Ep. 1363 - The Trans-Heuser Busch Boycott May Have Killed Bud Light
Seven months in, Trans-heuser Busch still reels from the Bud Light boycott; Xi Jinping purges half a million officials from the Chinese Communist Party; and Yemen joins the fight against the state of Israel.
Ep.1363
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Binge ALL 10 episodes of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Get $15 off your order PLUS free meat of your choice for 1 year! Promo code KNOWLES at checkout. https://bit.ly/43G8p0P
BULLETPROOF EVERYONE - Get 10% off plus a FREE bulletproof backpack with any clothing purchase. Use promo code KNOWLES at http://www.bulletproofeveryone.com
- - -
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
It has now been seven months since Trans-Heiser Bush flipped the bird to its customer base and then doubled and tripled down on the insult in the expectation that the boycott would eventually collapse and the customers would just forget and move on.
And I am pleased to report that none of that has happened.
AB InBev, better known as TransHeiser Bush, is the world's largest brewer.
It saw its revenue climb 5% in the July to September period, in line with Wall Street predictions.
But AB InBev's revenue in the United States did not grow.
It fell.
It fell by 13.5%.
U.S.
sales of Bud Light were down a full 29% over the four weeks ending on October 21st, compared to that same period last year.
Which means the boycott has not let up.
At all.
Which means, and this is what matters for us, that transgender ideology is a winning issue for conservatives.
When the squishes beg us to lay off the so-called social issues, including and especially LGBT issues, Show them these numbers.
Remind them that social issues are a pretty important part of society.
And point out that no other issue, perhaps in my lifetime, has been a clearer or more reliable winner for persuading people to side with conservatives.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
The reason that this issue is sticky, the reason that the transgender issue keeps cropping up as a winner for conservatives, I think is as much aesthetic as anything else, which we'll get to in one second.
This episode, though, is brought to you by Good Ranchers.
Claim your year of free meat, $15 off, and free shipping with my code NOLS at GoodRanchers.com.
I had some juicy Good Ranchers chicken stir-fry the other night.
It was very, very good.
The reason transgenderism works as a political issue for conservatives is, I think, largely aesthetic.
The conservative argument on transgenderism from the moral perspective, from the political perspective, from the anthropological perspective, those are all true too.
But I think it's aesthetics that is so persuasive.
Here's a good example.
Here is a trans activist who has gone viral, hat tip to libs of TikTok as always, a trans activist who has gone viral for saying that not giving kids puberty blockers is tantamount to mutilation.
The thing that gets me about the anti-trans conservative rhetoric around like puberty blockers for trans kids is that if they really did care about making sure children weren't being mutilated or weren't being, like, coerced, they would be the number one advocates for puberty blockers.
Not only because they're empirically supported and because they were developed for cisgender people, but because they would realize that forcing somebody to go through a puberty with a dominant hormone that is misaligned with your actual gender, that would be, by their terms, mutilation.
Because imagine if we sat a bunch of 13-year-old cisgender boys around and we were like, Hey boys, um, we know that you're boys.
We know that you've been boys as long as you've been alive, and it's very clear to us that you are boys.
But we just want to be so sure, so we're actually gonna make you go through estrogen-based puberty instead, so that way, like, when you get to the end of that road and you're 18, you can decide if you still wanted to be that boy that you, you know, always showed signs that you were.
Can you imagine if we did that?
That would be f***ed up.
But that's literally what you are doing to trans kids.
Because forcing somebody to go through a puberty Forget about his argument.
Obviously the argument is crazy.
with your actual gender is a forced mutilation by conservative standards.
So you would think that they would be the number one advocates for blockers and go, "Oh my gosh, yeah, why don't we like put a pause on this "so that way you can decide "and like in a couple years see how you feel." Like, I just wish they would shut up. - Forget about his argument.
Obviously the argument is crazy.
Would you ever leave your child with that person?
Ever, under any circumstances?
No, of course not.
He looks deranged, and is deranged, and his argument is deranged.
People can hear terrible arguments, but when terrible arguments are made by people who seem glamorous, say, or sophisticated, say, or intellectual, say, then those arguments sometimes Catch fire.
I think of someone like Angela Davis.
Angela Davis was a black power activist, an avowed communist, a terrorist, someone who was complicit in murder and terrorism and political assassination.
But a lot of people liked her.
A lot of people still like her today.
A lot of prominent liberals will quote her because she seems intellectual and she seems somewhat sophisticated, glamorous in a radical kind of way.
This guy doesn't.
The trans activists don't.
They look especially off.
And we should not run away from that.
We should recognize.
A friend of mine says that facts don't care about your feelings.
Which is true, but politics largely cares about your feelings, and your feelings are largely informed by what you see.
It's informed by aesthetics.
I think of the architect and architectural theorist Christopher Alexander, who said that any space you're in is going to slightly elevate or slightly lower your spirits.
We are very, very susceptible to our aesthetic sense.
This is really good.
So, what is it?
Why wouldn't you leave your kid with this crazy looking guy?
Out of prejudice.
You have a prejudice.
You look at a guy with five o'clock shadow who's wearing a dress, who's shrieking and shouting and doesn't look put together, and your prejudice kicks in and says, yeah, this is not a great idea.
Some ideologues will be so radically pro-leftist that they will reject their prejudices.
They will reject their gut instinct that says it's probably not a good idea to leave my kid with this person.
And that's very imprudent.
So much of liberalism is just a rejection of prudence.
It occurs to me.
You know, prejudice can be bad.
If we discriminate unjustly against people, that can be very bad.
But prejudice, broadly, is a very good thing.
It's something that Edmund Burke, one of the great conservative philosophers, exalted.
Russell Kirk, a more recent conservative philosopher, exalted.
It's a good thing.
It's called prudence.
And prudence, for Aristotle and every wise statesman since, is the paramount political virtue.
Now, speaking of aesthetics and politics, I debated even bringing this story up.
Because it's a mean and nasty story.
And so I'm not going to play the clip.
There was a clip of the podcaster Patrick Bet-David making fun of Ron DeSantis.
And Governor DeSantis is on the podcast and people have been making fun of the governor for wearing boots that seem like they have a little lift in the heel.
Because Donald Trump is very tall.
Ron DeSantis, he's not short, he's just a sort of averaged height guy.
But in presidential elections, usually the taller candidate wins, so some have suggested that the governor, like many politicians before him, is wearing some kind of lift in his shoes.
The governor and his team have denied this, and so this podcaster, Patrick Bette David, decided to make fun of him and said, hey man, what's the deal with the shoes?
These shoes are weird, you're wearing lifts.
Here, I'm gonna buy you a pair of Ferragamos and Governor DeSantis.
I said I can't accept gifts, you know, shut it down as quickly as he could.
Why do the shoes matter?
Why do people care that Governor Ron DeSantis, the greatest governor in America right now, maybe the greatest governor in my lifetime, very serious man who's accomplished a lot, why do they care if he puts lifts in his shoes?
Because People crave confidence.
This is always true.
And if you put lifts in your shoes, it speaks to a sort of insecurity.
Even if it's a well-calculated insecurity, it still shows an insecurity.
And so people don't like that.
There's nothing new about that.
People are always attracted to confident people.
But I think they're especially attracted to confident people now.
And the reason that they're especially attracted to confident people now is because we live in a time that is pervaded by skepticism.
Well, we're told that we can't really know anything for certain.
We're told that long-established facts, well, that's just your opinion, man.
We're taught that basic philosophical premises are just, you know, that's just what you think.
You can't prove that.
How do you know?
You don't know.
It's just your belief, dude.
Come on, man.
It's the Big Lebowski.
It's, well, that's just your opinion, man.
So in this extremely skeptical age, especially in this extremely skeptical age, Any show of confidence is very attractive.
I think this helped Donald Trump, who may have been wrong a handful of times in his life, but he's never been in doubt.
I think that's why people are attracted to Trump.
I think that's why people are attracted to AOC.
AOC's wrong about almost everything, but she's always so confident about it.
And someone simply stating a fact in a time of skepticism is really attractive.
And someone who appears to have insecurities, even from the aesthetic perspective, is not going to do as well, and podcasters are going to make fun of him, like Patrick David.
Speaking of political confidence, Xi Jinping, over in China, has reportedly purged 500,000 CCP officials in just the year 2023.
And this is being reported as a horrible thing.
But it should be clear, when they say he purged these officials, they're not talking entirely about Stalin-esque mass executions.
There have been some party members who have gone missing, at least for periods of time.
But when they're talking about 500,000 people purged from the Communist Party, they're talking about people who were fired and brought up on charges and punished for corruption.
This is, call me crazy, I don't want to seem like I'm a she-apologist here.
Isn't that good?
Isn't it good to get rid of and punish, not like get rid of, but you know like fire and punish the corrupt people in your government?
Shouldn't we be doing that?
Wouldn't that be good if we also did that?
We never do that.
No one who engages in corruption in our government gets in trouble.
Republicans get in trouble for not engaging in corruption.
Democrats engage in widespread corruption.
The President of the United States, along with his son and his brother, shook down leaders around the world for millions and millions of dollars.
We have copies of the checks of the payments from the bag men to the big guy up top.
The Oval Office occupant, Joe Biden himself, and it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter whatsoever.
And forget about the electeds for a second.
What about all the bureaucrats?
We always are complaining about the deep state, the administrative state.
Well, what we need to do is purge the deep state and the administrative state.
Not in the Stalin way, but not totally dissimilar from the Xi Jinping way.
We need to fire them, get them out of their positions of power, and if they've committed crimes, we need to try them for those crimes.
The federal bureaucracy is hundreds of millions of people, actually.
Depends on exactly how you count it, but it could be up to 2 million people.
Most presidents who come into office are able to swap out 4,000 to 5,000 people in the bureaucracy.
In order to have anything even resembling meaningful change, you would have to swap out 40,000 to 50,000, at least.
So I look at she here, and I think, well, I don't like communism.
I'm not rooting for America's adversary over America.
I'd like America to be really strong, too.
But one way to be strong is when we see our adversaries do things that are effective and that are helping their countries, maybe we ought to learn that lesson, too.
Now, if we're going to engage in any kind of serious political action, we're going to want our bodies to be feeling good, which is why we're going to want to check out Good Ranchers.
Right now, go to GoodRanchers.com, use promo code Knowles.
There's a lot at stake this November, so don't be chicken and shop at the grocery store like usual.
Instead, head on over to Good Ranchers.
No, that's not a pun.
That's just a great place.
Good Ranchers, this is my only problem with being on the road.
I like being on the road.
I'm in a fun location right now, but it means I eat less Good Ranchers because it's all in my freezer at home, and sweet little Lisa can only make it four or five nights a week, sometimes for breakfast, too.
Their Black Friday Your Way sale is live.
It's something you don't want to miss.
They've got great meat puns.
They've got even better meat.
This November, you get to pick your favorite meat to get free for a year.
Pick a year of free steak, salmon, chicken, or bacon when you subscribe to Anybox right now.
Man, that is crazy.
It's a crazy deal.
I'm reading this for the first time now.
That's outrageous.
Better yet, when you subscribe to Anybox on GoodRanchers.com, You not only get a free gift of meat worth up to $480, but you also get up to $15 off with code Knolls, K-N-O-W-L-L-E-S.
They got the best meat out there.
You're gonna get a year of free meat, $15 off, free shipping with code Knolls.
It totally sells itself.
It's the number one place in America to get all your meat, and seafood, by the way, and chicken, and pork, and all of it.
GoodRanchers.com right now.
Use code Knolls, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Speaking of purges, Democrats, for years now, have been talking about packing the Supreme Court.
And they want to pack the Supreme Court because the Court has generally ruled in favor of conservatives on at least a handful of important cases.
Not all the important cases.
The Supreme Court, with the support of allegedly conservative Justice Gorsuch, enshrined transgenderism into civil rights law.
That's not very conservative.
The Supreme Court redefined marriage.
Now, of course, that was before all of the Trump nominees got there.
But still, there were conservatives on the court.
They redefined marriage in Obergefell.
They ratified Obamacare, which was completely unconstitutional.
They've done all sorts of things.
But they've also overruled Roe v. Wade.
They've also ruled in favor of the Second Amendment.
So they've done things that Democrats don't like.
And Democrats have said, OK, we're going to pack the Supreme Court.
But that's politically unpopular, because it seems as though Democrats are upending our system of government.
And the moderate Democrats and the independents and the kind of just fashionable liberals, they don't like that.
That doesn't poll very well or play well in Peoria.
So, the Democrats have a new strategy.
They're going to do reverse court packing.
I've got to thank Ken Klukowski over at Breitbart for that phrase.
In a recent write-up yesterday or the day before, he pointed out that reverse court packing will have much the same effect as regular court packing, but it will be more Acceptable to the public.
And what is reverse court packing?
Reverse court packing is when the Democrats go in and try to get the conservative judges to recuse themselves from a bunch of cases or ideally to resign.
And how are they going to do that?
They're going to say that Clarence Thomas went on vacation once and he didn't pick up his breakfast tab.
The host of a conference picked up the breakfast tab, and so that's a bribe.
And even if Clarence Thomas has never ruled on any cases that really pertain to these people, it's bribery!
It's corruption!
Joe Biden is, meanwhile, just collecting checks hand over fist, millions of dollars from China, from Ukraine, from all over the world.
No, no, no, forget about that.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Clarence Thomas, he went to a summer camp once, and so he's got to resign from the Supreme Court.
They're doing it to Alito, too.
Now, are they going to go after him?
They're going to go after Leonard Leo.
So, Leonard Lear is the head of the Federalist Society.
Federalist Society, very important conservative legal organization, which provided a lot of good judges during the Trump administration, and it's important to the conservative legal Ecosystem.
So, Senate Democrats, Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee, have decided to subpoena Leonard Leo and others, even though Leo's attorneys are saying, you have no right to subpoena me.
I'm a private citizen.
You're not charging me with a crime.
There's no reason for you to subpoena me, a private citizen, and you certainly have no right to subpoena Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito.
Because to do so, to say that the U.S.
Congress has some ultimate oversight rights over the Supreme Court is to say that the Supreme Court is subservient to the Congress, which is not true.
We have three branches of government and we have a separation of powers.
We have checks and balances.
So it's just completely preposterous.
But what else are they going to do?
This is Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse.
The two Democrats who are demanding all of these records, because they think if they can get Leo, then Leo will probably go to some of these conferences and different nefarious back rooms, smoke-filled room kind of things with conservative judges, and then they'll be able to force them to resign, which will be more effective at tilting the court in favor of Democrats than packing it, which is unpopular.
So there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Democrats are very clever at these kinds of tactics.
Unfortunately, if it starts to look like this is going to work, we're going to have to do the same thing to them.
I don't want to.
I don't want to go digging through Elena Kagan's trash can.
I don't want to go hire a private eye to follow Sonia Sotomayor around.
I don't want to have Republicans in Congress subpoena private citizens who one time had lunch with any of the liberal judges.
But we will have to do that because Such a thing would not be immoral.
It would be somewhat reckless to our political system when the Democrats initiate this kind of action, but it wouldn't be immoral.
It would be perfectly just.
It just wouldn't Wouldn't really have a place in our system, but that kind of retaliation would be just, and not to retaliate in that way would be to concede the political order to the libs, which would be very, very unjust.
So they want to go down this road.
It looks like they've come to their senses on actually packing the Supreme Court, positively packing the Supreme Court, so now they're going to try to negatively pack the Supreme Court, and we're going to have to hit them.
If they do it to us, there's no way out of that.
The only way out is through.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, and speaking of the court generally ruling with conservatives on some big cases, even on what has been hailed a conservative win, some conservatives are saying actually it constitutes a loss, and Senator Josh Hawley wants to reverse a Supreme Court decision largely hailed as a Republican victory, and that is the Citizens United decision.
So the Citizens United decision is what, 10 years old now?
Maybe more.
And it says that corporations are people.
And that is the famous line from Mitt Romney during 2012, one of the real hits from that doomed campaign where he said, corporations are people, my friend.
And there's some truth to that.
A corporation is not just a building.
A corporation is not, but a corporation is also not an individual.
A corporation is a group of people with certain rights and certain restrictions on it.
And what Citizens United did, according to Barack Obama and the liberals, is it allowed corporations to spend whatever they wanted on politics.
Now, Sam Alito, the conservative judge, said that's not true.
In fact, when Obama was haranguing the court for that during the State of the Union, Alito visibly said, not true.
But now Josh Hawley has come out and basically sided with Obama.
And his reasoning is pretty interesting here.
He says, politically connected corporations, quote, have been in favor of almost everything that has been devastating for us.
Beyond economics, he says, what's new in the last two or three years is that those corporations now want to dictate voting laws in the states.
They now want to dictate rules on biological men playing women's sports.
So, the old knock, the old left knock on corporations and politics is, well, they're just going to spend money to buy politicians so that the politicians write the laws so the corporations make more money.
That would be bad enough.
That happens all the time in politics.
That would be bad enough.
But what Hawley is saying is, no, no, no, this is even worse.
The corporations now want to rewrite the voting laws.
Corporations want to rewrite anthropology.
They want to rewrite what girl sports means.
They want to upend all of our values and our beliefs, and that's a bridge too far.
So then, and this is my favorite answer, someone asks Hawley, is he only going after the corporations now because they're liberal?
And I love his answer was, well, actions do have consequences.
I love that.
He doesn't even try to hide it.
He says, yeah.
Of course, if the corporations were just being normal and saying men are men and women are women and we should all live in a normal, flourishing way, I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
But if the corporations are going to come in and wield their immense power in this country, especially after many decades of deregulation largely propelled by conservatives, Then, we're going to have to reign that in.
This is a big difference here between a libertarian and a conservative.
Libertarians oppose big government.
Conservatives oppose outsize everything.
All kind of outsize power.
The libertarians, they focus their ire on the state and the statists and the government.
And yeah, you don't want the government or the state to have an outsized degree of power.
But big corporations can wield power unjustly and can threaten our rights and our way of life just as well as the government.
In some cases, the corporations can do it in a more effective way because they're even less accountable very often.
Than the government is.
I don't want some bureaucrat in D.C.
stomping out my rights and my way of life.
I also don't want some weirdo at Google doing the same thing.
Speaking of protecting ourselves, when you want to protect your body, you've got to check out Bulletproof Everyone.
Right now, go to bulletproofeveryone.com, use promo code NOLS.
We'd like to thank the sponsor of today's show, Bulletproof Everyone, because Bulletproof Everyone is a premier American body armor manufacturer and supplier designed and built for everyday wear.
Their unique armor systems offer 25% more coverage than standard armor, while maintaining flexibility and all-day wearability.
Bulletproof Everyone's Ultralight Armor System is so light and thin, you might just forget you're wearing it.
Your safety and discretion is their top concern, unless someone puts their hands on you.
No one will have any clue that you are protected.
With Bulletproof Everyone, you are not a walking billboard.
There are no visible logos and no flashy designs.
Their comfortable tailor-made clothing system goes above and beyond adding additional security by keeping you incognito and under the radar.
Work or play, Bulletproof Everyone has got the perfect armor system to fit your everyday lifestyle and everyday budget.
Right now, our listeners can get 10% off plus a free Bulletproof backpack with the purchase of any Bulletproof clothing.
Just use code Knolls, K-N-N-W-L-E-S, at checkout at Bulletproof Everyone.
Speaking of dubious political speech, there was a threat made, multiple threats made, to Jewish students at Cornell.
And I'm going to Cornell on Monday, so this interested me even more than the usual threats made on campuses.
So I look at it.
I said, okay, I think this is a legit threat.
Meaning, I don't think it's a hoax.
I don't think it's the Jewish students sending it to themselves.
Students have done that.
Usually not Jewish students, but black students have done that many times, which I outline in my book, Speechless.
I'm on the road right now, so there's no bell, sadly.
You've seen this on sexual hoaxes, women claiming to have been raped on college campuses and then evidence comes out that it just wasn't true.
Meanwhile, the men's lives have been ruined by some kangaroo court of professors and diversity deans.
But usually Jewish students don't do that.
So I said, I think this one is probably legit.
It turns out that it is legit.
A student from upstate New York has been arrested for making these threats, and the student is ethnically Asian.
That's not supposed to be how it works.
Hold on.
The threat was made against the Jewish students, so the person who made the threat has to be a neo-Nazi white supremacist, so the student has to be white.
Ideally, for the liberal media, this threat would have been made by a white student, and then we could have had weeks and weeks of a national conversation about white supremacy and how white men, with their toxic masculinity and their evil, pallid whiteness, they need to be run out of society.
So that would have been ideal for the liberals.
Second to that, the student was supposed to be Arab.
Arabs were considered white for statistical purposes in the U.S.
for a long time until it became clear that being white was a disadvantage in politics.
So then all of a sudden that kind of went away.
And that there was a new group, the MENA, the Middle East North Africa group.
There were some Arab and Middle Eastern political activists who said, we want a separate category because we're so oppressed.
You think, hold on, wait a second.
If you're being oppressed by the evil white man and you're currently being classified as white, shouldn't you want to just keep being classified?
Wouldn't that, that would lessen your oppression if What you were saying were true, but it's not.
Actually, the opposite is true.
So at least the guy was supposed to be Arab and he was supposed to be a Hamas sympathizer, but he's not.
He's Asian.
What do we do with that?
I imagine what we're going to do is that the story is going to disappear.
Because these stories do not make it to the news because of the stories themselves.
The stories make it to the news because of the narratives that already existed, and the stories are selected according to the narratives.
If they fit the narrative, the stories get selected, and you hear about them, and they become a cause celeb, and we now think of George Floyd as some kind of secular saint, even though black men are killed in violent ways every day in the United States.
And criminals are killed in violent ways every day in the United States.
And drug addicts who take lethal doses of drugs overdose on those drugs every day in the United States.
And people aren't killed by the police quite so constantly as the left says, but policing is a dangerous job and you're dealing with criminals and there are officer-involved shootings.
The reason George Floyd made it, of course, is because his story fit the narrative.
And all the other stories that don't fit the narrative, you just never hear of.
Same is true here.
I doubt we're going to hear very much more about this fellow at Cornell.
Maybe, maybe I'll hear about it, though, when I go up to Cornell on Monday.
Speaking of people threatening to kill the Jews, the Houthis, the Houthis, it sounds like a 50s doo-wop band or something, but it's an Iranian-backed Yemeni terror group, has just declared war on Israel.
So now we got, we have the State of Israel was attacked by Hamas.
Hamas runs the Gaza Strip.
Gaza is one of the Palestinian territories.
Hamas is funded by Iran.
Hezbollah, just north of Israel, runs the south of Lebanon.
Hezbollah then gets in on the action pretty quickly.
Then you have other terror groups attack U.S.
bases because the U.S.
is allied with Israel in Syria and Iraq.
So now, then Israel Bombs and airport in Syria.
So now we got Syria pretty well involved.
Now we go down the Arabian Peninsula, we seem to have Yemen involved.
And Yemen already was in the midst of a sort of civil war and was already getting bombed by the Saudis, so now they're sending missiles to the Israelis, but their missiles aren't that good.
So anyway, I say all of this to underline a point that I've made from the beginning of this war, which is This thing could, and very likely will, spiral out of control very, very quickly.
And different nations have different interests here.
The interest of Iran is to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth.
The interest of Israel is to prevent Palestinian statehood, at the very least, and almost certainly to annex Gaza, or render Gaza politically neutral and send all the Gazans to Egypt, which the Egyptians don't want to have happen.
And another desire of Israel will be to have regime change in Iran, and this person has this wish, and this person has that wish, and this person has this wish, and the interest of the United States Is to contain the war.
That's our interest.
That's our strategic vital interest, is containing this war before it spins out of control.
And that's a different national interest than Iran, certainly.
It's a different national interest than Israel.
It's a different national interest than the Palestine Liberation Movement.
It's different.
Different peoples have different interests.
That one is ours.
Contain the war because it continues to spin out of control.
Containing the war means Wrapping it up as quickly as possible without risking that it will erupt again too soon.
It's going to erupt again.
This kind of a conflict has been going on in this way for well over a hundred years, and it's been going on more broadly for millennia.
It's not going to end.
There's not going to be any final end to this war.
So you could say, all right, we want to wrap the war up, so let's just have a ceasefire immediately.
Well, is that going to solve the problem?
If Hamas continues to rule in Gaza, then Israel can't feel safe in any way, and the war is just going to erupt again in two seconds.
So you cannot allow Hamas to continue ruling in Gaza, but then what do you do?
Do you then just totally glass Gaza and genocide all the Palestinians?
Or send them to Egypt, which Egypt's not going to take them?
No, I don't think that's going to work.
I don't see Iran or any of the other Arab states around.
They were just rolling over for that.
What do you do?
It's very tricky.
If I had the answer, I would... Well, I said I would win a Nobel Prize, but they don't give Nobel Prizes to conservatives or people who fix things.
They only give Nobel Prizes to people who make things worse, and to liberals, but I repeat myself.
So, if I had the answer, though, I would be the wisest statesman of the last hundred years, so I'll let you know when I come up with it.
Speaking of allies, there is a Minnesota school board candidate who is insistent on giving kids, little kids, a way to identify allies to talk about sex without telling their parents. a way to identify allies to talk about sex without
When my wife and I were looking at schools and everything, where we wanted to move, we wanted a place that was affordable, and we wanted a place where we knew they could grow up to be whoever they grew up to be, whoever they loved.
And that's why we're in Minnesota.
Because we knew that whoever our boys would grow up to be, They were growing up in a safe space and we need to make sure that that happens in our buildings as well.
I don't think we can ignore our kids' feelings and just focus on the task at hand.
I don't think we can just put our heads down and pretend the world is all about academics when our kids are wrestling with real issues about mental health tied to the changes that they're going through in puberty and who they might be attracted to.
We need to ensure that Our schools are safe places where our kids can identify allies that they can talk to if they're having a tough time, have conversations they may not be able to have at home, have safe spaces where they can be themselves and know that they're accepted and truly belong.
No!
No, we don't.
We don't need that.
We don't need you, Mr. Groomer Candidate, talking to any of our children ever about sex.
You freak.
You pervert.
We don't need that.
We need a hard drive check at your home immediately, and then we need to kick you out of the race, and we need to...
Have you repent of your wicked and perverse ways or be ostracized from polite society?
That's what we need.
That would make us all a lot safer.
That would be our safe space.
What planet are these people living on where they have the temerity to get up in public?
I don't know what this man's sexual proclivities are.
I don't really want to know.
I don't know what his supposed family structure is like.
I don't want to know.
But for this man to get up there and say, um, so listen, actually what we need to do is we need little kids to talk about sex with us all the time.
And not just normal sex, weird sex.
We need the kids in our schools.
We need to use the parents' taxpayer dollars to make clubs in the schools where we adults I can go there and just chat about really, really weird sex with people who are not our kids, but they're still kids, but not ours.
And specifically, we're going to talk about weird sex that they're not going to talk about with their parents.
How does that sound?
Vote for me.
Vote for... In a sane society, that man would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by the entire community.
That's the age that we're living in.
And people are going to hear it.
And they're going to hear those words.
I mean, look, his aesthetics aren't great either.
The way he's dressing, in a way, is a little off-putting, I think, to normal-minded people.
But it's not quite as bad as the trans activists, so maybe he'll get away with it.
But if he dressed even 10% more normal, and if his affect were even 10 or 15% more normal, and he said just those same words, You know, look, we just need to be allies.
We need to support kids so that they can be open, and inclusive, and equitable, and diverse, and to be supportive of them, and allies, and support, and openness.
It would mean the same thing.
They would be talking about the exact same thing, but a lot of people would hear it.
And they'd say, okay, that's fine.
If Joe Biden said that, people would say, oh, that's fine.
There's Joe.
Joe's normal.
He's a normal guy.
The chief reason, I think, that we conservatives are now finally winning on the social issues, which we've been losing on for so long, because that made us look like a bunch of old fuddy-duddies who didn't get with the program.
We weren't hip and cool.
Well, now that's shifted.
It has shifted, I think, largely because the radicals now look like their ideas really are, which is disordered.
Now, speaking of crime, Convicting a Murderer, the new 10-part docuseries by Candace Owens and DailyWirePlus, has done an excellent job at convincing even the strongest of Stephen Avery supporters that he is guilty.
If you have not seen the full series, all episodes are now available exclusively on DailyWirePlus.
The final episode reveals who the real villains of the story are.
Stephen Avery, his family, and the filmmakers who portrayed him as innocent and fooled millions of viewers.
Here is a teaser of the series.
We're going to direct your attention specifically to October 31st of 2005.
You need to tell us about it so we know you're telling us the truth.
So Steve stabs her first and then you cut her neck.
We sat at her house and waited for the garage door to open, hoping that she was coming back.
The garage door never opened.
It's almost as if she was murdered and then murdered again by these two documentary makers.
I love my sisters and my whole family, of course.
You can binge all 10 episodes now, but only if you're a Daily Wire Plus member.
So sign up today at dailywire.com slash subscribe to watch the entire series.
My favorite comment yesterday, this is actually not even from yesterday's episode.
This is from my interview, my spooky Halloween interview with a former witch.
You can get that now on YouTube.
The name is Seeking Truth in God.
Comment is, I was into witchcraft for three decades.
I'm now Christian in part because of the Men of the Daily Wire.
Thank you.
I'm very glad to hear that.
That's really terrific.
Glad that we could be part of that journey of yours.
And if you haven't seen the interview, go check it out.
It's available now.
You can watch it even after Halloween.
Speaking of leading kids astray, you remember Boston Children's Hospital got caught transing the kids, and then the libs denied that Boston Children's Hospital was transing the kids?
Well, now we know not only were they transing the kids, but they got millions of dollars in public funding to do it.
The state of Massachusetts gave a one and a half almost 1.4 million dollar reimbursement to Boston Children's Hospital for providing sex change procedures to minors.
This is according to reporting and records obtained by the Daily Caller.
The hospital performed 204 gender affirming surgeries on minors From 2017 to 2020.
That included 65 chest surgeries.
That's lopping off the healthy breasts of young teenage girls.
The youngest patient here was 15 years old.
Better than 13, I guess, but 15 year old.
And it wasn't just one or two.
204 in the span of three or four years.
How many doctors are doing this at Boston Children's Hospital?
It must be really busy.
Well, it's a big money maker.
That's one of the reasons why they do it.
Obviously, they're getting these reimbursements to the tune of one and a half million dollars.
But then you're hooking a patient for life on these drugs and probably more procedures that are going to cost more and more and more.
And it brings a lot of money in for big pharma, even as it ruins people's lives and often leads them to kill themselves.
It's happening, folks.
It's actually happening.
And the libs are still going to gaslight.
If Joe Biden can get a check for $200,000 from his brother, who closes a shady business deal, that very day, for $200,000, and that's just a little taste for Joe, you know Joe has raked in a lot more than that.
In fact, we know that because of Hunter Biden's laptop.
If you can do that, if you can look at the check, and still Democrats will say, oh no, Joe's not corrupt, then of course, you can look at the check, that's $1.4 million, and they're gonna look and say, no, Boston Children's Hospital, they're not doing that.
They're not doing that.
Gets to what we've been talking about from the top of the show.
This is why a lot of the House oversight investigations don't really go very far.
Because spreadsheets and checks and documents and subpoenas and testimony in Congress is freaking boring.
It's boring and it doesn't persuade anybody.
And no one watches it.
And even if people are forced to watch it, most people don't even know what it means.
Most people don't know the first thing about a spreadsheet or how financials work.
Most people aren't going to listen to some apparatchik drone in congressional testimony.
What is persuasive is blunt language and aesthetics, when you can see it.
Gets Glenn Young elected in Virginia, gets Ron DeSantis re-elected in Florida.
Maybe it gets Republicans elected in 2024.
Speaking of troubled children, and speaking of all that boring House oversight, the stuff they're uncovering is good stuff.
It's good stuff, even if it's not going to persuade your average voter on a suite.
It will certainly persuade the high-information voters who are listening to this particular program.
But they got him.
You've been hearing from Joe Biden from the beginning.
Well, where's the money?
Show me the money.
Show me where the graft is.
Here's where the graft is.
In July of 2019, this is according to the House Oversight Committee, this is three months after Joe Biden announced he was running for president, Hunter gets a quarter million dollar loan from a Chinese business associate.
This is the wire that goes to Hunter that used Joe Biden's Delaware home as the beneficiary address.
I guess the consolation is they're crooks, and they're pretty good at it, but they make elementary mistakes like that.
Joe Biden's address is listed as the beneficiary address.
Well, now we know neither Hunter nor Joe Biden paid back that loan.
Instead, Democrat donor and Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris acquired Hunter Biden's stake in Bo High Harvest RST, which is one of these sketchy China deals.
And then this guy just assumed the debt for Hunter.
He just assumed the quarter million dollars.
Why?
Why did he do that?
Because they were long-standing friends, childhood friends, and he just felt bad for poor old Hunter, who was struggling with drugs and had a... No, they actually only met in 2019 at a political fundraiser.
At a political fundraiser for Joe Biden's campaign.
So they meet at this political fundraiser.
They say, oh hey, you're Joe Biden's son, right?
Cool, how can I bribe you?
Okay.
Oh, cool.
I can assume this loan that was never going to be paid back anyway from your crooked counterparts in China.
Okay, great.
So, House Oversight asks, Why is a Democrat donor taking on Hunter's China debt?
Raises serious ethical questions.
Yeah, of course.
I love this stuff.
I encourage James Comer and the House Oversight Committee to keep digging it up.
I like to be able to have proof when people make silly claims like, there's no evidence that Joe Biden took bribes or anything like that.
I like to be able to refute that.
It's not going to matter.
People know Joe Biden.
Just like people know Donald Trump, people know Joe Biden.
They know that he is a simpering, back-slapping, empty suit of a politician.
They know he's dirty.
They know he takes bribes.
They know... It doesn't matter.
Just like people know Donald Trump, he can be nasty sometimes.
He says mean things.
He is loose with his language.
He's unpredictable politically.
Yeah.
Yeah, we all know that.
This is why it's not going to work.
The candidates who are running against Trump in the primary, and they keep pointing out all the problems with Trump, that His opponents pointed out in 2016, but we know him.
He's one of the most famous men in the world, okay?
The guy's been famous since the 80s.
And he was the president of the United States.
He was the star of a major network TV show for 12 years or something, or more.
Then he was the president.
Yeah, we know.
We know him, and we know Joe Biden, and none of this is going to make a difference.
When I see these weak attacks on Trump.
This... Did you see Donald Trump misspoke?
This man, he's not the same man as 20... What are you talking?
He is exactly the same man.
He also misspoke in 2016 and no one cares.
Or some people care but they already don't like him.
Did you see Joe Biden took a bribe?
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
I did.
I did see that.
That's not going to matter.
That's not what's going to move the needle.
What's really going to move the needle in this election, as far as I'm concerned, is how voter ID, ballot harvesting, and mail-in ballots are orchestrated in the crucial swing states.
I think that's going to be the big difference.
And I think the candidates are basically already set.
Speaking of government payoffs, I'm going to have to tease this.
I'm not, I want to, you know me, I'm a tease.
I want to get into this story, but it's this trucker who absolutely destroys the illiberal argument for why we all need to be driving electrical vehicles in about two seconds.
He knocks it down.
And the reason I'm teasing this Is not just because I think the electric vehicle fad is silly.
And, you know, if the technology is going to come about, it can come about over time.
But the idea that the government is forcing us all to convert our normal cars into these electrical monstrosities is so ridiculous.
To what?
To stop us from being burned to death by the sun monster in 12?
What did AOC said?
12 years?
How many years ago was that?
We'll see.
We'll see when the time runs out.
But the reason I look forward to playing this clip for you either tomorrow or sometime the next week.
It reminds us of two things that are really missing in our government and our politics right now, and that would be knowledge and competence.
