Ep. 1389 - Ivy League Presidents Defend Calling For Genocide
The Ivy League is in a state of total collapse, Dr. Fauci says he doesn't need religion, and the Biden DOJ is attacking a decades-old Tennessee law that would prevent prostitutes from knowingly transmitting HIV to clients.
Ep.1389
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Shop the NEW Jeremy’s Women’s Collection here: https://bit.ly/3RCphRM
Watch the official Lady Ballers movie trailer now: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Get your own Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get a FREE Moto-G 5G phone when you switch to PureTalk at https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/Knowles
HigherBond - Sign up for HigherBond before December 31st and get 3 months FREE of premium. https://www.Higherbond.com
Good Ranchers - Get $25 off your order + a FREE Holiday Ham! Use promo code KNOWLES at checkout. https://bit.ly/43G8p0P
- - -
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
The Ivy League is in a state of collapse after the presidents of UPenn and Harvard denied that calls for genocide constituted harassment on campus.
Ms.
McGill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct?
Yes or no?
If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Yes.
I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews.
Does that constitute bullying or harassment?
If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
So the answer is yes.
It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.
It's a context-dependent decision.
That's your testimony today.
Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context.
That is not bullying or harassment.
This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms.
McGill.
So is your testimony that you will not answer yes?
If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.
Now right after that, the president of Harvard says the same thing.
Oh yes, it's context.
It's all about context.
You just don't understand the context of the genocide.
Since then, the Penn president has already resigned.
Now calls for the Harvard president, President Gay, are escalating, especially in light of a recent discovery that she plagiarized large parts of her doctoral dissertation.
That is a serious academic crime, but the only reason that it's coming up now is because people are already calling on her to resign.
And that's all because of this congressional testimony.
If you have been paying attention to politics in recent years, that testimony did not surprise you.
You already knew that the universities, and especially perhaps the Ivy League, have gone completely insane.
But most people were not aware.
Most people don't pay very close attention to politics.
That congressional hearing last week was terrific.
For this reason, it was pathetic, it was sad, it was depressing that that's how far education has fallen.
But it was terrific in that it did to the Ivy League what the COVID lockdowns did to K-12 education.
That is, it forced people to see just how far American education has fallen.
The silver lining of the COVID lockdowns was that it led to an historic spike in homeschooling.
People pulling their kids out of school now that they finally discovered what those kids were being taught there.
The same might now be true of the universities, up to and including the Ivy League, which for decades, by the way, has been the beating heart of the left's political power.
That might be the most effective congressional hearing in quite some time.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
This episode is brought to you by Good Ranchers.
Head on over to GoodRanchers.com, subscribe today with code KNOLLS, K-N-N-W-L-L-E-S, to claim your free, limited stock Christmas ham before it sells out.
You won't be surprised to hear this, but Dr. Fauci don't need no religion.
Dr. Fauci in a recent interview explained why he has no need for our omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.
That, of course, is because Fauci views himself as that very God.
We'll get to that in just a moment.
First, though, I don't want to move off the Harvard story too quickly.
Because a lot of people thought the Harvard president would be protected.
The Harvard president, President Gay, checks at least a couple intersectional boxes.
Very hard to oust her.
They got rid of the pen lady.
She held on for a little bit.
She's just a white lady, so it's a little easier to get rid of her.
Will the Harvard president, who's a black woman, will the Harvard president be forced to resign?
Or can the intersectional game of victimhood protect the Harvard president?
Plagiarism is a big deal.
The Ivy League Does not really care about any crimes, any things that were traditionally understood to be crimes or transgressions in academia.
They have a bunch of nonsense departments, they have rampant grade inflation, kids are constantly boozing and having sex all the time, usually encouraged by, subsidized by the university.
None of that matters.
I know in some schools you can be arrested, you can be reprimanded for drinking and partying and messing around.
That is not true in the Ivy League.
When you enter into a school like Harvard or Yale or Princeton, you are often told that those transgressions, they're treated as health problems.
They're not something that you would be punished for.
It's nuts!
They're bigger party schools, in many cases, than the big state schools that make the top list of the party schools.
Plagiarism is the only thing that can really get you in trouble.
You can commit physical assault.
You are less likely to get in trouble at these schools than plagiarism.
And the Harvard president has just been caught red-handed by Chris Ruffo, one of the great journalists of our age, as well as by Chris Brunette.
Both found out that this woman plagiarized a lot of her dissertation.
It's not even just a word or two.
So, this woman's dissertation was called, Taking Charge, Black Electoral Success, and the Redefinition of American Policies.
She is now accused of lifting the work, quote, nearly verbatim from Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam in their paper, Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.
The Harvard policy is very clear.
They say, when you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source's ideas in your own words.
The Harvard Guidelines go on.
It is not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest.
Instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words.
If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation.
My favorite example of plagiarism here is when President Gay cites, well doesn't cite, she lifts material from but does not cite Carol Swain, my friend of many years now, a conservative academic who was run out of Princeton, run out of Vanderbilt because she's right-wing.
She's a very accomplished political scientist.
Apparently the president of Harvard even held her in such esteem that she lifted Carol Swain's work without citing her.
I'm happy at least that when the Harvard president plagiarizes, she's willing to plagiarize conservatives too, not just liberals.
She appears to have taken an entire appendix in the dissertation from Gary King in his book, A Solution to the Ecological Interference Problem.
I think she's out.
I think it doesn't matter how many intersectional boxes she ticks.
She's transgressed.
She's gone too far.
The donors don't like this.
It's just like the parents finding out what K-12 is teaching their kids during COVID.
All of a sudden, the kids are staying home.
Learning goes online.
The parents get a peek into the classroom.
They say, what on earth are you doing?
And they start electing Republicans, and they start attacking the school board meetings, and they start pulling their kids out and homeschooling.
I think that scandal that was caused by parents seeing what was actually being taught in K-12.
That scandal is being repeated now at the highest levels of higher education.
Really, really great stuff.
Now, speaking of degradation on full display, if you happen to be in Iowa this week, you can catch a satanic altar put up on display at the Iowa State Capitals.
This was put up by the Satanic Temple.
The co-founder of the Satanic Temple says this is a symbol of the Satanist's right to religious freedom.
Of course, Satanism is not entitled to any rights whatsoever and the Founding Fathers certainly wouldn't have thought so and no one, even the great defenders of religious freedom Not so long ago would have ever defended this, but this is now what religious freedom has taken to mean, that you can have a symbol of Baphomet or the devil on display and you have a right to that in a government building.
The founder of the Satanic Temple says, we're going to really relish the opportunity to be represented in a public forum.
We don't have a church on every street corner.
My feeling is that if people don't like our display in public forums, they don't have to engage with them.
They don't have to view them.
Okay.
If you're a normal person, you probably have a problem with this.
Now, some of you might not.
Some of you might say, oh, whatever.
It's dumb.
It's silly.
The Satanic Temple, they're just a bunch of edgy Reddit-tier atheists anyway.
Who cares what they want to do?
I don't like it.
I don't want my country to exalt Satanic symbols.
I think that's bad.
I don't want shrines to Satan in my government buildings.
I think that's a bad thing to do and doesn't speak very well of our country.
And I want it out.
And I want to ban it.
And this would not be a new ban.
This would be reinstating a ban that existed for the entire history of our country until approximately Five minutes ago.
I think that would be good.
I think that would be normal and American and right.
Now, you might look at that and say, well, it's okay.
It doesn't really matter.
I don't like it.
It seems wrong, but hey, you know, religious freedom, right?
So then you got to ask the question.
If you know this is wrong, But the premises that you have about religion and politics lead you to saying that this is fine.
How do you reconcile those things?
One of them is it can't simultaneously be good and bad.
So which is it?
How do you reconcile your natural opposition to Satan statues in our state capitals with religious freedom?
You can either Say, yeah, bring it on, bring on the satanic altars, let's put them in all of our state capitals, let's bring them to Washington, D.C.
You can either say that, most of you probably won't think that, or you can totally throw out religious freedom, which some of you might want to do, but it's probably not very practical in America, or there is a third option.
The third option is you can circumscribe what religious freedom means, not merely on your own preferences or, you know, a naked political power grab, but you can set limits on what religious freedom means through tradition, informed by reason.
You don't need to just pluck it out of thin air or have it be a matter of your own preferences.
You can say, look, here's what religious freedom has always meant in America, it's never included Opposition to God.
It's included broad religious toleration for different people who worship God in different ways, but it's never included opposition to God or outright denial of God.
That was just really never part of it, and so we're not going to allow that.
No Satanists, no atheist altars, none of that.
We can have a broad amount of religious toleration without saying that you have a freedom from religion or freedom to worship the devil in the state capitol.
That's what you can do.
Libs should love this.
Libs love saying that no right is absolute until they want their Satan statues in the state capitol.
Then all of a sudden the rights are absolute.
Your first amendment right's not absolute when you want to talk on a college campus and you're a conservative.
Your first amendment right's not absolute when you want access to the public square on social media to say your conservative points of view.
Your second amendment right, oh that's never absolute.
You're only allowed to have a musket.
You're this right, you're that right.
But you know, the supposed right Never really articulated in American jurisprudence or political philosophy to have a Satan statue.
That's the one that is absolute.
No, of course not.
Of course not.
I don't think that the Satan statue falls under any serious conception of freedom or religion.
Religion is a habit of virtue that inclines the will to give to God what he deserves.
But even if you do, even if you're a little confused on what freedom and religion mean, how about we just avail ourselves of history and reason and tradition?
That's what tradition's about.
It's not about just blindly giving up your own ability to think and have your own opinions.
It's just allowing your opinion to be informed by every other smart person who ever lived.
Don't you think maybe there's a chance that every other smart human being who ever lived for all of history might be able to teach you something that you haven't just figured all of it out better than all of the other smart people?
Well, there it is.
Welcome to traditionalism.
There it is.
Well, you're a conservative.
Wonderful.
Wonderful to have you.
We got to talk about these things.
When you want to talk, you got to check out Pure Talk.
Right now, go to puretalk.com slash nulls.
PureTalk has you covered for the holidays with a free Moto G 5G phone.
No gimmicks or trade-in necessary.
Just sign up for PureTalk's unlimited talk, unlimited text, and 15 gigs of data.
You can get all of this for just 35 bucks, and you will get the Moto G 5G phone for free.
You need to move fast because these phones are almost gone, so if your current phone is on life support, upgrade for free with PureTalk.
The new Moto G 5G phone boasts a two-day battery life, an exceptional quad-pixel camera, and a whole lot more.
Pure Talk gives you America's most dependable 5G network at half the price, so make the switch today.
Go to puretalk.com slash noelskin to get this exclusive offer and select the plan that is right for your family.
Pure Talk gives you America's most dependable 5G network at half the price.
Make the switch today.
That is puretalk.com slash noelskin to claim your free Moto G 5G phone with a qualifying plan.
Pure Talk, put simply, is Smarter Wireless.
Head on over there right now.
These guys have been great, supported the show.
They give you the best network out there.
Head on over to Pure Talk today.
Unfortunately, there's a state representative in Iowa, Representative John Dunwell, who seems like he means well, but you can see him grappling with this conflict between, we don't want to worship the devil in our government buildings, but we got religious we don't want to worship the devil in our government So, he has this very, very long post about it on social media, and he vacillates.
He says, well, as a follower of Christ, I think this, but as a state representative, I think this, but as a follower of Christ, I think this, but as a... And it's so long, I didn't even read the whole thing, because He's just twisting himself into knots.
The first error is to think that you can actually separate yourself into little compartments.
You can't.
You can recognize that you have certain duties and certain circumstances, but to suggest that you are multiple different people and you can totally divorce your moral views from your political life is just completely insane.
Politics is how we all get along together, and all laws legislate morality.
So, here's what he says.
My response to the Satan Statue as a follower of Christ?
My response as a state representative?
My observations and responses as an Iowan state representative and pastor?
As a follower of Christ, I certainly find a display from the Satanic Temple objectionable.
It stands in direct opposition to my faith and would be classified as evil.
Not a new experience for me or my family.
The Word of God continually warns about the dangers in our world.
In fairness, many other religions or non-religious people have the same perspective about Christianity.
Put a pause right there.
Yeah, they're wrong.
They're wrong.
You say X is good, Y is evil.
Other people say Y is good, X is evil.
One of you is right, and you can't just shrug your shoulders.
One of you has to be right.
Because you're going to live together, and you're going to enshrine good things in the law, and you're going to prohibit bad things in the law, too.
That's what law does.
So you can't just say, well, you know, look, my perspective... Right.
Where does your perspective come from?
Is it completely uninformed?
It's just a reflex of your mind?
A contortion?
A gesticulation?
It's not informed by reason?
No, it's informed by reason.
You think it's true, and so you're going to broadly follow that.
Yeah, it's a good idea.
It says, my observation as an Iowan and a state representative, I don't want the state evaluating and making determinations about religions.
I'm guided by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
First of all, are you?
Are you?
I don't know.
The First Amendment was never understood to enshrine Satanism.
So, I'm not sure that you are.
You're enshrined by a liberal revisionist view of the First Amendment.
But here's a more basic question to Representative Dunwell, and I don't mean to single him out.
A lot of people think like this.
Are you a Christian first or a liberal first?
I mean a lowercase L liberal.
I mean the classical liberal.
I mean whatever.
Whatever good kind of liberal you can think of.
What are you first?
Are you a Christian or that?
Do you serve God first or do you serve some political ideology called liberalism?
Which is it?
When they come into conflict, man cannot serve two masters.
Which is it?
Not hard for me.
I talk to Christians, I talk to religious Jews, I talk to Muslims.
There's broad agreement, I think, among people on broadly how to serve God in public life.
And how to have a good society.
I don't think the same can be said of liberalism.
Look what liberalism's done.
It's alienated people from their society.
It's led to a kind of skepticism where even a guy who calls himself a Christian pastor says, well, I don't know, some people think Christianity's evil, so the state needs to lay off it.
I mean, this is a politician.
Very sad.
Very, very sad.
I've heard liberalism described, a liberal is one who cannot take his own side in an argument.
Bill Buckley said it very well.
He said, skepticism has utility only when it leads to conviction.
So what's the conviction?
What do we believe?
What is it?
What do you actually believe?
What does Dr. Fauci actually believe?
Dr. Fauci just gave an interview, because he can't help himself, and he was asked about his views on religion.
Here's his take.
There's the Aldrin Chapel where Chris and I were married.
That's where you were married, right?
It's beautiful.
Yeah, it's really nice.
Do you still go there?
No.
You don't practice anymore, do you?
No, I don't.
Why?
A number of complicated reasons.
Go on, we have a whole corridor.
First of all, I think my own personal ethics on life are, I think, enough to keep me going on the right path.
And I think that there are enough negative aspects about the organizational church.
That you're very well aware of.
I'm not against it.
I identify myself as a Catholic.
I was raised.
I was baptized.
I was confirmed.
I was married in the church.
My children were baptized in the church.
But as far as practicing it, it seems almost like a pro forma thing that I don't really need to do.
He identifies.
In a way, he is Catholic.
He's baptized.
He said his kids are baptized.
Thank God.
That's great.
He says, but I don't need it.
Well, then how do you identify?
You've got to practice it, don't you?
What he has articulated here will be interpreted by many people as being so enlightened, so modern, so thoughtful.
He says, look, listen here.
You think I'm going to do what some guy in a robe and a collar tells me to do?
That's ridiculous.
Nah.
I follow my own ethics, and that is sufficient to put me on the right path.
That is not a new view, even though many people consider it a new view.
It's a very old view.
It's called the Pelagian Heresy, which suggests that human nature is good, and therefore we can save ourselves.
We are not in constant need of God's grace.
Which is what he's saying.
He's saying, I don't need to avail myself of the sacraments, humble myself before God, because I am God!
Well, that's what he's implying.
He's almost stating it explicitly, saying, I can live a good life on my own.
I don't need no God.
So it's an old idea, and old ideas always seem new.
Bad old ideas always seem new when they creep back up, and they creep back up for all of human history.
He's not alone.
There's something in him that's drawing him to say, well, actually, I should baptize my kids.
Actually, I should get married in a church.
And he can't quite articulate why that is.
Because he has this bigotry against the church, which says, well, it's really dumb and crazy, and I'm really smart and brilliant.
I wouldn't fall for that superstition.
Meanwhile, Fauci tells us that we put a hanky on our face, we're going to stop getting airborne illnesses.
You want to talk about superstition?
Stand six feet away, not five and a half feet, and then you won't catch the airborne illness.
Take this vaccine that, contrary to all data, I insist will stop you from catching or spreading a virus.
Oh, whoopsie-daisy, all my data, all of my predictions were wrong.
Oh, yeah, but you know that church that's been around for 2,000 years that keeps enduring?
Yeah, that's crazy, right?
He clearly, he has some attraction to it still.
He just can't get over his own pride.
This is a man who has multiple portraits of himself in front of his desk so that he can look at himself all day.
Not great.
People need to look for something higher.
They need to look for a higher bond.
Right now, go to higherbond.com.
If you're single, or know someone who's single, you've probably seen or heard about all the insane dating apps out there.
What if I told you there were a dating app that actually cares about your morals and biblical values?
Now there is, with a new dating app called A Higher Bond.
Higher Bond is a new Christian dating app built to be safer, less stressful, and more Christ-centered.
Higher Bond is completely different from anything else out there.
There's no addictive swiping.
The focus is truly on quality over quantity, and it's designed to form lasting marriages.
Hirebond is a Christian company that is veteran-owned by a husband and wife looking to change the way Christian singles meet online.
It's no secret that big tech companies are against other companies like Hirebond.
In fact, big tech companies would highlight the word Christian on the ad copy for Hirebond.
They say, yeah, this is violative.
You can't include that in your ads.
Our society and our country need what HireBond is doing.
If you're single, you need to check out HireBond.com.
Sign up before December 31st.
Get three months of HireBond Premium absolutely free.
That is HireBond.com today.
If you've seen the number one streaming comedy in America, Lady Ballers, then you might have seen us mention the creation of a woman's razor by Jeremy's.
In case you missed it, check it out.
My man, looking smooth.
Man, you guys weren't kidding.
These Jeremy's razors are amazing.
And did you know that Jeremy's now offers a razor specially designed for women?
And don't forget about Jeremy's shampoo.
And conditioner.
They keep our hair silky and smooth.
Well, that wasn't just a scene in a movie.
Despite the delivery of that, the product is really great.
We're introducing all new women's razors and personal care line by Jeremy's.
Because Jeremy's razors is all about equal opportunity to shop the woke free economy.
The sugar and the spice and the everything nice in life deserve the same quality.
Woke-free blades as men.
Jeremy's will make another razor when God makes another gender.
There are two genders, two razors.
Plus, we have a new line of personal care products for our better haves, including moisturizing shave cream, lotion, body wash, and deodorant.
Ladies, go to jeremysrazors.com to get your razor and personal care products today.
Speaking of sacraments, there is a very prominent liberal Streamer, commentator, who goes by the name Destiny.
I don't know his real name.
I have not really watched much of his stuff.
I think I was supposed to debate him at one point.
Perhaps we'll do that into the future.
Destiny, from what I gather, has been in an open marriage and has defended God forbid this happens.
his wife, he and his wife sleeping with other people.
Our buddy Sovereign Bra over here was on the Whatever podcast and warned him that this would likely not end well. - God forbid this happens.
Will it be fun if this open relationship ends up causing things to fall apart down the line if one of you guys finds yourself in an entanglement, so to speak, with somebody who you might find a deeper connection with than the other person?
Like, if that causes the relationship to fall apart, that probably wouldn't be very fun.
No, it would be horrible, and it would be sad.
Do you guys have a high degree of confidence that your marriage will last for decades?
I mean, I married her without a prenup, so I f***ing hope so.
Okay, or else this motherf***er's gonna be...
He married her without a prenup.
Good on him, actually.
That's great.
Not good on him to sleep around with other people and to let his wife sleep around with other people.
He explains why...
why he decided to start doing that on the same show.
Best sexual partners that I've had in my life were all the people that I were in the long-term relationships with.
Like on a one-night stand, like it's hard to know.
Like one-night stands aren't even that fun sexually depending on what you're looking for.
I can agree that the longer you're with somebody, the better sex gets.
So why is she not enough?
Why is she not enough?
Why am I not enough, Steve?
It's kind of like you've got like a close friend, but then you've got other friends.
Like, well, why is that one friend not enough?
Because in life, sometimes variety is fun.
Sometimes I want to be with a girl that's Hispanic or Asian.
Sometimes I want to be with somebody that is... Marriage is not a friendship.
I didn't say marriage was a friendship, but marriage to me isn't just about my going and her going.
A lot of aspects to my marriage that I share with my wife that's really unique to my wife that I don't share with other people.
It's just not one of those things.
That's not good.
That's not good.
Anyway, you know how the story ends.
Even if you've never heard of any of these people, they're getting divorced.
Very sad.
Not going to make fun of him.
A lot of conservatives seem to be making fun of this guy because his wife is leaving him.
I think it's very sad and I hope they patch it up and just get back together and stop sleeping with other people.
I hope that's good.
I'm entirely opposed to divorce and so it would be good if they just did that.
I don't know the story.
She left him for some guy or whatever.
The reason I even mention the story is not even really about marriage or relationships.
It's just a broader point about human behavior, which is that things that have always been true are very likely still true today.
I mean, it seems like a really simple point, but people get confused about it.
Things that have always been true for all of human history everywhere probably didn't just Radically change in the last 5 or 10 years.
Really.
Like, we've pretended that they've changed in the last 5 or 10 years, but they probably haven't.
Because they've always been true everywhere on Earth.
There might be a reason why things have always been a certain way, everywhere, forever.
And we might not have the ability through sheer tyranny of will to just upend or totally reverse them and invert them overnight.
It has always been the case that if you and your wife sleep with other people, your marriage is going to be weaker and you're more likely to get divorced.
That was true yesterday, it's true today, it's going to be true tomorrow.
It has always been the case that marriage involves sexual difference.
We forgot that one!
Isn't that crazy?
That was true for all of history and then like eight years ago we just totally upended that one and pretended that it doesn't.
But obviously it does.
And you see so much more confusion about marriage.
He says, marriage is kind of like you and your buddies.
No, it's not.
It actually isn't like you and your buddies.
Marriage is different.
Well, you like having multiple friends.
That's true.
I do like having multiple friends.
Though having a really good friend is kind of rare, actually.
You don't have a hundred really good friends.
You have a handful, at most.
Most people are lucky if they have one really good friend.
But yes, you can have multiple friends.
Friends are different than spouses.
Spouses, for instance, have to be...
Of the opposite sex, you have to complement one another physically and probably spiritually and intellectually too.
Marriage is ordered toward producing children.
It's not true of friendships.
Maybe some friendships, but shouldn't be.
That's something else that would distinguish it.
It's for forming the basic political unit of society, which is the family.
Just distinct from other webs and types of networks.
Just different.
That's always been true.
It's gonna be true.
It's gonna be true tomorrow.
So, in the case of this streamer guy, I hope they patch it up, but for all of you, take it as a warning.
The gods of the copybook headings, come back.
Speaking of weird sex stuff, do you remember there was that candidate who was running for Virginia House of Delegates?
And she was a blonde lady.
And she was discovered to have been a porn actress online, and not just a porn actress 10 or 20 years ago.
I think she had still been doing it even while she was running for office or just before she was running.
I think she may have even been raising money for the campaign by doing the sex acts on the internet.
Well, Politico has a post-mortem of her campaign.
She lost, by the way.
And the headline is, Her online sex life was exposed.
She lost her election.
Now she's speaking out.
Here's the subheader.
Susanna Gibson's campaign was rocked when an opponent exposed her private digital life to the public.
She won't be the last.
Okay, hold on.
I missed something.
The headline I agree with, her online sex life was exposed.
She lost her election.
Now she's speaking out.
That's true.
What is the private digital life here?
This woman exposed herself, it's not that her opponent exposed her, she exposed herself and performed sex acts for the public on the internet, which is forever, for money.
And then her opponent noticed that.
Her opponent's big crime here is not doxing her, it's not exposing her, it's not revealing some private sin.
Her opponent's big crime here is noticing a public act and then telling the public about it, and she ran for public office.
I do feel somewhat bad for this woman because I don't know what has happened in her life and in her mind to lead her to the point where she would do that and then think it's a good idea to run for office.
Doing that?
But I don't blame her opponent for calling this to the attention of the public.
It's a public matter.
I think the expectation of privacy has just gotten completely insane.
And in part, that's because We think that what we do on the internet has no moral value.
Broadly, we think that what we do on the internet will have no consequences.
It's just fake.
Twitter isn't real.
Forget about the sex stuff for a second.
Even the way we speak to people on the internet, the way that we present ourselves, we just think, oh, it doesn't matter.
It's just fake.
It's anonymous.
I'm behind a computer screen.
I'll talk to people however I want.
There's no consequence for it.
There is.
The libs have always been really into privacy.
Because they want to do bad things, and they can't really justify the bad things on their own merits, so they have to justify the bad things on a supposed right to privacy that doesn't actually exist in the Constitution, that had to be invented by liberal jurists in the middle to latter part of the 20th century.
And now here they're trying to say you have an expectation to privacy when you're performing pornography on the Internet for the public.
Just exposes the whole thing.
You don't have any privacy, including on the Internet.
I just think conservatives like privacy a little bit because we know that the liberal regime is out to get us and they're going to send the Gestapo to our house if we're a little too pro-life or if we're a little too Catholic or, you know, that's already been happening.
So I understand from a prudential matter, as a prudential matter, why we would want a little more privacy.
But in principle, there's no reason to have the kind of insane supposed privacy protections that we have today.
We're social creatures.
And when you totally remove yourself, you know, the darkest corner of your house, away from all people where you think no prying eyes are watching, things can go really bad, actually.
We want a little bit less privacy.
Now, I said, forget about weird sex stuff for a second, now we're going to switch back to it, and also talk about the DOJ, because the DOJ has just threatened to sue Tennessee if Tennessee does not reduce penalties For hookers who know that they have HIV passing it on to clients.
This is a December 1st release.
It just came out.
The DOJ said that Tennessee's decades-old prostitution law is wrong and that they will sue over it.
Because this law subjects people who have HIV or AIDS to, quote, harsher criminal penalties solely because of their HIV status.
So they're saying that by punishing people for knowingly giving HIV to other people, you're actually violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because HIV is a disability.
And so hookers who are selling their bodies for sex, usually against the law, if you punish the ones who knowingly give their clients AIDS more harshly, you're actually attacking the poor disabled community.
And this is the cherry on top.
The DOJ sent out this release on World AIDS Day.
And they acknowledged it.
They said, today's announcement comes on World AIDS Day, an international day dedicated to raising awareness of the AIDS pandemic.
So on World AIDS Day, the Biden DOJ attacks a state for trying to reduce the spread of AIDS.
I want to make sense of that.
And actually, I think I can make sense of that.
They think that the best way to commemorate World AIDS Day is to protect AIDS.
To protect AIDS and to grow the AIDS community.
Oh yes, we want to make sure that the AIDS community continues to thrive.
We want more and more people to catch AIDS.
Happy World AIDS Day.
No, that's not what World AIDS Day is supposed to be about, guys.
It's supposed to be about shrinking the number of people who have AIDS by preventing the transmission of the virus.
How does the law work?
The law raises prostitution from a misdemeanor to a felony when a person intentionally gives someone AIDS.
Okay.
This is the Lib's priority.
This is it.
We're on the brink of World War Three on two fronts right now in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East.
We've got a completely wide open border, absolute record high mass migration, a fentanyl crisis killing a ton of Americans.
The economy is extremely shaky right now.
Inflation had gone through the roof during the first part of Biden's tenure.
And what the Biden DOJ is focused on is making sure that mean old Tennessee doesn't stop Doesn't try to stop the hookers with AIDS from giving people AIDS.
That's priority number one.
Of course.
Of course it is.
A good rule of thumb here is that on any issue that involves wrongdoing and victims, any issue that involves crime, The libs will always take the side of the criminals.
The libs will always be concerned with protecting the supposed rights of criminals over actual victims.
Every time.
Every time.
Including here.
This one is particularly ridiculous, especially because they made the announcement on World AIDS Day.
Doesn't matter.
There is, I think, no exception to that rule.
It's a rule of thumb.
You want more crime, you vote for the Democrats.
You want more crime, you vote for the liberals.
You want less crime, you vote for the conservatives.
More than anybody, I think, I try to point out the complexities and nuance in politics.
Not in this case.
That is totally reliable.
You know what else is totally reliable?
Good Ranchers.
Right now, go to GoodRanchers.com, use code NOLS.
What do green eggs and your Christmas dinner have in common?
They both need a ham to be complete.
Not just any ham, but a spiral-cut heritage pork masterpiece from Good Ranchers.
That's the kind of ham that'll steal the show at your family gathering.
Guess what?
You get it for free with any Good Ranchers subscription.
That's a whopping $99 value that you get for free in your first order.
You know what I had last night?
Juicy, delicious chicken.
You know where I get my chicken, and my steak, and all my meat, basically?
Is from Good Ranchers, and it is just the best stuff out there.
The price is unbelievable.
You get freebies like this $99 ham.
It's just completely insane.
Simply subscribe to any box, you will get your totally free Christmas ham included in any order.
The subscription is amazing.
You get $25 off every order, a free gift in every third box, and free shipping on express delivery.
The best part is knowing exactly where your meat comes from, And that is through a local American farm.
Here's the scoop.
GoodRanchers.com.
Subscribe today with code NOLS to claim your free limited-stock Christmas ham before they sell out.
Act fast.
This offer won't last forever.
Order before December 11th for guaranteed delivery by Christmas.
Head on over to GoodRanchers.com.
Use code NOLS.
Get a WLAS when you subscribe to get your free 10-pound Christmas ham.
Don't settle for the old holiday fare.
Elevate your feast with Good Ranchers this year.
Good Ranchers American meat delivered.
My favorite comment yesterday is from the late Arthur Morgan, who says, Michael, it's not liberalism, it's leftism!
Respectfully, is liberalism, too.
I understand those are different things, because there's left-wing liberalism, and there's right-wing liberalism, which is sometimes libertarianism, or sometimes classical liberalism, but My criticism is of the whole thing.
I think liberalism broadly, not to paint with too broad a brush, some of my best friends are classical liberals, but liberalism itself is a big problem because it undermines The, any ability to make conclusions about reality and about the truth.
That's why we say liberals are the people who can't take their own side in an argument.
It creates a radical skepticism.
It makes a false idol of openness and neutrality.
It can't defend itself against other ideologies and aggressors.
It displays indifference between good and evil and right and wrong and truth and falsity.
And as it has affected the universities, the universities have given up on their main mission, which is to pursue the truth.
As it has affected polities, the polities have given up on their main mission, which is to do good and avoid evil.
It's just wrong.
Also, it's based on false premises that view man primarily as an individual, and that shrug their shoulders when it comes to truth, and says we can't really know anything at all.
But I think we can, and I think man is a social creature and a political animal, and I think liberalism is bad.
Some versions are better than others, but they're all just kind of wrong.
Now, speaking of the libs, Joe Biden and the Congress have spent $7.5 billion on electrical vehicle charging.
This started two years ago.
They spent $7.5 billion.
How many electric vehicle chargers do you think have been built now, two years later, with that $7.5 billion?
You guessed it!
None whatsoever.
The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included a seven and a half bill to build a half million public charging stations across the country.
Under this program, states can qualify for as much as 80% of the cost to build these chargers and to get them up and running.
80%.
And still, none of them have been built.
The money's gone, but none of them have been built.
Politico reported Not one single charger is operational.
I think they only broke ground on a handful of them.
Green projects, the environmentalist projects, are generally a scam.
It's just payoffs.
Solyndra.
Do you remember Solyndra?
Probably not, because the political scandals just cycle so quickly.
It's a way for libs to funnel money to their friends.
But the projects don't really get built.
They certainly don't meet The requirements that we need are the promises that were made to fund the projects.
It's just a scam and it's a scam that plays on people's increasingly pagan religious views where we worship Mother Earth.
And they tell you that if you don't give seven and a half billion dollars to build the charging stations for Teslas that are also subsidized by the government, that the Sun Monster is going to eat us all and kill all of our families and eat up the Delta Smelt and the Polar Bears.
And then none of that actually happens.
None of it happens!
The Sun Monster doesn't kill us, the Polar Bears are still here, the Delta Smelt are still here, and we don't have any electric charging stations.
It's just a scam.
Now speaking of libs, Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is weighing in.
The 2012 Republican presidential nominee is weighing in on who he thinks can beat his arch nemesis, Donald Trump.
And it's kind of sad for Romney, because Trump is clearly Romney's arch nemesis.
But Romney is not Trump's arch nemesis.
It's like that meme, you know, your I think about you all day long, and then, you know, the other person says, I never even think about you.
Romney was just driven crazy by hatred of Trump.
He didn't support the Republican ticket in 2016.
He's no longer practically a Republican.
Which means that when he endorses a candidate who is a Republican, it doesn't actually reflect well on the candidate.
It's not even a candidate's fault.
It's just now, well I'll cut to the chase, now Nikki Haley has to deal with the baggage of a Romney endorsement.
I'm not going to be endorsing President Trump, obviously.
I've made that very clear.
Look, Chris Christie has done a terrific job so far.
I think his being in the race has kept Donald Trump from coming to the debates.
Because I think Donald Trump recognized if he went to the debate with Chris Christie, Chris Christie would reveal him for what he was.
And Trump would be badly hurt, so he stayed out.
But Nikki Haley, she's rising right now.
I think she's the only one that has a shot at becoming the nominee, other than President Trump.
It's a long shot on her part, but she's the one that has a shot.
So, we'll see.
Notice what Romney says there at the top.
He says, I think Christie, by attacking Trump so hard, he kept Trump from showing up to the debates.
He's done a great job.
Now, if you hate Trump, how could you possibly say that's a great job?
That would be a great job well done to Chris Christie had not showing up to the debates hurt Trump, but it hasn't.
If anything, it has helped Trump.
His numbers have gone up since not showing up to the debates.
So, if you hate Trump, wouldn't you have to say, Chris Christie, he's the worst, because if you really believe Christie scared Trump away from the debates, which I don't, but if you did think that, wouldn't you have to say, darn it, Chris Christie, why didn't you shut up so we could have lured Trump to the debates so we could have attacked him more?
Totally incoherent.
But then Romney makes a good point.
He says Nikki Haley probably has the best shot of beating Trump.
And I think that's basically true.
Not much of a shot, but I think that's basically true because DeSantis' path to success is to win over Trump voters, which he has not been able to do.
Nikki Haley doesn't really need Trump voters.
Nikki Haley much more naturally pulls from the anti-Trump voters.
So, if this gets down to a two-person race, Look, maybe DeSantis could pull decent numbers against Trump too, but Haley probably would more naturally bring together the anti-Trump forces, some of whom hate both Trump and DeSantis, to pose a challenge to Trump.
But what would that challenge be?
If Trump is right now polling at 50% or 55% or more, then that means that Haley at best gets up to what, like 30?
Maybe a little, there's just the numbers don't seem to be there.
Meanwhile, speaking of candidates who have been more in favor of interventionism abroad, Bernie Sanders has a message for Joe Biden and a message for Israel.
He's against all this extra aid that the U.S.
has been giving to Israel.
I think when General Austin said, you can win the battle but lose the war, Israel is losing the war in terms of how the world is looking at this situation.
And I think that it would be irresponsible for the United States to give Netanyahu another $10 billion to continue to wage this awful war.
I mentioned Bernie's attack on Israel here really just because Bernie is a Jew and Every now and again, people suggest that the Jews control the whole world.
Just because they have the space lasers, they think they control the whole world.
But I point out this clip because it shows you Jews, just like most groups, but Jews in particular here, are not monolithic.
And in fact, I would wager that the State of Israel is more popular among American evangelicals than it is among Jews broadly.
That when people blame the Jews for this, that, or the other thing, they're forgetting all the really liberal, anti-Israel kind of Jews.
They forget that there are a lot of divisions here, and perhaps they're just not even aware of it.
But Bernie Sanders does not seem to be a huge friend or fan of Israel right now, even amid this war.
Now, speaking of holy matters, there's one story I'm just going to tease.
And it involves the voice of God.
Elon Musk just came out, he said, Vox Populi, Vox Dei, the voice of the people is the voice of God.
And he reinstated Alex Jones on Twitter.
Whoa.
That's pretty.
Now, and speaking of these Twitter polls, I took a Twitter poll yesterday.
I said, should I move to India and become a professional sitar player?
And most people said, yes, I should.
So I don't believe in the principle vox populi, vox dei.
I believe vox deus, vox dei.
But you've said it.
I will abide by the results of that poll.
So for the rest of this week, at least.
I don't know.
I'll give you updates from social media.
There is one great update that I can give you, though, right now.
As of yesterday, there was a handful of stock of Mayflower cigars in the Mayflowercigars.com shop.
It was very minor supply.
I think it was a handful of the packs of Dawn Robustos and the Eight Cigar Sampler, which is our number one best-selling item.
It sold out the fastest.
It's a beautiful, amazing display.
There were some in stock.
If you want to try to get them, I don't know if they're still in stock, go to mayflowercigars.com.
You have to be 21 years old or older.
Some exclusions may apply, but it's a Christmas miracle that there are some back in stock now.
