He wrote and he said, Mike, I just want to let you know, of all the homes that I go and see and work on, the ones that have windows from Renewal by Anderson, they've got the best work.
For sure.
And, coincidentally, I have a cousin who works for Renewal by Anderson.
He's been telling me about them for years, years before they ever came on this show.
So, I've heard a lot of great stuff about them, and you're going to see that great stuff when you hire them.
Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable, quality, affordable windows or patio doors for $0 down, $0 payments, and $0 interest for one year.
Text NOLS to 200-300 for your free consultation.
Save $375 off every window and $750 off every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out.
Text NOLS to 200-300.
That is NOLS to 200-300.
Texting privacy policy and terms and conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text message marketing and message and data rates may apply.
Reply stop to opt-out.
Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
When Dr. Jordan B. Peterson made the decision to join DailyWirePlus, it was a major win for those who champion intellectual debate.
With one year of unparalleled output, his contributions have set new standards and remain unmatched by any other platform.
DailyWirePlus now has a vast array of exclusive Jordan content, offering hundreds of hours of captivating content you won't find anywhere else.
Jordan has created thought-provoking works that reshape your perspective on life, such as Vision and Destiny, Marriage, and Dragons, Monsters, and Men.
Additionally, you can immerse yourself in discussions that nurture your spiritual side, such as...
Logos and Literacy, and Jordan's groundbreaking series on the book of Exodus.
That is only the beginning.
There is also his Beyond Order lecture series and an extensive archive of lectures and podcasts.
This is the absolute compendium of all things Jordan.
Plus, there's even more new exclusive content on the horizon.
By becoming a Daily Wire Plus member, you will embark on an unforgettable experience that will fuel your thirst for knowledge and inspire personal growth like never before.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.
Speaking of weird sex stuff, I was having this conversation the other night with sweet little Alisa, and we were just talking about how the world has gotten so crazy and why men and women are acting so weird about each other.
And Alisa raised the question.
She said, you know, Mac, it's kind of like a little bit weird how we just pump women full of hormones and chemicals for like decades at a time, you know, starting when they're like 13 years old.
Mac, do you think any of the relationship problems, the divorces, whatever, could that be linked to that?
And I said, you know, girl, that's an interesting suggestion, as are many of Elisa's suggestions.
So then I googled it, and it turns out she's probably right.
I found this story, which originated in the UK Independent, so, you know, major paper, that suggests that marital problems are a side effect of birth control use.
85% of people in Britain said that their marriage or relationship had been impacted by contraception's side effects.
According to this survey here, women who had ever taken hormonal oral contraceptives, the pill, that sort of thing, divorced at a rate 54% above the study average.
Women with tubal ligations, who had their tubes tied, divorced at a rate 78% above average.
Uh, husbands who have had vasectomies, uh, were twice as likely to divorce.
The divorce rate for couples who had ever used condoms was 67% above the average.
On the flip side of things, women who actively used natural family planning, which is something that the church has encouraged in the past and it's a little more natural, and one hopes it is to be used so that you can have more children, not used as a sneaky backdoor into contraception, but it's one that Christians are a little more inclined toward, were 47% less likely to divorce than the average.
If you considered women who had ever used NFP, ever in their whole lives, the group was still 31% less likely to divorce.
Now, you could say, well, right, the reason for these numbers is that if you ever use contraception, then you're not going to be Catholic.
You're not going to be practicing the Catholic faith, for instance, and Catholics say that you can't get divorced, and modern libs say that you can get divorced, so that's why they're more likely to divorce.
Same goes for other religious communities.
It's, Michael, it's that their behavior vis-a-vis contraception is indicative of deeper beliefs, and the deeper beliefs are responsible for their behaviors relative to divorce.
Okay, yeah, maybe.
Maybe, yeah, sure, that explains a lot of it.
Could it also be, though?
We know that Contraception.
We know that the pill, for instance, changes women's biochemistry and it could have effects on the kind of men that they're attracted to and how they're attracted to them and different mood swings and all the rest of it.
Is it possible?
That by radically altering women's hormones and biochemistry for decades at a time, we're kind of messing up the way that they relate to the men in their lives?
It seems likely to me.
At the very least, we know that other drugs are messing up people's sexual development, especially kids' sexual development.
Antidepressant drugs, which everybody is on now.
A shocking number of Americans are on these depression pills.
That radically alter their brain chemistry.
We now have a story, just came out yesterday, that antidepressants could stunt teenagers developing sexuality as they grow older.
Really depressing that teenagers are on antidepressants.
If teenagers are on antidepressants, something has gone seriously wrong in the culture, from the family all the way up to the political order, and to the medical order, that we would just prescribe kids these very powerful drugs.
Why are these teens so depressed?
Rarely do people discuss how this might affect their development, but it turns out we know that antidepressants tamp down sex drive in adults.
It would appear that it has similar odd effects on the sexuality of kids.
Could the widespread prescription of antidepressants have something to do with the bizarre uptick in especially younger people desiring all sorts of weird sexual modifications and procedures and indulging in fictional sexual identities?
Might the two things have some link there?
Since statistically every single kid who desires a trans procedure, assuming it's not pure Munchausen by proxy, and it's not purely the parents destroying these kids' lives, if the kids have asked for it at all, statistically 100% of them are on some kind of antidepressant drug.
Do you think that there could be some link here?
I suspect there could be.
I suspect they could, which is why I try to take as few drugs as possible, other than a, you know, a nice glass of red wine and a cigar, which generally don't, they're not too tough on your brain chemistry.
Even, I don't even want to take ibuprofen.
I'm loath to say, I had a headache this morning and I delayed and I waited and I waited before I would take an ibuprofen.
Even that I don't want to take.
Just think about all the chemicals we're pumping into our bodies all the time.
Does anyone really think that has no effect on all the weird behaviors and irrationality that's cropped up in our public life and all of the bizarre?
It's hard to imagine that.
Speaking of women's issues, women are complaining.
It's not the headline story, but women are complaining.
This is a space for women in tech.
to a women's tech conference.
Take a listen.
Career conference for females in tech was taken over by male attendees.
They were there just purely for the career fair.
Social media clips filmed at the Grace Hopper, the world's largest gathering of women technologists, show men standing in line to meet with recruiters.
This is a space for women in tech.
This is one of those few limited resources that isn't for you.
It's for us.
Some of the mail attendees reportedly lied about being non-binary just to get in.
But it's interesting that the large majority of the people that actually ended up in the event had name tags with he/him and have no searchable history of identifying as non-binary.
Several tech workers defended the men for trying to capitalize on job opportunities not meant for them, saying that the entire concept was wrong.
Let's be honest, there is no need for a conference just for women because if it was the opposite for men, then it would be sexist.
Just because you are a woman doesn't give you the right to talk to a big firm recruiter.
Guys work just as hard and they don't get that chance.
Okay, what I love about this video is that they anticipate the objection from the right.
Because the objection from the right is going to be, well, maybe those men identify as women, haha, you told us that you can identify however you want, you told us that there's practically no difference between men and women, so maybe those men are just trans or non-binary or whatever.
And they anticipate that.
And they say, yeah, there are some men who are lying about being non-binary.
How do you know they're lying?
How do you know they're lying?
I thought that what makes you trans or what makes you non-binary is the mere declaration that you are so.
So then you can't lie, you cannot be lying about it.
Because if there were some objective external measure of one's transness or one's non-binariness, then one could lie about it.
But if the sole criterion of transness and non-binary-ness is your declaration that you are that thing, then it is not possible to lie about it.
So they weren't lying about it.
Or the whole thing is a lie.
And obviously the latter is the case.
But then they go further.
They say, but some men were there and they wrote he him.
They said that they're men, but they just want to go anyway.
And that's wrong, because this is supposed to be just for women, even if we included trans women and the non-binary people.
But the very ideology of transgenderism, the very ideology of non-binary, certainly, is that there is no categorical difference between men and women.
There is no objective categorical difference between men and women.
It's all just kind of a blurry construction of how we want to identify.
So by granting the very premise that a trans woman or a non-binary person could go to the conference or could even exist as a category of being, these women are undermining the whole point of the conference, which is that women need their own special space and men can't go to that.
So what does this boil down to?
What this boils down to is something that some of us have been saying for a very long time, which is that transgenderism and non-binaryism and all the weird sex stuff is not about logic.
When you ask someone to explain to you How Transgenderism Works.
They will give you five mutually contradictory explanations.
Oh, it's actually the brain develops differently.
Actually, it has nothing to do with the brain or anything physical at all.
Actually, you're just a man born in a woman's body.
Actually, it's about the soul.
Actually, you don't have a soul.
Actually, it's about the estrogen you were exposed to in the womb.
Actually, it's about this.
It's about that.
It's about whatever you want to be.
And it's all mutually contradictory at the biological and philosophical level.
And what it's all about is just will.
It's just about I want.
It's just about I will get what I will get.
Okay?
That's what it's about.
And there's no arguing with that.
I made this point yesterday on the show.
Debate has limits.
Debate is good so that you can sometimes refine your perception of reality and get a little bit closer to the truth.
I like debate.
I'm a professional debater.
But to quote a former liberal president of Yale, skepticism has utility only when it leads to conviction.
You've got to settle on certain truths.
And when people disagree about the most fundamental principles and premises and axioms, then no debate is possible.
Because you need to at least have some shared understanding of reality in order to have a debate at all.
We need to at least agree about language.
We need to at least agree about the simple meaning of words.
We need to at least be able to agree about what these symbols refer to in objective reality.
If we can't agree on that, then someone's got to win and someone's got to lose.
As I have mentioned before, There's no middle ground with transgenderism.
Either it's true or not.
If it's true, it's true for everybody.
If it's false, it's false for everybody.
And if it's false, as it is, then for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who've fallen prey to that confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely, the whole ideology at every level.
Now, speaking of liberal activism, really sad story that went viral yesterday.
There's a guy, a 32-year-old activist, Who was stabbed to death by some vagrant wacko at 4 a.m.
in Bed-Stuy, and he was leaving a wedding with his, looks like his girlfriend, and young white guy, apparently a real do-gooder, you know, liberal social activist, and he's there with his girlfriend, and There's a vagrant in Bedford-Stuyvesant.
I mentioned he's a young white guy because Bed-Stuy is a black neighborhood.
It's overwhelmingly a black neighborhood.
So this guy stands out.
Bed-Stuy is a poor neighborhood.
This guy's wearing a suit.
His girlfriend is wearing a gown.
And this vagrant walks by.
And for some reason, this young man, this 32-year-old man, gets up with his girlfriend and follows the crazy vagrant and starts speaking to him when this vagrant looks like he's beating up on a car or a trash can or something.
And the guy showed courage in that when the vagrant pulled a knife out and starts attacking him, he put himself in between the attacker and his girlfriend.
And then he was stabbed today.
It's down on the ground and this was all captured on camera because cameras now are everywhere.
The sad part about this is this young man died.
Some people are kind of mocking it and saying, well, he got what he deserved, you know, play stupid games, play stupid prizes.
I'm not doing that.
That's, you know, this is a very sad thing if a guy gets murdered, especially if he is trying to help his girlfriend.
But what's really, what is especially sad and what's politically important for all of us is the shocking way that he and so many people today Misjudge these sorts of situations, which we'll get to in one second.
First though, McMuffin19 gave my favorite comment yesterday and he said, Libs always say you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but will pull a fire alarm to stop a vote.
That's true.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater unless the Republicans are passing a continuing resolution that you don't like.
Then the Supreme Court has said you are allowed to pull the fire alarm, especially if you can't read and don't know what fire alarms look like.
Bed-Stuy is a very bad neighborhood.
Wasn't it Biggie who rapped about Bed-Stuy, do or die?
Bed-Stuy is not a nice place.
I just looked up the crime statistics in Bed-Stuy.
Your chance of becoming a victim of crime in Bedford-Stuyvesant is about 1 in 35.
The violent crime rate is 1,065 per 100,000 people.
The average crime rate is 2,900 per 100,000 people.
It was four o'clock in the morning.
thousand people.
The average crime rate is 2,900 per 100,000 people.
It was four o'clock in the morning.
This is a young white couple dressed to the nines from a wedding.
They're going to stick out like a sore thumb.
Uh, Some people have said, well, it's crazy to be in New York City at four o'clock in the morning.
It's not crazy to be in New York City.
I've been in New York City at four o'clock in the morning many, many times, all over the streets in all sorts of parts of New York.
But if I'm going to be out on the street at four o'clock in the morning, it's when the bars get out in New York, I'm going to be in nice neighborhoods.
I'm not going to do that in bad neighborhoods.
And there's a difference between bad neighborhoods and nice neighborhoods.
And you're not allowed to say that now because it's politically incorrect to suggest that certain neighborhoods are more prone to crime than others.
But they are.
And if I see a crazy-looking vagrant on the street, I'm gonna cross to the other side of the street.
And I'm not gonna talk to that guy.
I'm not even gonna make eye contact with that guy.
Because some people are more dangerous than others.
You're not allowed to say that now, especially if the person is black.
Even if the person's white, but especially if the person's black, you're not allowed to say that because that would be called, I don't know, they'd call you racist or profiling or whatever.
But these are all natural reactions that are conducive to our own safety.
The word that has been totally trodden underfoot in recent decades is prejudice.
Prejudice is a terrible thing.
You're not supposed to prejudge anything.
But of course you have to prejudge things.
You have to just act on gut and instinct.
You don't have time to write a 50-page thesis on every single question you're presented with.
You wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
You wouldn't be able to determine, okay, I'm going to get out of bed and then eat a bowl of Cheerios and then go take a shower and then go get in my car and drive to work.
You'd have to examine every single one of those decisions.
Every time you meet somebody, you wouldn't be able to know, do I shake their hand?
Do I punch them in the face?
Do I run away?
Prejudice, I'm not saying cruelty, I'm not saying unjust discrimination, I'm not saying any of that.
But just prejudging, just going on your gut, going with the wisdom of the ages, that is not only not a bad thing, that's a very, very good thing.
That is essential to our personal safety and to politics.
Edmund Burke, one of the great Anglo-Irish philosophers of conservatism, elevated prejudice As a very important aspect of politics, because otherwise we're going to be like the utopian liberals, we're going to be like the progressives who say the past was always bad, we got to throw out that had no wisdom whatsoever, and we're just going to reinvent the world every single day out of our own stock of reason.
But our stock of reason is relatively limited, and when we do that, when we ignore the wisdom of the ages, we actually put even more constraints on our stock of wisdom, on our stock of reason, and we imperil ourselves And our political community.
Very sad.
We should pray for that guy, and we should pray for his girlfriend, and maybe even for that maniac.
There's another sad aspect of the story.
If New York were just operating like it did during Giuliani's day, then the prosecutors would arrest the criminals and the likelihood of being victimized even in these bad neighborhoods would diminish greatly.
But because of political correctness, because of liberalism, because of a misunderstanding of human nature and politics, We don't get that, and so it's no surprise when people in recent days, oddly enough, especially open liberal activists, are victimized.
That should come as no surprise because they're basing their behavior on flawed premises.
It's not just Bed-Stuy.
Henry Queller, I mentioned Henry Queller at the top of the show.
He's a Democrat from Texas, but he's relatively more conservative.
Congressman Queller was just I was coming in from the Capitol.
I parked in front of my apartment complex, and when I was getting up, three guys came up with guns.
I quickly analyzed the situation.
I got a black belt in karate, so you gotta learn what to do.
I looked to the left, somebody had a gun.
To the right, somebody had a gun.
I had a third guy behind me.
Uh, and, uh, you gotta stay calm.
So I went ahead and gave them the, uh, the, uh, car keys and they took off.
Uh, within a couple hours, they were able to recover my phone, my, my, uh, car.
Uh, everything got returned.
I want to thank the Capitol Police and the Metro Police for doing their job.
So it's good that there was a relatively happy ending here and Congressman Cuelar wasn't hurt and he got his stuff back.
This is a sitting member of Congress getting carjacked.
You know the city has spun out of control when that happens.
Years ago, during the early days of the Verdict podcast, we were filming it.
Me and Senator Cruz and some of the staff were filming it on somewhere, L Street, K Street, somewhere in a studio.
But in a nice part of D.C.
We're pretty close to the White House.
And this was about one in the morning.
You know, Senator Cruz would come over after the impeachment vote and we'd do the podcast.
They'd just park on the street, whatever.
After one of the early shows, Senator Cruz walks back into the studio, we were cleaning up a little bit, and he said, guys, someone broke into my car.
It was a smash and grab.
Someone just smashed open a window, grabbed, stole stuff out of the car.
This is a sitting U.S.
Senator.
This is a sitting U.S.
Congressman here, Quellar.
How do you stop it?
It's not complicated.
If Rudy Giuliani could do it in New York City in the early 90s, anyone could do it.
It might not be easy, but it is simple.
You have to acknowledge that The way to fight crime is to lock up the criminals.
You have to recognize that the bad neighborhoods are where the crime is likely to happen.
You've got to send more cops to those bad neighborhoods, and you've got to harass more criminals, and you've got to lock them up for longer periods of time.
When crime is on the rise, that means you have an under-incarceration problem.
What do our liberal rulers tell us?
That we have an over-incarceration problem.
Over-incarceration?
Talk to me about over-incarceration when the crime rate starts dropping again.
It's just a refusal to accept human nature and reality as it is.
Well, of course, we live in a time when you're not even allowed to say that men and women are different.
Is it any wonder that we're ignoring reality on other fronts, too?
The rest of the show continues now.
You don't want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code KNOLLS, K-N-O-W-L-L-E-S, at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
