Ep. 1351 - Shocking Republican Win Could Doom Democrats
Republicans win big in Louisiana, Democrats insist that we take a bunch of Palestinian refugees into the United States, and California effectively legalizes prostitution in the state.
Ep.1351
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Watch Episodes 1-8 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/knowles
Christian Care Ministry - Get a $150 gift card when you join Medi-Share at http://www.medishare.com/Michael
Genucel - Exclusive discount for my listeners! https://genucel.com/Knowles
- - -
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
After a week of brutal news, a little glimmer of hope.
Republicans have officially flipped Louisiana red.
After eight years of Democrat rule, Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry just won the Louisiana governorship.
And he didn't just win by a little.
He won by a lot, by over 25 points.
And not only is Landry a Republican, He's a conservative.
And not only is he a conservative, he's a Trump-endorsed conservative.
Which, given that, regardless of whether you love or hate Trump, it is looking like the Donald will almost certainly be the GOP nominee in 2024, that means that maybe, just maybe, Republicans actually have a shot of retaking some power after all.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Over there in California, Gamora-by-the-Sea, things have gone from bad to worse.
They now have a pro-prostitution bill that has women wearing dental floss thongs just out in public, brazenly selling their bodies for sex to men.
And the local residents don't really like it, but they can't quite articulate Why not?
And they can't quite express why not through their political institutions.
So, Mussolini's hellscape gets worse and worse by the day.
We'll get to that in a second.
First, though, speaking of conservatives winning elections, Jim Jordan is trying to become the Speaker of the House.
The only problem I have with that is that I like Jim Jordan too much, and I think he's a good guy and quite conservative, so I wouldn't wish that terrible job on him.
But you know the crazy chaos.
The chaos was that Kevin McCarthy was the Speaker.
He got ousted by A handful of his own Republicans and then all of the Democrats.
Then Steve Scalise, who is a little bit more establishment, he ran for it.
He gets the nomination of the GOP caucus.
He doesn't get the votes to become Speaker.
He drops out of the Speaker race.
Then Jim Jordan, who is a terrific guy, he gets the nomination of the GOP caucus.
Still unclear if he's going to get the votes, but a very promising sign for Jim Jordan is that He's got the support of disparate wings of the GOP.
So Kevin McCarthy, who just got ousted, who obviously has had his ego bruised, he has been speaking with Jordan.
And here's what he said.
Look, I think Jim Jordan can get there.
I'm one who understands how difficult it is.
I did walk in with more support during this time, but I believe at the end of the day, Jim can get there.
And I'm doing everything I can to help him be able to become Speaker.
Now, some conservatives are going to say, well, that's a bad sign.
If Kevin McCarthy likes somebody, I don't like him.
Just like if John Boehner likes somebody, I don't like him.
Just like if Paul Ryan likes somebody, I don't like him.
And in fairness to Kevin McCarthy, McCarthy as speaker was much more conservative than Boehner, than Paul Ryan, than anyone we've seen in recent history.
In many ways, he was more conservative than Newt Gingrich, and you might say he was the most conservative speaker since the 1950s, though I'm damning with faint praise.
But what does this mean?
Does this mean that now the squish is in the establishment types there for Jordan, so we should be against him?
Not quite.
Thomas Massey, who is one of the most conservative members of the House of Representatives, he's just come out too, and he is trying to rally the troops to get behind Jordan.
Here's what he said.
He said, quote, some Republicans want to cut a deal with Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries to elect a speaker.
With Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, we must not give up control of the House.
Republicans should unite behind Jim Jordan as our speaker.
So, the point that Massey is making here is, if the Republicans can't pick a Speaker, then the Democrats are going to decide who the Speaker is, and the Democrats will either try to get a Democrat through, pry off enough Republicans to actually elect a Democrat to be Speaker of the House, which is basically unimaginable, or, more imaginable, they pick one of the squish Republicans Then the Democrats throw their support behind.
They only need to pick off a handful of other Republicans and bam!
There you've got a speaker who is much more liberal than Kevin McCarthy.
Potentially more liberal than Ryan.
Potentially more liberal than Boehner.
So Republicans are in a little bit of a precarious spot here if they can't get behind Jordan or some unknown unity candidate who has not presented himself here.
But what this means is If Jim Jordan can wrangle enough votes to become the Speaker, this means that Matt Gaetz's showboating, crazy stunt to kick Kevin McCarthy out of the House of Representatives leadership was pretty good.
Because Jim Jordan is much more conservative than Kevin McCarthy.
This means that the conventional wisdom that we heard from the political class and the pundits and the electeds and the strategists who said, Matt Gaetz, he's completely insane.
This is a terrible idea.
Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.
They're clutching defeat from the jaws of victory.
If we end up after all of this craziness with a much more conservative, much more anti-establishment Speaker of the House as a Republican, that's pretty good stuff.
Not bad at all.
Now, speaking of Congress, getting back to the actual business of Congress, not just the little leadership games, Representative Jamal Bowman, Jamal Bowman, who is known for pulling fire alarms and calling his opponents, including yours truly, Nazis.
Jamal Bowman has just said the U.S.
should welcome Palestinian refugees.
So already, this war in the state of Israel has barely begun.
We had the horrible terror attack a week ago.
We've now seen the beginning of the Israeli retaliation against Hamas throughout the Gaza Strip.
This war is going to go on for a long time.
It's already brought in Lebanon.
It's already brought in Syria.
It might bring in Iran in a more direct way, rather than merely through proxies.
This could lead to world war, all right?
We are one week into this thing, and already you are hearing from the liberals, well, we have to take in those Palestinians.
Oh, yes, the people who elected Hamas.
Where else are they going to go?
We can't just leave them where they are, and we couldn't possibly expect the Arab Muslim states around them to take them in.
No, no.
We in the United States, who have taken in more migrants than anyone ever, we in the United States, which has seen the largest movement of human beings into a country over the last 60 years ever, it's the largest number in recorded history, we need to take them in.
Egypt, which has a border with Gaza, they've closed the border with Gaza.
They're not letting anyone come through.
But the United States has to do it.
Here's my question.
I actually feel sympathy for the Palestinian people.
I know there's a lot of talk about how they're just animals and they don't deserve any sympathy.
I feel sympathy for plenty of civilians in Palestine or the Palestinian territories or Gaza or the West Bank or whatever.
How does it benefit America to take in the refugees?
How does it benefit America?
That's just one question, and what the pro-mass migration people are going to say is, how dare you even ask that question?
You heartless monster, you call yourself a Christian?
How dare you ask how accepting millions and millions of people every single year benefits your own country?
You just have to do it.
Why do we have to do it?
Well, because, you know, you're the shining city on a hill.
Yeah, shining city on a hill is supposed to provide a light and example to all nations, in their own nations.
It's not a magnet.
It's not a shining magnet on a hill.
Why?
Why do we have to do it?
Well, because you're Christian.
Yeah, we're Christian.
Does Christianity prohibit national borders, national identity, a distinction between citizen and foreigner?
That's a novel innovation in the history of Christianity.
What they're really saying is that the United States has an obligation to commit national suicide.
That's what they're saying.
And they'll justify it based on our classical liberal values, or conversely on our Christian values, or conversely on some stupid poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty from about a hundred years ago, Or conversely on whatever.
They'll just make up the reasoning.
But the end result is always the same.
That you, if you want to be a good person, you've got to be able to commit political and national suicide.
They say this to Republicans and Conservatives all the time.
Oh, you've got to put country over party.
Whatever that means.
I'm a member of a party because I think that party is better for my country than the other one.
They're not in opposition.
The only reason I would join a party is because I think it helps the country.
They say, no, you need to forget about your partisan commitments.
You've got to forget about your ideological or philosophical beliefs.
You've got to forget about your national borders and identity.
You just got to, for goodness sakes, you just got to kill yourself.
That is contrary to natural law.
We have a natural inkling towards self-preservation.
And we in the United States uniquely.
among the nations.
Certainly, we in the West uniquely have decided that it's somehow good for us to kill ourselves in our political societies.
I don't think so.
Doesn't look good.
When you want to look good, you gotta check out Genucel.
Right now, go to Genucel.com slash Knowles.
Everyone at the office loves the Genucel Dark Spot Corrector.
You might be asking what the product even does.
Well, if you have sunspots, dark spots, discoloration, or dry skin, the Genucel Dark Spot Corrector will help those blemishes Disappear.
Kimberly from Youngstown, Ohio says, My appearance has improved so much since using Janusel.
I love all my Janusel products and my skin looks younger.
You can have gorgeous skin just like me, but hurry!
Janusel has an amazing sale going on right now, but it's ending soon.
Take advantage of Janusel's most popular package, which includes the beloved Dark Spot Corrector.
This package also includes Janusel's classic under-eye treatment.
You will get All of these products were almost 70% off.
GenuCell is so confident in their products that you can try them yourself completely risk-free.
If you don't see immediate results, you will get your money back.
Head on over right now to GenuCell.com.
Start looking years, even decades younger tomorrow.
Say hello to the best skin you have ever had at GenuCell.com.
slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, that is GenuCell.com slash Knowles.
President Trump said it seven years ago, and he was right.
The nations that are sending us people to be migrants, they're generally not sending their best.
I was just in New York over the weekend at a pal's wedding, and I was staying in Midtown, very close to the Roosevelt Hotel.
I love the Roosevelt Hotel.
I've stayed there many times.
It's one of those iconic New York hotels that, because it hadn't been refurbed in like 50 years, was pretty cheap.
So for 20 years, 15 years at least, I've stayed at the Roosevelt Hotel.
And then it closed down during COVID.
One of the, unfortunately, many victims of the COVID shutdowns.
But the hotel's still there.
It's still a nice hotel.
And so now, instead of being filled with paying patrons, tourists to New York, American citizens, it's just filled with illegal aliens.
Because our joke of a law enforcement apparatus does not send the illegal aliens back to their country of origin, the countries in which they have citizenship and to which they have obligations.
They just put them up in nice hotels in the middle of Manhattan in some of the most prized real estate in the entire country.
And so I coincidentally was staying right down the street from the Roosevelt Hotel, and before I knew it, I wasn't even thinking about it, I noticed there's a lot of Young, fighting age men, standing on the street, speaking foreign languages, loitering, not really doing much of anything, not seeming to help anybody or help their own situations, wearing clothing and gear that was obviously donated.
It looked spic and spam, pretty new and nice.
And I realized, oh, these are the migrants.
These are the dreamers that we're told about.
And there were some women, It's not that there were none.
There were a handful of young women.
There were a very small number of children.
But most of the vast majority of these people were young fighting-age men who we've imported to our country and won't deport them even though they are breaking some of our most basic laws.
How is that?
Can't we just ask the question how this helps us?
Is that even that?
Is no longer permitted.
But we all know it's not helping.
We all know that we have imported too many migrants from too many bad places that are damaging our social fabric.
And it's no knock on them, they potentially could be wonderful people.
It's not even a knock on the bad countries that they've left.
They're not nice countries and you probably wouldn't want to be there if you were there either.
But you can't take in everybody from around the world and continue to have a functioning political order.
It doesn't work.
When that happens, these guys don't magically all become Rockefellers, and even more important than Rockefellers, all little mini Uncle Sams, who just by osmosis have taken in the American political tradition and memorized the Constitution forwards and backwards.
They don't speak English, and they don't even seem to have much of an interest in assimilating to the country.
What happens is you just take the nice communities That citizens have built up over centuries and you make them more dangerous and you make them not only more criminal but just less nice.
There's just dirt and trash and things that aren't pleasant and then you don't visit those places and your community suffers.
It's not a good idea.
The question for immigration is How do the immigrants benefit the country?
They're going to clip this out on Media Matters and say I'm, you know, the second coming of Francisco Franco.
I'm such a far-right authoritarian.
This is what every single American thought about immigration until what?
Ten years ago?
Until Obama, basically?
This is how Bill Clinton talked about immigration.
This is how Democrats and Republicans talked about it for a very long time.
Ron DeSantis now has been very clear on this, especially on the Palestinian issue.
He said, That every presidential candidate should pledge to accept no Palestinian refugees.
We cannot accept people from Gaza into this country as refugees.
I am not going to do that.
If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all anti-Semitic.
Well, first of all, my position is very clear.
Those Gaza refugees, Palestinian Arabs, should go to Arab countries.
The U.S.
should not be absorbing any of those.
I think the culture, so they elected Hamas.
Let's just be clear about that.
Not everyone's a member of Hamas.
Most probably aren't, but they did elect Hamas.
Okay.
Everything he said here is right.
And his position on the issue of immigration from the Palestinian territories is obviously correct too.
But it's a weird kind of logic.
It's, It's an interesting way that DeSantis feels he has to make the argument.
Because we live in a time when you are not ever allowed to suggest any restriction of immigration under any circumstances, according to our liberal elites.
He says, well, the reason that we can't accept these Palestinians is they're anti-semitic.
Yeah, I don't want to import a bunch of people who hate the Jews into the country.
But why is that the kind of discrimination?
We can discriminate against anti-Semites.
Good, yeah, I think we should.
I think that's a good idea.
You do want to discriminate against those people.
But we can't discriminate in favor of Christians.
If you came out and you said, Hey, I'm going to have a new immigration policy.
We're going to give priority to Christians, because this is a Christian country, and it was founded by Christians on the Mayflower and in the Massachusetts colony, and Governor Winthrop said this was going to be a model of Christian charity, and the Founding Fathers were all basically on board with that, and George Washington talked about God a lot, and Abraham Lincoln's oratory basically came straight out of the King James Bible, and anyway, we've always been Christian, and so that's what we're going to do.
The ACLU would be knocking on your door before you finish the sentence.
So we can say we don't want to import them because they're anti-semitic.
And we're allowed to do that because, at least in that particular framing, Jews count as enough of a victim class that it confuses people who are trying to argue that the Palestinians are a victim class and it's just kind of a little bit unclear and then you get away with that.
But what we're really talking about is who we want to take in and who we don't want to take in.
Why can't we make a more direct argument?
We want people who are more in line with what America believes, the traditional American way of life, the spirit, the faith that has animated America and made it such a great country and could make the country great again.
Why do we have to hide the type of discrimination that we're practicing?
Discrimination is a terrible word, but when you're forming an immigration policy, you must discriminate.
Especially when everyone wants to come to your country.
Unless you say everyone gets to come, borders don't exist, the American citizens have no right to decide who gets to be part of the country.
If you're saying there will be any limits to immigration, then you are necessarily discriminating.
Meaning, discerning one thing from another thing, and setting priorities on who you would like to come in.
But we don't want to use the D word.
We don't want to say that we're discriminating, so we have to use all of this politically correct language.
Well, no, we don't want to take them in because they're racist, and racists are bad, but we would never, and so we're not going to let their race in, because that race is racist.
But it doesn't hold up.
We're going to discriminate, inevitably.
A serious country will do this consciously in a way that benefits the country.
No, I'm not saying discriminating on race, I'm not saying discriminating on sex, though we do have a lot of young fighting age men, probably taking in a few too many of those, discriminating on religion, one could discriminate on any number of categories.
I'm making an even more basic point.
A serious country deals with these questions consciously.
An unserious country does not, just sort of lets it happen, such that now we only take in people who have come across the border with the help of MS-13, a bunch of young fighting age men, who probably are not in the near run going to be contributing all that much to American growth and prosperity.
Now, speaking of your own prosperity, You gotta check out Birch Gold.
Right now, text Knolls to 989898.
The G20, the Group of 20, is an international forum for governments and central bank governors.
It was established in response to the financial crises of the late 1990s with the aim of promoting international financial stability.
Last month, the G20 announced a plan to impose digital currencies and digital IDs on their respective populations.
Central bank digital currencies essentially allow the government to track every purchase that you make.
Even if you don't follow international economic policies all that closely, you should be concerned, and you should consider diversifying at least some of your assets into physical gold with the help of Birch Gold Group.
Call Birch Gold today to preserve your savings in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
If you have an IRA or 401k from a previous employer, call Birch Gold.
They will help you convert it into an IRA in gold.
You will not pay a penny out of pocket.
They will simply convert that 401k, that would otherwise be sitting in a bank somewhere, into physical gold, which cannot be tampered with.
Text Knolls, K-N-N-W-L-A-S, to 989898.
Birchgold will send you a free info kit on gold.
If digital currency becomes a reality, you will be glad that you have something physical to fall back on.
Text Knolls to 989898 and claim your free info kit on gold today.
The two most important decisions that you're going to need this month are as follows.
Trick or treat.
You gotta pick one.
And yes or no.
You gotta pick one there, too.
That is right.
Yes or no is the perfect Halloween party game, especially with the all-new Conspiracy Theory Expansion Pack.
Topical topics such as aliens, cryptids, vampires, and demons for all your Halloween hot takes.
Do you already have the classic game?
Well, then be sure to secure the Conspiracy Pack just in time for all your spooky soirees.
Head on over right now to dailywire.com slash shop today.
That's the one thing.
I'm shooting this show today from my home studio.
This is just my office at home.
And I don't have all my fun props.
I don't have my Conspiracy Theory Pack here, because I left it at my office at the Daily Wire.
I don't have my delicious pumpkin spikle candle right now, because we keep selling out of them.
I left that one at the office, too.
But I'm shooting from home because I've got a little bit of a hectic week.
This week, I'm going to be going to a far-flung part of the world on a super-duper secret project that you will know more about in the coming weeks.
But I'm not going to tell.
We have so many super-duper secret projects at The Daily Wire going.
We probably have about two dozen of them going at any one time, but this is the most important one we've ever done.
So anyway, you'll get more information about that in the coming weeks.
Speaking of discrimination and war and refugees and the Israel-Palestine conflict, Lindsey Graham is saying, point blank, totally bluntly, that we are in a religious war.
Iran Hamas believes that the Jewish people should die as a result of religious teachings.
We're in a religious war here.
I am with Israel.
Do whatever the hell you have to do to defend yourself.
Level the place.
We're in a religious war, he says.
We'll get to the last part of what he says in a moment.
He says we're in a religious war.
That's true.
We are in a religious war.
All politics is ultimately religious because all human conflict ultimately is theological.
But in this case, we're in a more overtly religious war because the belligerents are speaking about religion and speaking from religious perspectives.
But then the follow-up question is, what's our religion?
The religious war in the Israel-Palestine conflict is the Jews versus the Muslims.
And much as we like the Jews and the Muslims, America has never been a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.
The West broadly has not been Jewish or Muslim.
It's Christian.
So, what's our religion?
Is Lindsey Graham arguing that we as Christians have some obligation in this war?
Maybe he's arguing that, but he doesn't say it overtly.
He says we're in a religious war, but he won't say what the religion is.
Because in the West, even though the West was once called Christendom, even though the religion of Christianity is what has animated the West and made our whole civilization, The West has apostatized in many ways.
So, we don't believe it anymore.
The number of self-identified Christians has declined.
The seriousness of religious practice has declined precipitously.
The clarity of the dogmas and doctrines of the faith has become so muddled that someone says they're Christian, you would be hard-pressed to separate a self-described Christian from some new-age hippie-type guy.
The way people talk.
What's the religion?
In this religious war that the United States is in, that the West is in broadly, the religion is much more likely to be liberalism than Christianity.
It's much more likely to be raising rainbow flags all over the world.
That is a deeply held religious belief.
In the absolute sanctity and inviolability of weird sex stuff for everybody, no matter their age.
Oh, that's something that Westerners will get really riled up about.
Mass migration, that's something that Westerners, they'll get really riled up about that.
There should be no limits whatsoever to migration.
But actual dogmas and doctrines of the Christian faith, not so much.
And then the follow-up question is, all right, that's a religious war.
We're now looking at the brink of World War III.
We were already teetering on it because of the conflict in Ukraine.
Now, with this blow-up in the Middle East that looks like it's going to spread throughout the entire region, we see much closer to that.
Do you want to go die for a religious war for liberalism?
I don't like liberalism that much.
I think the American interest in this war is to contain the war.
I think the American interest here is to support the bad guys getting taken out.
I think the American interest here is to recognize that the state of Israel obviously has a right to defend itself from this historic terror attack from Hamas.
And then I think the American interest is contain the war.
The belligerents might have broader objectives than that.
The Palestinians want a nation state.
And they've got a lot of allies, notably Iran, to try to help them get to that point.
The Israelis want regime change in Iran.
That's been the official policy of the State of Israel for my entire lifetime.
But what is the U.S.
interest here?
Is to contain this war.
So that we don't even need to worry about these questions of refugees fleeing, so that we don't need to worry about the prospect of a nuclear conflict, especially as we are the global hegemons.
We are going to be the drivers And we're going to face a lot of the consequences of just such a war.
But it is a religious war.
And so, a lot of people are a little blurry on what exactly we're supposed to do, and what side we're supposed to be on, and if we're supposed to have a side, because of this more fundamental problem in the West, which is that we gave up our actual religion, and we gave it up for some mealy-mouthed, nonsensical, soft-soap liberalism that doesn't clarify a damn thing, and when it does have clear objectives, those objectives are bad.
Now, speaking of liberalism and bad political objectives, California has just passed a really important bill to make prostitution much, much easier.
So this is a bill.
It was signed into law by Governor Bateman, Patrick Bateman of Gomorrah-by-the-Sea.
But the bill was authored by none other than Democrat State Senator Scott Weiner.
Senator Weiner is aptly named, of course, and because all nature is but art unknown to the all-chance direction, which thou canst not see in Providence Winks frequently. - Right.
Senator Wiener is best known for authoring legislation that reduced crimes for pederasts, so for grown homosexual men who would engage in statutory rape and molestation with young teenage boys.
He wanted to reduce the penalties for those men.
So that's kind of what he's known for.
Tells you a lot about his political views and agenda.
So now he's got a new bill out which decriminalizes loitering with the intent to commit prostitution.
Which doesn't seem like a huge deal, except that it effectively legalizes prostitution in California, because the way that law enforcement stops prostitution is by driving around, seeing the hookers standing around on the corner.
They're not hard to spot, and so they pull up, and then if they can get them on loitering with intent to commit prostitution, they can suppress the vice, and it's a lot easier to prosecute.
A lot of Californians hate this.
National City Mayor Ron Morrison, who is an independent politically, he criticized the law and said that the prostitutes are now wearing less than you would consider a scanty negligee.
They're flaunting it in everybody's face.
I mean, you can see it, the video clips, they're wearing dental floss.
My question is, why?
I get why Senator Wiener wants to do this because he's a pervert and a weirdo, but why is anyone tolerating this?
Why did Governor Bateman, who thinks that he's going to run for president, why did he sign it into law?
Why are there liberals who are normal people, who are not perverts, who are not weirdos, not that weird I guess, why are they going along with this?
Why do people feel obligated to tolerate things that universally make life worse?
Prostitution doesn't make life better for anybody.
Doesn't make life better for the hookers.
Doesn't make life better for the Johns.
Doesn't make life better for the neighborhoods.
Doesn't make life better for the kids who are going to see this stuff on the street corners and be scandalized.
Doesn't make life better for anybody.
So why do we tolerate that?
Because we're told that's liberty?
Because we're told that's freedom.
It's not freedom.
I mean, I've talked about the distinction between liberty and license so many times, I'm not going to rehearse it now.
That's not true freedom.
Freedom isn't just neutrality in the face of good and evil, right and wrong, true and false.
True freedom is dependent upon a perfect will, and a perfect will is dependent on perfect understanding, and this is why the truth will set you free, and vice and lies and delusion will make you a slave.
But even putting all of that aside, if we all know that this thing makes life worse, then why would an argument, even from this ridiculous definition, misdefinition of liberty, why would that be persuasive?
Aren't we putting the cart before the horse there?
What's the point of liberty?
It says right in the Constitution what the point of liberty is, which is that our framers of our Constitution, the founding fathers of our country, they wanted to establish a political order that would ensure the blessings of liberty.
We hear this all the time.
But the phrase blessings of liberty implies that liberty is not an end unto itself, that liberty is a means to an end, that liberty is instrumental.
The Constitution doesn't say, we established this framework to secure liberty.
It's the blessings of liberty.
Because, of course, liberty is not the end.
The end of society, just the end of our society, the end of all political societies, is the good life.
A good, nice place to live.
That's what it's always about.
The fundamental rule of politics is do good and avoid evil.
Happens to be the fundamental rule in our personal lives, too.
Why do it?
If your ideology Is forcing you to come to political conclusions that make life worse for everybody, whether we're talking about hookers in California, whether we're talking about mass migration of people who are usually mobbed up with the cartels and who at the very least are young fighting age men, who are economic migrants, who are a drain on resources and who are not assimilating in any of these issues.
If your ideology is leading you to conclusions that harm everybody, then ditch your ideology.
You have a stupid ideology, and you should be normal and sensible and reasonable, and not choose an abstract theory over the practical realities that we all know to be true.
Look at this kind of liberty.
The irony of this view of liberty, of course, is that it always ends up looking tyrannical.
After it's been implemented for a little while to say we need we need tolerance.
Okay, and in the name of tolerance, we're going to tolerate everything, except for intolerance.
If you're intolerant, then we're going to ostracize you, and we're going to kill you, and we're going to arrest you, and that would be absolutely terrible.
That's what you're seeing here in the UK.
The Labour government has just decided to make misgendering a crime punishable by two years in prison.
Here's the argument.
The argument is we need more liberty, so-called, for transgender people, so-called.
And so, we need them to be free to express themselves, to be whoever they want to be.
But their ability to do that is impaired by those nasty retrogrades who insist on calling big husky dudes with beards wearing stiletto heels, him and he.
That is a great imposition on their freedom of expression, to be who they want to be in public.
So, now the left-wing Labour Party Wants to make misgendering a crime punishable by up to two years in prison.
Labor is trying to elevate misgendering to an aggravated offense and put it on the same level as assault or harassment motivated by race or religion, which comes with up to two years in prison.
Here's what Carolyn Fiske of Conservatives for Women says.
Thousands of women dispute the notion of gender identity.
And particularly the idea that it should be prioritized over biological sex.
We have serious and legitimate concerns over being expected in the workplace when using public services or in public life to refer to a man as she-her.
Is there a risk with this policy that a woman could be accused of harassment for correctly sexing a man and then for that to be treated as an aggravated offense?
And of course what she's saying is right and of course the labor policy is crazy but what's driving me Up a wall here is that even the argument against these terrible policies is kind of liberal.
Even the argument against these terrible liberal predations buys into their fundamental premises, which is not good.
Now, when you want to buy into a great system to support your health, you've got to check out MediShare.
Right now, go to MediShare.com slash Michael.
As a Daily Wire subscriber, you are not just informed, you are engaged.
And you're handsome, too.
You value freedom and responsibility.
That is why you gotta check out MediShare.
MediShare is a community-based approach to healthcare that lines up with the principles that you believe in.
Your values matter, and with MediShare, your healthcare dollars will not be used for medical procedures that don't line up with your beliefs.
MediShare is the highest-rated healthcare sharing ministry with a 30-year proven track record It's not health insurance.
It's a community of 400,000 believers committed to caring and sharing with one another.
Members save up to 50% or more on their monthly health care costs, and member satisfaction surveys show that they like MediShare much more than health insurance.
Why?
Because it works!
For a limited time, Daily Wire listeners will receive a $150 gift card when they join MediShare.
To find out more, go to metashare.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
That is metashare.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
Terms and conditions apply.
Are you still getting your chocolate from woke companies?
It's crazy.
Get Jeremy's chocolate instead.
Right now, you can save big with 25% off.
Get great deals on our famous He-Him with nuts.
Hmm.
Hmm.
And she, her, nutless.
Because whether it's Halloween or not, Jeremy's Chocolate knows not everyone can be a mummy.
Get yours in full size or our shareable microaggression size.
Perfect for giving out to friends, family, and neighbors.
Time is running out, so stock up now.
In time for Halloween, go to Jeremy'sChocolate.com today.
My favorite comment on Friday is from SneezannaCassidy8745, who says, Michael celebrating Halloween tells me everything about his Christian beliefs.
I think that comment is criticizing me for liking Halloween.
I just talked about Halloween with Jeremy's Chocolates.
This was news to me.
I didn't really know this growing up, but some people believe that Halloween is unchristian, but that is not true at all.
Halloween is a Christian festival, because Halloween is the night before All Saints Day, so it's All Hallows Eve, and then All Saints Day is a An ancient Christian celebration for all the saints who are up in heaven.
So, Halloween is very good.
You don't want to go out into the woods and worship demons and stuff, you know, but you don't want to do that any day of the week, like on a Tuesday or a Wednesday or Halloween.
None of those days should you do that.
But if you want to dress up and eat some delicious Jeremy's chocolate, that is totally fine.
Obviously, labor in the UK is completely insane to try to make Nisgendering, meaning calling dudes dudes, a crime punishable by two years in prison.
Of course.
Obviously, this is bad for women.
Yeah, sure.
The reason this is bad, by the way, is not just because it constrains free speech, but because it compels lies.
So the issue is not just that the Brits are saying, well, you can't say, well, you know, matey, you can't, I don't know, my accent's a little weak these days.
Crikey, governor, you know you're not allowed to have shrimp on the Barbies and also misgender people.
Is that, that was a little Australian, I don't, however they speak, however they speak.
They're restricting speech in some way.
That's true.
But what's much more egregious than that, because all societies constrict speech, is that this law is compelling you to lie, which is a mortal sin, which means that this law is no law at all.
I mean, this law is a species of violence.
Sure, all that's true.
But what drives me crazy about the arguments against the law is that the way it's being presented by conservatives for women is it's only a problem Because some women don't like it.
You see, women, they're an oppressed group.
Men, they're the oppressors.
So forget about what men think.
Some women might not like it.
So the reason that we can't do this, the reason that we should think twice about throwing people in prison for calling men men, and women women, is because some women might not like that law.
What about the men?
This is similar to the argument at the top of the show from Governor DeSantis.
The reason we shouldn't take the Palestinian migrants is because they're anti-Semitic.
Yeah, that's bad.
But also, you know, they elected Hamas.
That's not good.
And also, they're probably not going to assimilate very easily.
And also, we already take way too many people into the country every year anyway.
And also, they wouldn't help the United States.
Why is it that we can't make blunt, direct arguments?
Why is it that we've got to frame everything as a matter of some liberal victim class?
Why is it that an argument against some racial policy in the United States always has to be made from the perspective of, actually, this policy is not great for black people.
Actually, the reason that we need to get rid of affirmative action is because it, in a roundabout way, actually makes life harder for black people.
I think a lot of that is true.
But also, if the law just unjustly discriminates against white people, for instance, that would be sufficient reason to get rid of the law.
Even the way we talk about affirmative action, the only reason the Supreme Court struck it down was because Asians, who in some circumstances are considered a victim group, were harmed by the laws.
That's why the lawsuits were all brought by Asian students.
That's why the media framing of it was all about Asian students.
Because white people are evil and they deserve what they get, according to our liberal establishment.
Oh, any unjust discrimination against white people?
It's not possible!
All discrimination against white people is just, according to our liberal elite.
So it can never be from the perspective that, hey, some white kid and some...
Middle-of-nowhere community, applied to college, and he studied really hard, and he was really smart, and he got a perfect score in the SAT, and he was valedictorian, and he lost his spot in the college to someone else who got race-based preferential treatment, and that's no good.
You're not allowed to say that.
And it drives me crazy because even the conservatives buy into this framing.
Well, no, forget about discrimination.
Really, it's the Asian people.
They are much better.
Forget about the men that are going to get thrown in prison for misgendering.
Actually, some women might not like it.
So that's what really matters.
Speaking of women's issues, and actually getting back to prostitution, this is a very prostitution-heavy show.
There's a British soccer lady whose name is Alicia Lehman.
I am told she's very young.
She's 24 years old.
She's called the sexiest soccer star in the world.
I had never heard of her before this news story, but she gives me a little hope for soccer, which I have very low hope for, because Women's soccer is not known for its glamour.
It's known mostly for Megan Rapinoe.
And this lady is very nice-looking, and she just came out on a podcast and said that she was offered more than $100,000 to spend the night with a very well-known celebrity.
She said, the message said, I will pay Alicia 100,000 Swiss francs to spend a night with her.
But my answer was, no way.
And just 100,000?
And 100,000 Swiss francs is around $110,000.
It's almost one-to-one, Swiss francs to USD.
And she's a very nice looking lady.
I know.
She's a nice looking lady.
But.
And I'm a married man, and I try not to think of other ladies.
But I tried to think about this circumstance, this very, very well-known actor, or not actor, just celebrity of some sort or another, who she has not yet named.
Would that really be fun?
Even if she's a really pretty lady, would it really be fun to pay this lady $100,000 and then have some moments of physical pleasure and then you're done with it and that's it?
Would you feel good after that?
Even if she's super duper hot, I don't think I would feel good after that.
Even if I had a billion dollars to burn, I think that would not be great.
There's an old line in Hollywood about prostitution and why rich, famous, successful people will go to prostitutes, and the line is attributed to Cary Grant, or Clark Gable, or I don't know, who knows, some old Hollywood guy.
And the line is, you don't pay the prostitute to come over, you pay the prostitute to go home.
In other words, yeah, you're a big movie star, you could attract a woman with a wink and a smile, but that's the point, because then they all want something from you.
Whereas, you know, if you pay a hooker, in this case, if you turn a soccer star into a hooker, then they'll go home and they won't expect anything from you.
But is that really fun, or does that just make you an animal?
And you get your physical gratification, and you do whatever weird thing kind of titillates you, and then I think at some point you remember that the woman is a person with a soul and like reason, you know, and is judging you.
Even if you pay her $200,000, you say, hey, here's $100,000 for the sex, and here's another $100,000 not to judge me.
Please.
And for me to still be an upright person.
But it doesn't work that way.
The very fact that you have done that diminishes you.
And diminishes her.
And diminishes everybody.
And she made the right decision here.
I'm glad she didn't take the money.
This is not merely a matter of personal choice or taste.
We know that this stuff is bad and normal good societies that flourish recognize that it is the role of the political order and community to discourage people from doing weird stuff like this and to encourage people to do good things that will give them good lives.
If we can't do that for whatever reason, we're just ideologically, we've convinced ourselves we can't make decisions, we can't discriminate between good and bad and right and wrong, we just don't know, we don't know what our religion is, we don't know what we believe, we don't know what we think is moral, then we have effectively ceased to be a country already.
And we've still got, well, maybe the borders, I don't know, we've still got maybe some of the institutions that kind of, but if you can't do that, If you can't tell who you are and what you want and where you're going and what's good and what's bad, for all intents and purposes, you're no longer a country.
That's our show, on that happy note.
I am going to be flitting about the world this week.
Maybe I'll give you some clues as to where I am.
Maybe.
We'll see.
We'll find out.
And then you'll know much more about this secret project that I'm involved with soon enough.
