AOC demands America take in Palestinian refugees, Biden’s brother gets caught sending the Big Guy a check for $200K from a shady business deal, and Republicans scramble to find a new Speaker after Jim Jordan drops out of the race.
Ep.1355
- - -
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 1-9 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
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/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
As the war in the Middle East enters its third week, AOC is already demanding that America accept Palestinian refugees.
Should Arab countries be taking on the lion's share of the burden to absorb what could be over a million, if not more, refugees from Gaza?
I think there's something to be said about the region's partners being able to support and step up Palestinians.
However, that does not abdicate the United States from our historic role that we've played in the world of accepting refugees and allowing people to restart their lives here.
No thanks!
That seems like a bad idea.
Maybe, perhaps, we could consider taking in the relatively small number of Christians living in the Palestinian territories.
Not because we hate Muslims or anything like that, but because there are lots of Arab states around the Holy Land that could take the Muslims in, and America is a Christian country.
And even putting Christian solidarity aside, that means there's a good chance that Christian refugees will assimilate.
And the ability to assimilate matters because peoples and cultures are different.
And there's one more concern, which might resonate more for AOC.
Why would liberals want to bring these refugees to our awful, oppressive, Islamophobic country?
All we ever hear from the left is how terrible and evil and oppressive America is, especially toward persons of color and Arabs and Muslims in particular.
Does AOC just hate these people?
Want to make them even more miserable?
Or is that argument, like so many of the liberal arguments, totally disingenuous?
Nothing more than a fact-free rhetorical cudgel for beating Americans into submission to the left's political interest.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Joe Biden's brother wrote him a $200,000 check right after one of his shady business deal closed.
We'll get to that in one moment, because Joe Biden keeps saying, on all of the accusations of his corruption, he keeps saying, where's the money?
Show me the money.
Where'd the money go?
Well, we have a check.
We have the money.
So we'll get to that in one second.
First, though, I want to remain on this point about the differences of peoples for a while.
There's a story out of Italy.
Italy has this lady prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, heralded as a great conservative hope in Italy.
And Meloni has just announced that she's split from her long-term romantic partner.
They were not married, but they have a kid together, and they've been together a long time.
This guy is an Italian TV journalist, and they split because he cracked a joke with some of his colleagues about having a threesome or a foursome, something like that.
It's unclear how serious he was about inviting the colleague to have a threesome with him, but in any case, Meloni said, okay, we're through.
And my main take on the story, forget about Marriage and family and what this means about Western decadence and what, put all of that aside for a second.
My first reaction to this story is, the Italians, man.
You know, a zebra doesn't change its spots.
Is that how the saying goes?
This coming after decades of the political influence of Silvio Berlusconi, the former playboy Italian PM who would hold bunga bunga parties with the young niece of Muammar Gaddafi and make jokes about how he had to turn his playboy charm on to speak to lady foreign ministers and prime ministers around the world.
And this guy who just lived a lifestyle of a Casanova, of the classic Italian playboy.
And I think, man, these Italians, they don't change.
This has been true going back to antiquity, because cultures and people are different, okay?
This is actually one of the major themes of The Godfather.
In The Godfather, you got this Italian family, and they come to America, and they believe in America.
And we all believe in America.
And they're going to assimilate.
And you got the young Michael Corleone, the son who, even if the rest of his family is going to be in the business of the mob, he's going to be the clean-cut American war hero.
He's going to go to Dartmouth.
He's an Ivy League graduate.
He's going to be the American.
As Don Corleone says to him, you're going to be the senator, Michael.
You're not going to be buying off the senators.
You're going to be the senator.
You're going to be the American guy.
The culture just pulls him back in.
Just when he thinks he's out, it pulls him back in.
The pull of culture, the pull of one's tribal identity from the family all the way up to the nation and the people is very, very strong.
And what multiculturalism and liberalism has told us for the past many decades now, five or six decades, is that peoples are all basically the same.
So you can transplant a guy from Timbuktu into America, and within five minutes he's going to be eating hot dogs on the 4th of July, and eating apple pie, and indistinguishable from somebody whose family came over 400 years ago.
And that's just not true.
Assimilation is very, very hard.
And that's something we need to keep in mind when AOC is suggesting that we need to import A million people, the majority of whom elected Hamas in 2006.
Not a good idea.
Not going to be very good for American prosperity.
When you want to think about your own material prosperity, you've got to check out Birch Gold.
Right now, Texan holds to 98-98-98.
The G20, or 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 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 and they will help you convert it into an IRA in gold.
You will not pay a penny out of pocket.
It will simply convert that 401k that would otherwise be sitting in a bank somewhere into physical gold that can't be Speaking of Palestine and assimilation, there's a photo that went viral.
I think Libs of TikTok, our great friends over there, posted it.
If digital currency becomes a reality, you will be glad to have something physical to fall back on.
Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898.
Claim your free info kit on gold today.
Speaking of Palestine and assimilation, there's a photo that went viral.
I think Libs of TikTok, our great friends over there, posted it.
It's of a guy, a sort of vaguely brown-looking fellow with a keffia around his neck, not on his head, but around his neck, holding up a sign that's one of the versions of the gay flag.
And it says, Queers for Palestine. - Right.
And everyone's attacking this guy, mocking him.
I want to have a different take here.
I'm with him.
I stand with him.
I strongly support Sending all American LGBT activists to the Palestinian territories immediately.
I know that we have a spending problem here.
We've got major deficits, a whole lot of national debt.
I don't care.
Money is no object.
I am strongly in favor of Congress allocating funds to send every single American LGBT activist, not just the ordinary people who kind of do some weird stuff in the privacy of their own, but I'm like the activist types, you know, the ones with the signs and the flag and the yelling and the screaming and the changing our curricula and our standards in public life.
I want to send every single one of them.
To Palestine, immediately.
If we need to send them with first-class airfare, I'm fine allocating that money as well.
Whatever it takes, we need to support the queers for Palestine.
Now, the queers for Palestine probably don't know a ton about Palestine and how their behaviors will be received there, but they can find out firsthand.
I don't want to ruin the surprise for them.
Speaking of Queers, just the queers generally.
Maxim has just named a dude to the hottest 100 women list and this happens so frequently.
We've heard this at least since Bruce Jenner called himself Caitlyn and we were all told by the culture that he's just so brave and beautiful.
And forget about the brave part, we now have to say that all of these transvestites are really, really beautiful.
And this guy, he goes by Danielle Laidley.
I don't know what his real name is.
He's a man, he's a former Australian rules football player.
And I don't know if football means soccer or football or rugby.
And I don't, the whole thing is very confusing and blurs all sorts of lines that should be relatively distinct.
But what I do know is he's been named to the hottest 100 women list in Australia for 2023.
He landed at the number 92 spot.
The way you know that Maxim is lying, It's not even that he's a dude and it's not even that he's an athlete, you know, so he's kind of a burly dude.
The way you know that Maxim is lying and the way you know that this fellow is not one of the 100 hottest women in Australia is because he's 56 years old.
And I have nothing against 56-year-olds.
56-year-olds can be graceful and elegant.
They can be beautiful.
They can have classical beauty.
But they basically can never be hot.
56-year-olds are not supposed to be hot.
They're supposed to be mothers, perhaps grandmothers.
They're supposed to be matronly.
They're supposed to be mature.
But you're supposed to be hot when you're like 22.
And also when you're a woman and not a male football player, but it's just such an obvious lie.
Put the man thing aside.
Everything in our culture has to be inverted now, every single thing.
And so they even want us to believe that a 50 something year old man or woman is like hot.
That isn't true and it shouldn't be.
It shouldn't be true.
We should stop ogling 56-year-olds, especially if they're male football players, and stop forcing everyone to live in just a vat of lies.
Speaking of gender-bending, there's a really, really important story that just came out.
By the way, is any of my show going to be on social media today?
Are any of the big tech platforms going to allow any of these stories?
Probably not.
There's a really important story on Daily Wire.
This is from someone named Sophie Ottaway, and Sophie Ottaway is a man who for much of his life has identified as a woman.
It's not his fault, though.
He was basically tricked at birth.
More than basically, he just was tricked at birth.
The headline is, Doctors performed a sex change operation on me at two days old.
I found out decades later.
He found out he was born male, he's got XY chromosomes, but because he had a genital defect when he was born, the doctors performed some crazy surgery and then directed his parents to tell him that he was actually a woman and to try to explain away all of the strange facts about his biology and then at puberty to start putting him on estrogen drugs and just whatever it was, don't tell him that he was really born a man.
And if this story sounds familiar, it's because it's been done before.
There was this very sad case of the Reamer twins, Bruce and Brian Reamer.
And one of the twins had a problem at birth.
I think it was a circumcision gone wrong or something like that.
The doctors destroyed his genitals and told the parents to raise him as a girl, as Brenda.
But he never felt like a girl.
And same story that we have here from Sophie Ottaway.
Over time, these guys said, well, I don't, I don't, I'm not attracted to boys, and I don't feel like a girl, and especially as puberty approaches, maybe I'm a lesbian, maybe I don't know, I'm this, I'm that.
And finally, the story comes out, and it really devastated them.
In the case of the Reamer brothers, this, uh, Awful Case was based on the perverted scientific inquiry of a guy named John Money, who I talk about in my book Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, which is available now, as it has been, thank you, for a couple of years.
But it was an experiment on human beings, on real poor little kids, to determine whether sex and gender are deep and actually part of our nature, or if they're essentially socially constructed such that a clever doctor and some dishonest parents could just change it willy-nilly.
And what we learned from the Reamer twins, Reamer-Reimer, I forget how it's pronounced, and what we're learning from Sophie Ottoway here, is that sex and gender go deeper than genitals.
And that's what the trans activists say.
The trans activists say Gender is about so much more than just my genitals.
And in a way, that's true.
And the argument from the trans activists is, you know, I can change my genitals.
I can have them surgically changed to more closely resemble the genitals of the opposite sex.
But that doesn't change anything, does it?
That's what Sophie Attaway and Brian and Bruce figured out.
That no, there's something deeper.
What is that deeper thing?
Chromosomes, I guess, is one aspect of it.
The way that your hormonal system works is part of it, and maybe it goes deeper still.
I've long resisted the conservative response to transgenderism, which says that the way we know what a man is and the way we know what a woman is, is just chromosomes or just genitals or something like that.
It's deeper.
The conservative view, the traditional view of that, is that sex derives mostly from matter.
We are form and matter because we're hylomorphic beings.
So we're body and soul.
And the sex derives mostly from our body.
But it applies, to use the technical term, an inseparable accident of the individual.
So it applies to the whole person for our lives as long as we remain an individual, body and soul, connected.
And there are going to be a lot of modern scientific people who say, oh here we go, mumbo jumbo about the soul.
Here we go, mumbo jumbo about metaphysics.
Here go these religious kooks again.
But how do you explain The Bruce and Brian, how do you explain Sophie Ottaway?
How do you explain these people who have had the materialist experiment tried out on them?
You just change the genitals around, you just lie to the person, you just say, hey, you're actually a woman and sex is just socially constructed anyway, so it doesn't matter.
They've had these things tried on them.
It's made them all extremely miserable, and they've figured out the truth.
And we all know the truth, too.
So much of modern conservative activism, I think, The success of modern conservative activism is going to boil down to persuading people to trust the things that they instinctively know are true, rather than believing some cockamamie mumbo-jumbo from some quack sitting in an ivory tower somewhere, who tell you that actually boys can be girls, sex doesn't matter, up is down, left is right.
Convincing us to disbelieve the things that we've all known for millennia.
Now speaking of digging deeper, Where's the money?
Where's the money proving that Joe Biden is a crook and was peddling American influence overseas to enrich himself and his family?
Where's the money, Jack?
Come on, corn pop, show me the check.
Well, we got the check.
James Comer, who's running the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, has revealed bank records that show a $200,000 direct payment from James and Sarah Biden, Joe's brother and sister-in-law, to Joe Biden in 2018.
James Biden got $600,000 in loans from AmeriCorps.
AmeriCorps was a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator.
So, goes to bankruptcy court.
Bankruptcy court says that James Biden received these loans, quote, based upon representations that his last name, Biden, could, quote, open doors and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections, which was probably true.
James Biden gets the $600,000 loan.
On March 1st, 2018, AmeriCorps wired a $200,000 loan into James and Sarah Biden's personal bank account, not their business bank account.
So you got 600 is the big number.
200 goes directly to the personal bank account of the brother of the now President of the United States.
And on that same day, James Biden writes a $200,000 check from that same personal bank account to Joe Biden.
What more evidence could we possibly have that Joe is taking bribes?
There's no more.
You couldn't have a more smoking gun.
In a way, I'm kind of surprised that Joe was this sloppy.
I figured that as a crook, he would have at least hid the money a little bit better, one or two more shell companies before going basically just straight into his brother's personal bank account, straight from that, not even from a different bank account, from that bank account to Joe.
That's all the evidence you need.
I mean, we had all the evidence we needed when we got the Hunter Biden laptop, where Hunter Biden is saying, yeah, we're giving 10% to the big guy.
Sometimes I got to give half my salary to my dad.
I'm not going to do that to you, though, kids.
Yeah, I'm the bag man for the Biden family, is essentially what he was saying.
We already knew all of that.
And it doesn't really matter.
And the reason it doesn't really matter is because of a crisis of regime that we're facing.
We nominally live in a democracy.
Sometimes people draw a distinction between a republic and a democracy, but broadly speaking, we're talking about the same thing.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people.
But there's a dark side to democracy, which is mob rule.
Just as you can have a monarchy, but you can have a dark side to monarchy, which is tyranny.
Just as you could have an aristocracy, which is theoretically good.
Aristo means good.
It's supposed to be government by good people, small group of good people, but governing for the common good.
The bad side of aristocracy is oligarchy.
What distinguishes the good from the bad version of all of these regimes?
What distinguishes it is whether you are governing for the common good or for your self-interest.
That's the classical distinction, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, going back to Polybius.
People make less of this distinction.
Thomas Hobbes famously said that that distinction is basically bunk, and we just view our own regimes as good and other people's regimes as bad.
But I think the distinction is pretty real.
There have been good monarchs throughout history, and there have been tyrants throughout history.
There have been good democracies throughout history, and then there have been states run by mob rule.
The problem here is The American democracy, such as it is, has already decayed so significantly that people are ruling openly for self-interest.
And so this $200,000 check is not going to bother the Democrats, because the Democrats are going to say, well, at least he's our guy.
At least he's on our side.
Yeah, he's enriching himself, but who cares?
He's going to enrich me, too.
He's going to give me handouts.
He's going to punish my enemies.
He's going to let me and my friends off the hook for committing the same or worse crimes as the conservatives and the Republicans.
So, yeah, he's governing out of self-interest, but he's our guy and we're governing out of self-interest, too.
This is the line of, I think it was H.L.
Mencken who said, democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard.
Now, When you want to talk to your fellow citizens and deliberate and persuade them and, one hopes, govern for the common good, you got to start out by talking to them.
And that's why you need to check out Pure Talk.
Right now go to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
Pure Talk recently announced that they would alleviate $10 million in veteran debt by Veterans Day.
Thanks to your support last week, Pure Talk is 53% to their goal with two weeks to go.
Now think about this.
We have a 100% volunteer military, men and women who raise their hands to sacrifice for this country.
And when they're done serving, they come back to a tight job market and an outrageous cost of living expenses.
That is why I am so happy a private company like Pure Talk has jumped in to help.
When you switch to PeerTalk's lightning-fast 5G network, they will donate a portion of every new order to this noble cause.
You can make a real difference just by choosing Superior Cell Phone Service.
PeerTalk's plans start at just $20 a month, offering unlimited talk, text, more data, and a mobile hotspot.
Just go to peertalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to make the switch.
Let's rally together and show our unwavering support for our veterans.
That is puretalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S.
Switch to Pure Talk today.
It is the right move, and it is the American way.
Speaking of national leadership, sorry to report, Jim Jordan is out of the race for Speaker of the House.
In a way, I'm happy to report this because I like Jim Jordan, and I think Jim Jordan is a good guy, and I wouldn't want to wish the worst job in Washington, D.C.
on him, but he would have been a good speaker.
Would have been great for conservatives.
Anyway, he's out.
Couldn't get the votes.
So now we have new people in the race, one of whom is the young Byron Donalds.
I am a candidate officially.
We put out a notice on our ex telling the American people and my colleagues that I've thrown my hat in the ring to run for Speaker of the House.
Look, let's be very clear.
Our House, right now, we're having some issues.
We can repair those issues, but it requires us to be unified, number one, go back to business and secure our border, actually fund this government responsibly, and then continue to lay out that conservative vision for the people who sent us here.
He's in the race.
He's in the House Freedom Caucus, so he's siding with the conservatives.
can get that job done.
That's why I threw my hat in the ring to run for Speaker of the House.
He's in the race.
He's in the House Freedom Caucus, so he's siding with the conservatives.
He's close to President Trump.
He is a favorite of at least a good portion of the GOP base, 44 years.
44 years old, he was first elected to Congress only a few years ago.
So, obviously, ambitious guy.
His critics are going to knock him and say he doesn't have the experience, he's too new, he doesn't know how to work the levers of power.
For Speaker of the House, that's maybe the most important thing to do.
Any kind of congressional leadership, you got to know what buttons to push, what levers to pull.
So, it'll be hard, I think, for him to get the requisite support.
But, on the flip side, Any congressman who vote against him are racist.
Those are the rules now.
Those are the rules.
I didn't make the rules.
The libs made the rules.
But those are the rules.
This guy could be the first black speaker of the House of Representatives.
And so anyone who votes against him is a big racist.
And that's that.
Good for the goose is good for the gander.
If it gets us a Republican speaker, you know, that's fine.
The word racism doesn't mean anything anymore, so I don't even think it's dishonest.
It's just like calling someone a flimity flamity bloop.
Doesn't, I don't know, it doesn't mean, it's not dishonest to call someone, that just doesn't mean anything.
So, okay.
You vote against Byron Donalds, you're a racist.
There are other candidates for speaker.
Actually, as of this morning, I think everyone is running.
I think I'm running, Matt might be running, Candace, Brett, she's in Hungary right now, she's probably running for Speaker, though.
Every Republican in the world is running for Speaker.
The first few guys, though, to throw their hats in, well, you've got Byron Donalds, then you've got a few other people.
You've got Representative Kevin Hearn.
He's the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
You've got Congressman Jack Bergman.
He's an impressive guy, former Marine Corps Lieutenant General.
He's been in office since 2017.
You got Pete Sessions.
Pete Sessions has been in Congress for a long time.
He's served for 11 terms, but he was defeated in 2018, and then he got re-elected in 2020.
And Sessions also formerly ran the National Republican Campaign Committee, so He was in leadership, doling out money.
That might give him a slight advantage, though it was a long time ago.
He ran the NRCC back in 2009 to 2013.
So, you know, what have you done for me lately does prevail on Capitol Hill.
I don't know who's going to win it, and there are about a billion other people who are going to jump in the race, too.
The thing that surprises me most about this is that these are all pretty solid guys.
Maybe Sessions, just by virtue of having been there for a long time and having been around leadership, maybe he's got a little bit of the upper hand.
Maybe, I'm not even convinced of that.
But these are all pretty conservative, pretty solid guys.
All four of these guys are at least as solid, I think actually significantly more solid and conservative, than the previous speakers we've had.
Then Kevin McCarthy, then Paul Ryan, then John Boehner, maybe even the Newt Gingrich.
I really like Newt Gingrich, but 90s were a different time, but he had some liberal eccentricities when he was Speaker.
That's not a bad situation for us to be in.
We need a Speaker, though.
And if this works, if we end up getting an effective conservative Speaker of the House, then Matt Gaetz's stunt will have been worth it.
It will have been vindicated.
If we don't, and we end up with some squish compromise candidate that the Democrats are controlling, Then things will not be looking very good for Congressman Gates.
Now, speaking of candidates, RFK Jr.
has just come out and endorsed some form of reparations for slavery.
And I love this story.
I love this story.
Some conservatives are really upset by it.
I'm not.
I'm so happy about it.
Here's what he said.
He said we need federal tax dollars to rebuild black infrastructure like banks and businesses.
He supports direct redress payments or tax credits to black people by virtue of being black.
He says communities that were specifically targeted for destruction need to be specifically targeted for repair.
During Jim Crow, black banks, businesses, hospitals, schools, and farms were targeted for destruction.
Racists knew that without these, the black community had no chance of building wealth.
We must set aside federal dollars to rebuild black infrastructure.
These programs complement direct redress payments or tax credits to the descendants of the victims of Jim Crow and other victims of persecution.
RFK Jr.
will find ways to offer this redress that are legal, fair, and win the approval of Americans of all races.
Okay.
You know I hate to say I told you so.
I called it when Americans and when the right-wingers in particular were saying, RFK Jr., he's a right-winger.
That guy, he's a conservative candidate.
We should back him over Trump or DeSantis or somebody.
I said, he's a lib.
He's a liberal.
That's no knock on him exactly.
He's always been a liberal.
His name's Kennedy.
He just sides with us on COVID vaccines, which is good, but there are other issues, you know?
The economy, and abortion, and immigration, and national security, and everything.
And everything.
And he's with the liberals on pretty much everything.
Environmentalism, energy.
And he happens to be with us on COVID vaccines.
To RFK's point, the actual point he's arguing here, he says that black people were treated unfairly so we need to give them money in different forms.
Of course, that was the point of the expansion of the welfare state in the 60s.
That was the point of the Great Society.
That was the point of the laws that followed the Civil Rights Act.
It was about transferring wealth and investing in black infrastructure and giving handouts and tax credits and different sorts of things specifically to black people.
And it didn't really improve things at all.
So when you hear about a Kennedy Democrat, This is exactly what we're talking about.
The Kennedy Democrats have not changed one iota since the 1960s.
The problem is those policies from the 1960s didn't help anything.
In many ways, they hurt the country and the position of black people.
So it's just more of the same.
But the other reason I love this story is we've been told That from all the geniuses, even on the right, they say, oh, if RFK Jr.
runs, he's going to take votes from Trump.
And the reason that people have said that is because Trump, he's a kooky populist.
And RFK Jr., he's a kooky populist.
And the kooky populists are going to take votes from one another.
The people who have the opinion that RFK Jr.
was going to take more votes from Trump than from Biden are the kind of people who really don't like Trump, and they write off Trump as some eccentric, populist, unmoored man who has no principles whatsoever, who just appeals to the basest, repetitive elements in society.
That's not my view of Trump.
I like some of the other Republicans too, but I also like Donald Trump.
I have long thought that Donald Trump appeals to a basically coherent, in fact, rather traditional kind of American conservatism.
And there's a coherence to his political program, even if he sometimes says things that are somewhat contradictory or eccentric.
And therefore, if a liberal comes around, he's not going to be able to pull the wool over the eyes of Trump voters.
Trump voters are not as gullible and deplorable and irredeemable and whatever else the establishment tells us as The establishment might have us believe.
And then guess what?
You see polls, polling Americans, even in certain decisive places, on who they would vote for if it were Trump vs. Biden, and then who they would vote for if it was Trump vs. Biden vs. RFK Jr., and guess who RFK Jr.
takes more votes from?
Guess who hates to say I told you so?
Maybe me.
I'm the one who did it.
Speaking of the Republican primary, Ron DeSantis looking really, really good over the weekend as he evacuates, him, himself, evacuates more Americans from the Holy Land as war breaks out.
Happy to report we had another flight bringing Floridians back from Israel land in the wee hours of the morning.
We've been able to help hundreds of people get back from the war zone safely to the United States, to the state of Florida.
We've also put a lot of supplies that have been donated.
This is the best thing DeSantis can do for his campaign.
appreciative of it.
And we've got another flight coming, most likely tomorrow morning.
So federal government dragged its feet.
A lot of those folks didn't have any options.
We stepped up, showed the leadership and are delivering results.
This is the best thing DeSantis can do for his campaign.
Because it's also the thing that's going to give him a path if this primary doesn't go his way.
Ron DeSantis is never going to beat Donald Trump at the charisma game.
No, Nobody is.
It's not even a knock on DeSantis.
Nobody is.
Ron DeSantis is not going to beat Donald Trump on the Rhetoric Game.
DeSantis might have more controlled or disciplined rhetoric, but it's not as exciting.
Ron DeSantis is never going to beat Donald Trump on the Debate Game.
Trump's not even going to go to the debates.
DeSantis is not going to beat Donald Trump on the rally game.
Trump's always going to have more exciting rallies.
The thing that Ron DeSantis can do is get results from his political office.
Donald Trump does not currently have a political office.
Ron DeSantis does.
So Donald Trump, I guess, could send his airplane as a private citizen to lift people out of Israel.
Might be kind of difficult to do.
Ron DeSantis is governor of Florida.
With potentially constituents and family members of constituents in the Holy Land, he can send airplanes over there, and he can get results done.
And what's great about that strategy is, one, if Trump stumbles, he'll be able to point to, I've been doing this, I've been doing that, I've been very effective, I've been doing my job, I'm not just selling out my second term as Florida governor to run for president.
I'm still getting stuff done, which he's doing.
And if the primary doesn't go his way, he'll He won't have completely blown his career on one failed bid for president.
He'll still be able to point to momentum and achievements.
He can make the most of his time in the office that he's sitting in, especially as the election does not, the presidential election, does not appear to be going his way.
Speaking of evacuating the Holy Land, some good news.
Two American hostages have been released by Hamas.
These are a mother and a daughter, dual citizens of Israel and the United States.
They were freed on Friday.
Hamas turned them over, this is according to a spokesperson for the Israeli Prime Minister's office.
This is really great news, thank God, wonderful that they've been released.
There are still over 200 hostages.
Until the hostage situation is dealt with, the war is only going to escalate.
There's nothing, that is still just such a tense point.
They've got to deal with that problem before you can resolve the war.
This would never have happened under Trump.
I don't want it to seem like I'm just shilling for Trump or something.
This probably wouldn't have happened under any Republican president, but it definitely wouldn't have happened under Trump.
In the same way, That this kind of thing wouldn't have happened, most likely, under Reagan.
Don't forget, in 1980, we were dealing with the Iran hostage crisis for a very, very long time.
And then the day that Ronald Reagan is inaugurated president, the Iranians release the hostages, which was a big middle finger to Carter.
But it also, I think, expresses the legitimate fear that Ronald Reagan was a cowboy and was unpredictable in his foreign policy.
And Donald Trump took that principle up to 11.
Donald Trump's unpredictability was so clear, and he talked like a dove, and then he would drop the Moab.
He would say he doesn't want any more wars, he'd be hugging Kim Jong-un, and then he'd take out the top Iranian general.
You just didn't know what the guy was going to do.
And if there was a 5-10% chance that he was going to blow you to smithereens, then you behaved.
And you didn't get too feisty.
During the four years of the Trump administration, that is the only time in the last 22 years that Vladimir Putin didn't invade a new country or didn't go further into a country he'd already invaded.
It's the only time in those years that we didn't have new wars breaking out in the Middle East.
You actually had peace agreements being signed in the Middle East.
That you had, you had relatively global peace.
And it's amazing how quickly things can fall apart.
We are now on the brink of World War III.
We still have hostages overseas.
Amazing how quickly things can fall apart.
And the question is, can you restore things just as quickly?
If Trump gets re-elected, or if Trump loses the primary and Ron DeSantis gets elected, or Vivek gets elected, or Nikki, or whoever, can you restore what has been broken that quickly?
Maybe, maybe.
It's much harder to do.
Maybe you could, but it better happen fast because the world is descending into global conflict.
Are you still getting your chocolate from woke companies?
Well, you should get Jeremy's chocolate instead.
Right now, you can say big with 30, 3-0% off our famous He-Him with nuts.
Where's the nuts one?
That's this one.
That one's got nuts.
And the She Her, which is nutless.
Do you get it?
Do you get it?
Get yours in the full size or our shareable microaggression size.
Perfect for giving out to friends, family, and neighbors.
Time is running out.
Today is your last chance to stock up now.
In time for Halloween.
Go to jeremyschocolate.com today.
My favorite comment on Friday is from Michelle McDermott, 75.
Who says, I know Michael's show is mostly watched by the younger generation, but this 75-year-old Italian grandmother loves watching.
I'm so honored to hear that.
And by the way, Michelle, this show is for all ages.
It's for all... Some shows...
In politics, and especially on the right, they 90% target young people.
Our show is enjoyed by all sorts of people.
In fact, I was very privileged to go to have some pizza with some Dominican sisters over the weekend.
It was very nice.
And I found out that a sister, not of the Zoomer or millennial or even Gen X generation, a sister of a certain age, watches the show regularly.
And I was so honored by that.
And I realized I got to make sure that I have Properly formed content based on solid philosophical and theological principles and we keep this show wholesome.
This is a family show, no naughty language, but I'm really honored that we can get the Utes and the Italian grandmothers and lots of people in between.
Speaking of Israel-Palestine, this is a story that was going around last week.
I meant to get to it then, but I'll get to it now.
There's a pizzeria in Gaza.
The Eiffel Bakery and Supermarket.
I guess actually, okay, it's located in Judea and Samaria.
The pizzeria posted an advertisement of one of the hostages, who happened to have been a Holocaust survivor, holding a pizza.
And it was basically mocking this hostage.
And then Israel decided to completely destroy the pizzeria.
Understandably so.
This is war, and Israel sees one of the hostages being mocked by this private business, and Israel just goes in and levels the pizzeria.
I get it.
If I were the Prime Minister, I very likely would have done the same thing.
But what is the legal basis for that?
What is the legal basis for leveling the pizzeria?
I don't think anyone's claiming that the pizzeria was housing Hamas leaders or weapons or anything like that.
The justification for leveling the pizzeria is because they were mocking this hostage, and that's extremely provocative, and Israel and the Palestinian territories are at war right now.
And in war, people break things.
That's the argument.
But that's a reminder, too.
We are in all-out war, and you're going to hear all sorts of Legal justifications and all kinds of arguments for why this side is doing this or that side is doing some other thing.
This is war.
And there is deep, deep enmity here between these peoples that goes back millennia and has been inflamed recently by the Hamas terror attack that killed over a thousand Israelis.
And things are going to get really, really ugly.
And it is just a reminder to me of something I've been saying repeatedly since the war broke out, which is The U.S.
interest in the war in the Middle East is to contain the war.
That's not the Palestinian interest.
The Palestinian interest is to destroy the state of Israel.
That's not the Iranian interest.
The Iranian interest is to destroy the state of Israel.
It's not the Israeli interest.
The Israeli interest is essentially to destroy the Palestinian territories and maybe to have regime change in Iran.
That's not the Saudi interest, or the Syrian interest, or the Lebanese interest, or this interest.
We have different interests here, okay?
And that's understandable.
Nations are different.
Peoples are different.
They're in different parts of the world, and they've got different strategic interests.
But ours remains to contain the war before it spirals out of control, if it hasn't already.
Now, speaking of the role of reason in human behavior, I've got a very stupid article that just came out.
This is from a Stanford University professor, Robert Sapolsky.
He's a neurobiologist.
He's a winner of the MacArthur Genius Grant.
Which often goes to big libs.
I think that guy Ta-Nehisi Coates got it.
It's where they basically give you like half a million dollars or more.
It might be half a million dollars a year to just spout your inanities.
And it tends to focus on libs.
Robert Sapolsky at Stanford says that as a result of his studies, he has concluded there is no free will.
And here's his argument.
He says, the world is really screwed up And made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over.
We've got no free will.
Stop attributing stuff to us that isn't there.
So he's not just saying that we punish people for the ordinary things that we have no control over.
You know, we do something accidentally, or we've got some impulse that we can't quite control, or we're mentally deficient, or, you know, children have no impulse control, very little, so we're not.
He's saying anything we do, anything, is something that we have no control over, because we have no control over anything at all.
The article goes on, if it's impossible for any single neuron or any single brain to act without influence from factors beyond its control, Sapolsky argues, there can be no logical room for free will.
And there we see it.
Because what is his argument?
What is his argument for us having no free will?
Is it that he's discovered some Bizarre fact that we act before our conscious thought kicks in.
You sometimes hear those arguments against free will.
They're pretty dubious.
Do you hear that, I don't know, did he discover some magical cell that told him we don't have any free will?
No, none of that.
What he discovered is that we are influenced by things that are not consciously our own choice and autonomy.
Which, like, duh, yeah, obviously, man, we live in the world and we're influenced by any number of things.
We're influenced by our friends, by our family, by our upbringing, by the beliefs that we were raised in, by the weather, by everything.
Yeah, we're influenced by all sorts of things.
How does that negate free will?
It negates free will, and I see how this MacArthur genius could fall into this trap.
It negates free will if you believe that freedom is total autonomy.
That's what the liberals believe.
That's what we in our civilization have believed for the last few hundred years.
That freedom is just the perfect autonomy over our body and perfect choice.
That's not what freedom is.
That's not the classical conception.
It's not the Christian conception of freedom.
The classical conception is that freedom derives from willingness, just willing things, and will presupposes reason.
So if you've got a strong reason, if your intellect is well-formed, and if your will is well-disciplined, such that you can resist taking the third cookie after dinner, such that you can resist from sleeping with the girl at the bar, such that you have control over your appetites, If your will and your intellect are well-formed, then you can be said to be quite free.
But if they're not, if you're extremely ignorant and you're poorly educated, meaning you're poorly brought up, you've fallen into all sorts of vices, you haven't practiced virtues, your will is very compromised, you can't see a drink without having the drink, you can't see a girl without sleeping with the girl, you can't resist any of your base appetites even if you consciously don't want them, then you are not free.
Then you're a slave.
Then you are a slave to your own passions.
Being influenced by outside forces will depend on how well-formed your will and your intellect are.
If you've been brought up the right way and you practice virtue, then even if, you know, some hot lady walks in the room naked and tries to seduce you, you can chase her out of the room like Thomas Aquinas did with a torch.
Say, get out of here lady, I don't want you!
Even if someone hands you drugs and booze and all sorts of things, you can say, no, I don't want any of that.
That's freedom.
The very fact that this Stanford professor, this genius, alleged genius, says that if you're influenced by something, that means you're not free, shows you how degraded our will and our intellect have become in our society.
Among the so-called intellectuals.
You know, the rest of the show continues now.
We have a song from Music Monday that I've been told to mention was picked by producer Danny.
So if you hate the song, do not send your death threats to Mr. Davies.
Do not send your death threats to Professor Jacob.
Producer Danny is responsible.
The show continues now.
Go to dailywire.com and use code NOELS at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
