Ep. 1392 - Libs In Colorado Ban Trump From 2024 Election?
Colorado kicks Trump off the ballot, Texas passes a bill making illegal immigration illegal, and the Harvard president plagiarized a thank-you note.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1392
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DW+ Member for 30% off during our Christmas Sale: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Get your own Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 to check out Birch Gold’s Holiday Deals! Get FREE Silver today! https://birchgold.com/knowles
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Knowles
Genucel - Limited Time Holiday Sale! https://genucel.com/Knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
In a 4-3 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has officially kicked Donald Trump off the presidential primary ballot.
Because an eccentric in a horn hat and some Midwestern grannies got a police-guided tour of the U.S.
Capitol on January 6th, the worst day in the history of this already republic!
The court has decided that President Trump led an insurrection against the United States and may therefore be disqualified from office.
The legal reasoning is, as you might imagine, rather weak.
The court argued that if it didn't take the unprecedented action of exercising, listen to this, of exercising an anti-Confederate provision of a Civil War era constitutional amendment to impede a presidential candidate from running for office, then If it didn't do that, it would thereby forfeit any right to prevent anyone from running for president.
You have a 20-something foreign national who shows up in America.
The court, unless it enforces this provision against Trump, would not be able to stop that random young foreigner from running for president.
I'm not joking.
That is actually in the court's writing here.
The court's reasoning argues That if it does not radically reinterpret this 150 year old constitutional provision to stop a popular former president from seeking a second term, then all of the actual constitutional requirements for the presidency, 35 years old, natural born citizen, all of those somehow would go out the window too.
I'm not even sure how to engage with this kind of legal argument.
It is so absurd on its face.
But the legal reasoning is not actually as absurd as the political reasoning, brought to you by the self-appointed defenders of democracy, who now hold that the only way to defend democracy is to prohibit people from voting for the popular candidate.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Thank you.
Welcome back to the show.
More allegations of plagiarism against the Harvard president.
And when I say allegations, I mean just proof because we're talking about actual written evidence that we see.
Harvard president plagiarizing so much that she actually plagiarized the acknowledgments of one of her books.
She plagiarized a thank you in addition to all the scholarship.
We'll get to that in a second.
Do you remember when, way back in the year 2000, it was an attack on democracy that the Supreme Court decided that election?
But now that the Supreme Court of Colorado is attempting to decide the 2024 election, that is saving democracy?
Isn't that a little strange?
I think it was Edmund Smirk who first pointed that out to me on Twitter.
There doesn't seem to be much logic here.
We are being told that this decision, specifically, is a great defense of democracy.
It's just yet another reminder for the handful of people out there who haven't gotten the message yet that when the libs say democracy, they don't really mean democracy.
Because democracy just means whatever 50% plus one of the people vote for.
That's democracy.
Democracy is popular rule.
Sometimes the people vote for liberal stuff.
Sometimes the people vote for anti-liberal stuff.
What the libs do is they conflate liberalism and democracy.
But democracy is not necessarily liberal.
When the Hungarian people elect Viktor Orban, that's not liberal.
And what happens?
What happens is all the libs around the world say it's an attack on democracy.
Democracy no longer exists in Hungary.
What are you talking about?
Orban is extremely popular and most people voted for him.
Or voted for his party and made him prime minister.
He's very popular.
He is an expression of democracy.
He's not liberal.
Nayib Bukele, the leader in El Salvador, is not liberal.
Very popular, not liberal.
Meloni, when she got elected in Italy, very popular.
She did not run on a liberal platform.
The Brexit in the UK, very popular, very democratic, much democracy, very popular, not liberal.
And same goes for Donald Trump.
When liberalism and democracy come into conflict, the libs will always go with liberalism.
And that's fine.
That's their prerogative.
But what's so deceptive, what's so dishonest, is they say they're doing it in the name of democracy.
They hate democracy.
They only like democracy when it's convenient for them, when it exalts liberalism.
And there's a lesson here for conservatives, by the way.
The libs recognize that substantive goods matter at least as much, actually more, than procedural norms.
So, democracy is the procedural norm.
Liberalism is the substantive good, in their minds.
I think it's a substantive bad.
But that's the difference, right?
You use democracy as the instrument to get liberalism.
And the liberals are saying, well, the goods are more important than the means.
Conservatives, we get so confused.
We say, there are conservatives out there who say, well look, we have to enshrine a Satan statue in the Iowa State Capitol because of the procedural norm of some misinterpretation of religious freedom.
We have to.
Look, I know Satan's bad and everything, but it's much more important to have procedure.
I don't care what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it for some reason.
I don't know why.
I will not defend to the death the right of Satanists to worship Satan.
I won't.
I won't defend it at all, actually.
I certainly won't give my life for it.
That's crazy.
No, because substantive goods matter.
The kind of society that we have, the norms and standards according to which we live, actually matter much more than the mere procedure of how we get those things.
Now, speaking of the rule of law, Governor Abbott down in Texas has just signed a groundbreaking law.
Really big deal.
It's going to make it a crime to illegally enter the state of Texas.
Wait, what?
That was the headline.
There was a headline all over the place yesterday.
Governor Abbott signs groundbreaking new law to criminalize entering Texas illegally.
Isn't that a bit redundant?
Is it a double negative?
Is it now legal to enter Texas illegally?
What does that mean?
Well, what it really means is, of course it's illegal to enter illegally, but that's a federal law and Joe Biden's not going to enforce federal immigration law.
But until now, Texas has basically had its hands tied to enforce the law on its own border.
So now there is a state law that will allow the state of Texas to enforce federal immigration law because the feds don't actually want to do it.
It's good.
Good on Abbott.
Unfortunately, I don't think it kicks in right away and who knows if it's going to be enforced, but good on him.
I mean, I like the idea in theory, but At a deeper level, how pathetic is that?
How pathetic is it that our country has decayed to such a point that we now need to pass laws to make crimes illegal?
Crimes that are already crimes on the books.
Crimes that are already defined by their illegality.
We call it illegal immigration.
Entering illegally.
And we need to pass a law to say it's extra double illegal now.
So now we can actually enforce the law.
It's just proof.
The fact that this law has to be passed in Texas is proof that we no longer have a serious functioning rule of law in this country.
If you can no longer trust that your laws will be enforced, even your most basic laws, then what's the point of the second law?
What are we going to do next, pass a third law?
Okay, now it's extra, super, double, triple illegal to enter Texas.
So, come on, you're going to enforce it this time, right?
No, probably not.
A system of law only has power if it is credible.
A system of law only has power if it is actually enforced.
So if the law is not enforced, then it doesn't matter, you pass as many extra new laws as you want, the entire system has lost its credibility.
So what the Texans are counting on here is that, well, there's still some credibility at the state level, even if there's not at the federal level.
Okay, I hope so.
But we're not going to last very long if our system of laws has no credibility.
Speaking of crimes, a story that you're not seeing reported very many places.
A former family vlogger named Ruby Frank just pled guilty to four felony counts of second-degree aggravated child abuse according to video footage of the hearing that was uploaded to YouTube.
I don't follow family vloggers.
I don't really follow vloggers of any sort.
But this is a Utah mother of six and she has 2.3 million YouTube followers.
That's a big YouTube channel.
And had a family channel called 8 Passengers, and I guess what she did was she would just film her family and all of her little kids, and she's now been charged with six counts of felony child abuse and pled guilty to four.
Her business partner, Jody Hildebrand, was arrested in August after cops found one of Frank's children with open wounds after running away from the business partner's home.
Another kid was found malnourished.
Just really terrible stuff.
Glad that this woman is going to see some justice and that the kids are going to have some justice.
At a deeper level, though, All family vlogging is child abuse, as far as I'm concerned.
You're not always beating the kids or malnourishing them, but it's all really bad.
I'm not in any way surprised by this story.
When I see people exploiting their kids for content on the internet, I think, bad parenting.
Stop it immediately.
Don't do it.
Even people who aren't making money on it, even people who are just farming likes, who just get a rush of excitement when they see people liking their pictures and then they exploit their children to get all these likes.
Don't do it.
Your job as a parent is to protect your children, and part of protecting your children means not uploading 10,000 pictures of them to the internet, where a bunch of who-knows-who are going to look at them, are going to watch them, it's going to expose them to some degree of notoriety and fame, it might make them look foolish, you might be Deriving your clicks out of mocking them or exploiting your anxieties and your frustration with your children, and it's just bad.
What good can possibly come of that?
It is a problem.
That we've been talking about for weeks now in all sorts of different areas.
We were talking about surrogacy a couple of weeks ago, about how the problem with surrogacy is that it commoditizes human beings.
We shouldn't treat human beings as means to an end.
We shouldn't treat human beings as objects for our enjoyment or our benefit.
We should treat human beings as ends in themselves.
Not to be commoditized, not to be turned into vessels for rent, not to be turned into products to be purchased like you see in the case of IVF and surrogacy, not to be turned into media objects to exploit for clicks or likes or money.
It's just wrong.
These are your kids.
Don't do it.
It's bad.
The difference between this woman who just pled guilty to malnourishing and beating her kids or whatever the charges were, four felony counts, the difference between her and every other family, vlogger, blogger, posting a million pictures of your kids for all the world to see, is a difference of degree.
It is not a difference in kinds.
If you're doing it, cut it out, okay?
That is some really golden advice that I'm giving you right now.
And when you want actual physical gold, you got to check out Birch Gold.
Right now, text KNOLLS to 989898.
This Christmas season, you can diversify your savings into physical precious metals while stockpiling free silver in your home safe.
Do not miss out on Birchgold Group's most popular special of the year.
Now through December 22nd, for every $5,000 you spend with Birchgold, they will send you a one-ounce Silver Eagle coin for free!
Text KNOLS, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 989898 to claim your eligibility now.
You can purchase gold and silver and have it shipped directly to your home or have Birch Gold's precious metal specialists help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold for no money out of pocket.
And they will send you free silver for every five grand you purchase.
Keep it for yourself or give something with real value as a stocking stuffer this year.
That's a very good stocking stuffer.
Just text keyword NOLS to 989898 to claim your eligibility.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, now is the best time to buy gold from Birch Gold.
Text NOLS, Canada WLAS, to 989898.
Claim your eligibility for free silver on qualifying purchases before December 22nd.
That is NOLS, Canada WLAS, to 989898.
Speaking of courts, you know Sandra Day O'Connor died?
Do you know this?
This was, I guess, while I was away when I was pursuing my dream of becoming a professional sitar player in India.
If only I had brought my sitar, it would have worked out.
I think it was while I was away.
Maybe it was right before I left.
But in any case, no one has talked about it.
You remember when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and it was all we heard about for months?
Well, we heard about it before she died.
Everyone was waiting for her to die, preparing all of the eulogies and the parades and the biopics and everything.
And then she died, and then it was another two months of mourning, and then Sandra Day O'Connor dies.
No one even thinks about it.
Most people don't even know who she is.
Everyone remembers Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the first woman on the Supreme Court.
But no one remembers Sandra Day O'Connor, the actual first woman on the Supreme Court.
The way that history has been revised and the way that the narrative has been formed, it is as though Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the trailblazer, the woman who paved a path for all of us, but especially for women.
It is as though she were the first woman on the Supreme Court, appointed by Bill Clinton, that wonderful liberal president.
That's not what happened.
The first woman on the court was Sandra Day O'Connor, who was at least vaguely conservative, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
But that doesn't work with the narrative.
It doesn't fit.
I'm not even the biggest fan of Sandra Day O'Connor's jurisprudence, but it seems rather unfair that she's written out of history.
But of course, of course she was going to be written out of the story.
The story is already written, okay?
Conservatives are evil.
Liberals are good.
Conservatives are oppressing the masses.
Liberals are liberating people.
That is why when a conservative wins an election, something had to be wrong with the election.
Even if it was the cleanest election ever in history, something had to be wrong.
The people were hypnotized into a false consciousness.
The fraud happened at the level of the soul, actually.
The deception that was perpetrated by the conservatives was so subtle, no one even saw it happening.
But it had to be wrong.
The liberals have to win the elections.
Popularly, because they are the ones liberating people.
And so if the people don't know their own good, it's because of the conservatives tricked them.
Has to be the case.
Donald Trump had to lead an insurrection.
Never mind that he told people don't go into the Capitol, go home, be peaceful, don't be violent, don't be nice.
He had to do it.
The Hornhat guy had to be an evil insurrectionist on the brink of a coup d'etat about to shred the Constitution.
It doesn't matter that the video footage showed that he was getting a private tour around the Capitol by the police.
It doesn't matter that the only person killed in political violence on January 6th was a Trump supporter killed by a trigger-happy cop.
None of that matters.
The story was already written.
Okay, and any facts that don't fit that narrative are going to be twisted, they're going to be rewritten, or they're going to be discarded.
In the case of Sandra Day O'Connor, she doesn't fit the narrative that the first woman on the court would be appointed by a conservative Republican, that she herself would be at least somewhat conservative, that she would not stand up for all the big liberal causes.
It doesn't fit, so she's gone.
She's out.
And the replacement is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And that's that.
The reason I mention all of this is not just to gripe or to defend the sacred honor of Sandra Day O'Connor or something.
It's to remind conservatives.
We will never get the credit.
It's not going to happen.
We're never going to get the nice New York Times piece.
We're never going to get the beautiful PBS special.
It's not going to happen.
We're always going to be evil.
We're always going to be idiots.
We're always going to be knuckle-dragging, Hitlerian figures who want to destroy our country and kill everyone on Earth.
That's always going to be the case.
The libs are giving you the nice New York Times article.
They are giving you the PBS special.
They are giving you the big parades.
Then you're probably doing something wrong.
If you are receiving the plaudits and the honors of this world and the principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness and high places that govern this world, you're probably doing something wrong.
That should worry you.
That should worry you a hell of a lot more than being discarded or being lied about or being slandered or being libeled.
Okay?
It's a great honor that no one is paying attention to Sandra Day O'Connor's death.
It is something that ought to be worrisome to the friends and admirers of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that she is so highly revered by a rotten, very, very corrupt political structure.
That's the way it goes.
There is no neutrality here, okay?
And as far as the machinations of this world go, the libs have the upper hand, no doubt about it.
Now, speaking of death, Breaking news story, and that is, it's not that, it's not that Norman Lear just died.
That story happened a week ago, two weeks ago.
That's not the breaking news.
The breaking news from E!
Entertainment is that Norman Lear's cause of death has been revealed.
I don't know why, this is kind of a weird article.
It says Norman Lear's cause of death revealed, and then there's Jerry Springer on there.
I don't know, that's kind of strange.
Great sitcom producer, came up with All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Good Times, all sorts of great sitcoms from the 70s.
Norman Lear's cause of death revealed.
Now before reading the article, I don't want to jump to conclusions.
I think his cause of death might have had something to do with being 101 years old.
I'm pretty sure.
I don't think that I am going to Open up this article, read through it, and find out that the cause of death was flipping his Corvette after shooting an 8-ball.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, the man was prominent in the 70s, that was the sort of thing you did then, but I don't expect that.
I think it's probably because the guy was pretty much as old as you can possibly be, and that was the cause of death.
Was just being around a really long time, because then you die.
Really silly.
Maybe they're just posting these articles because it's clickbait, but it shouldn't work as clickbait.
People shouldn't click on this because everyone knows the cause of death.
And the cause of death, actually, I did read the article.
The cause of death is that his body just stopped because he was old.
His heart and his lungs stopped.
That was it, of course.
Why this matters politically.
Is that we are no longer acquainted with death.
We don't see death.
We're not around death very much anymore.
And so whenever someone dies, we view that as an accident.
We view that as something preventable.
There are all sorts of genius zillionaires in Silicon Valley who are investing oodles and oodles of money to cure death, just like the pharaohs of old, just like everyone has, every elite and deluded person has done for a very long time.
They view death as some evil, awful thing, an obstacle to be overcome.
No one here gets out alive, okay?
And in a way, while death is a curse for the disobedience of our first parents in the Garden of Eden, it's also a way out because you don't want to live forever in a fallen world.
That would be a terribly painful experience.
And we do have the opportunity to live forever, but it's not in the way that the Liberal utopians think it is.
It's not by putting our brains in a vat or something like that.
The way to do that is to, well, accept our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you know, traditional religion, and to transcend this world.
That's the way to do it.
We can't deal with that now.
We don't like that idea.
We don't even like the idea of death, so we look away from it.
We don't have funerals anymore.
We have celebrations of life.
We don't have three-day wakes anymore.
We don't have wakes at all.
We don't want to look at the body.
And when a 101-year-old dies, we say, Golly!
What got him?
What got him?
I don't know.
The same thing that's going to get you, probably.
If you're lucky, the same thing that's going to get you, which is time.
Now, speaking of life and death, now is the time to go check out Preborn.
Right now, go to preborn.com slash Knowles.
This Christmas season is rapidly approaching.
While you are writing out your Christmas list, remember that we are now in the season of giving, and if you are not sure what to give, I will tell you.
Give the gift of life through Our partnership with Preborn.
Preborn is an organization that has rescued over 270,000 babies from abortion by offering free ultrasounds to abortion-minded women.
Once these women meet their babies for the first time, they hear that heartbeat, the baby's chance at life is doubled.
It's very simple.
Woman hears the ultrasound.
Twice as likely not to abort her child.
For just $28, you can save a life by sponsoring a mother's ultrasound.
Preborn also supports mothers by providing them with diapers, car seats, counseling, and more.
Every day, Preborn's network of clinics rescues 200 babies as they compete head-to-head with the abortion giants.
Now, through a match, your tax-deductible gift is doubled!
Your donation offers double the blessings, and that is double the chance at life for a baby.
Now is the time to put your year-end write-offs to work.
Have your donation matched today by dialing pound 250, saying keyword baby.
That is pound 250, keyword baby.
Or donate securely at preborn.com slash NOLS.
That is preborn.com slash K-N-A-W-L-E-S.
Christmas is only a few days away.
If you are searching for the perfect gift for your family, your friends, your colleagues, even yourself, we got you covered.
Daily Wire Plus annual subscriptions are 30% off.
That is one year of unlimited access to ad-free, uncensored, exclusive content from all your favorite Daily Wire hosts for 30% off, along with on-demand access to groundbreaking entertainment and documentaries leading the charge in the culture war.
Trust me, you don't want to miss what we have coming in 2024.
Like Mr. Bircham, the hilarious animated series with a star-studded voice cast featuring Adam Carolla, Roseanne Barr, Megyn Kelly, our very own Brett Cooper and more, as well as the highly anticipated release of The Pendragon Cycle.
which will bring the legendary story of King Arthur to life like never before.
DailyWirePlus memberships also unlock our new kids app, Bent Key, at no extra charge.
Enjoy over 20 titles and hundreds of episodes that are kid-friendly and age-appropriate.
Yes, Bent Key is where you will be able to watch Snow White and the Evil Queen in 2024.
Best part is, you'll be joining us in the fight to take back and reshape the culture.
This Christmas, give the gift of a DailyWirePlus annual membership for 30% off.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join today.
Now, speaking of entertainment and the media, this is a great story.
I love this.
I love this.
The New York Times is attacking us for Chip Chilla.
That's our most popular kid's show.
My little boy, sometimes he goes to bed at night and says, hey dad, can I bring Chip Chilla?
He's got a little stuffed animal, he loves Chip Chilla.
The fantasy of the fun TV dad In the children's series, Bluey, and its conservative knockoff, Chip Chilla, that's how they describe it, they say we're knocking off, because we have a basic children's show that's normal, that was like every children's show until 20 years ago.
They say, oh, it's a knockoff.
Boundlessly attentive fathers step into a swage, parental anxieties.
So, the New York Times is attacking not just Chip Chilla, but also this show, Bluey, which I've never seen, but I guess it's...
I don't know.
It's a similar type of show.
It's just a show that would have been normal kids content like all kids content 20, 30, 40 years ago.
So they hate it.
This is the New York Times on Chip Chilla.
See, I don't know how he keeps house.
This is the daddy, the doggy daddy.
I don't know how he keeps house, works as an archaeologist, and serves as a full-time prop artist to his daughters.
But he does it all while only feigning complaint.
He's not only a good father, he is a fantasy.
One crafted to appeal to adults as much as to children.
I feel very bad for this critic here for the New York Times, Amanda Hess.
Because the reason I mention the article is not just because they're going after Chip Chilla or not because of Bluey, which I don't know anything about.
This woman can't even imagine a good father being real.
The New York Times, the Libs, they can't even imagine the possibility of a guy being a good father.
Part of this, I'm not getting into any psychobabble with the author or even the New York Times editors, but part of this, I find, is that all liberalism ultimately comes down to, screw you, dad!
100% of the time.
100% of the time.
It's not even a personal insight.
I discovered that, I heard it from a buddy of mine, Greg, years ago.
He used saltier language.
And I laughed and I thought, wow, you're so right.
Every lib I know, to some degree, hates his dad.
Everyone, I don't know.
It's weird.
But once you see it, you can't unsee it.
And even if not your earthly father, I think it's 100% of the time, even with their earthly fathers, certainly with their heavenly fathers, They've got some gripe against God the Father, you know, the cosmos, the way that the cosmos was created and how everything works here.
But also, just very basically, they just hate their dads.
They all have daddy issues.
And it's very sad to me.
That in the year of our Lord, 2023, the Libs, it's not even that they say, I had a bad father and I should have had a good father, or it's not even just that they're saying, well, fatherhood needs to be tweaked a little bit, or there's some issues with the way fathers are expected to be.
It's, they can't even fathom.
a meticulous, attentive, responsible, fun, loving father.
They say it's just a total fantasy.
They go on.
As I watch the show over my three-year-old son's shoulder, I wonder what Bandit says about the latent desires of the parents queuing up the show.
I'm More than 100 episodes are streaming on Disney+, with more arriving in January.
After all, when I turn on Bluey, I'm being very un-Bandit.
I am not engaged in focused play that follows my children's imagination where it leads.
I'm cleaning.
My son is staring at a screen.
So the guilt that this person is feeling for allowing their children to watch TV a lot Is leading them to attack the show.
It's unrealistic that parents would actually take care of their kids.
Parents do it.
I'm not knocking screen time to... I think everybody does a little bit of screen time every now and again.
But believe it or not, there was a time when parents did spend much more time with their kids.
It was a lot easier when women didn't have to work.
Now women do have to work.
It's not that women get to work now.
Women have to work in most economic circumstances.
Liberalism presents that as a choice, an act of empowerment.
It's not a choice for most people.
It's a requirement of our current political economy that was very intentionally structured that way.
And so women, they have this illusion of choice, but they don't really have a choice.
They're forced to go out and work for some random guy who owns the widget factory, and they have to labor in the widget factory so that they can make enough money to bring home so that their husband can pay some other woman to raise their kids.
And when they don't pay some other woman to raise their kids, and they don't send them to daycare or state-funded or private, they stick them in front of a TV and they have the TV raise their kids.
And they feel bad about that, naturally.
And it's not even just a personal failing.
It's a social failing.
It's a political failing.
That we now have a political economy that almost forces you to do that.
But that tension, that feeling of guilt, is what is impelling, very clearly.
She's explaining it here.
It's impelling some of her anger, some of her dissatisfaction with the show.
She goes on.
It's typical in children's stories for parental figures to be obscured or even absent, especially the mothers.
Disney movies I grew up on, Little Mermaid, Lion King, featured authoritarian fathers who, following the untimely deaths of their wives, ruled their children from a distance while outsourcing their childcare to a crab or a bird.
I don't know that that's exactly how I would describe The Lion King.
It seems a little off, but anyway.
My son's favorite show is not Bluey, but Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, in which Mickey's parentage is irrelevant.
He's a godlike figure who answers to no one.
That is a fantasy for children.
Total parental obsolescence.
Well, no, it's a fantasy for your children.
That's the difference here.
This New York Times writer, I don't know where this person lives.
I guess New York, I should assume, but who knows?
It's a big newspaper.
She has inculcated certain values in her children.
We all do, inevitably.
That's what education is.
That's what parenting is.
And so what the liberals do is they inculcate liberal values.
And the liberal value is one of not the unity of the generations, not of respecting one's elders and caring for one's young and recognizing an unbroken thread between the generations that gives us A respect and a reverence and a care for the traditions and the institutions that we've inherited and a desire, a charitable desire, to pass those on to future generations.
It gives one the desire to break free of all of that, to view the past as baggage, as a burden, as oppression, to view the future as something that does not deserve our care or our attention.
It's not our responsibility to break free of all the bonds, the bonds of politics, which is viewed as oppression.
The bonds of family, also viewed as oppression.
The bonds of morality, it's all viewed as oppression.
Even the bonds of biology now, in this case, where people are told to break free of their very bodies.
So that if their body...
That's not good.
identity to be one thing, they will break free of that.
They'll say, damn my body, who cares?
I'm going to be something totally different.
That's a liberal view.
The view that the little child, that the individual should be God, that's the liberal view.
That's not good.
Not the kind of thing you want to inculcate in your kid.
But the New York Times writer, the New York Times editors can't imagine that in the conservative parts of the country, in the conservative households, that's not the child's fantasy.
Because children's fantasies are, they don't just pop out of the air, okay?
They develop as the children are educated.
Children are sponges, and desire is mimetic.
So, the way that we human beings come to desire something is not just written into the code of our DNA, necessarily, and it's not just because an object is intrinsically desirable.
It's memetic.
We observe the desires of those around us, especially those closest to us and those we respect, like our parents, and we emulate those very desires.
Clearest example of this is a Rolex watch.
No one really desires a Rolex watch because they know all that much about horology.
No one really desires a Rolex watch.
Some people like the way it looks.
Some people like the history of it.
Some people like... But the biggest driver for why people desire Rolex watches is because other people desire them.
The reason that you covet your neighbor's wife is not because she's the hottest chick around.
It's because she's your neighbor's wife.
In fact, that's why coveting That's why mimetic desire is included multiple times in the Ten Commandments, because that's so intrinsic to human nature and human desire.
And so this woman seems completely unaware, oblivious, that she has cultivated certain desires in her kid, and that's the desire to be a god.
That's the desire to be totally free of all bonds, free of parents.
That's not the desire that conservatives cultivate in their kids.
What conservatives cultivate in their kids is, I think, a much healthier desire, which is to love your family, love your community, respect your parents, be happy when your dad stays home and plays around with you.
She goes on, I wonder if one of the upsides of Bluey, from a parent's perspective, is that it works to absolve our guilt over screen time if we feel bad for ignoring or subduing our children.
There we go, there's a little bit of self-awareness creeping in.
Yeah, yeah, I wonder if.
Bluey at least offers a simulation of boundless parental attention.
Right.
Yes, you're becoming self-aware, New York Times lady, and you're recognizing that it's a good thing to have your parents pay a lot of attention to you.
And it would be nice if parents did that out of choice, or even were able to do that, and our political economy were not such that you had to go to the widget factory all day.
Yeah, you're right.
Why do you have that guilt?
Why do you have that guilt?
By enacting liberalism, you are denying things that we know naturally to be good.
The moms in Bluey, this is the final paragraph I'll mention, it's a long article, it's worth reading.
The moms in Bluey and Chipchilla, Chili and Chinny, don't get the classic Disney movie treatment.
They're allowed to live.
They get to join in the fun too, though Chilly is more level-headed than her husband, and Chinny is stern.
Both mothers are granted supporting roles in their children's imaginative worlds, though they are somewhat sidelined by their plots, often because of their work outside and within the home.
In Chip Chilla, this is the money line, in Chip Chilla, Chinny is the one stuck holding the laundry basket, and that is why the New York Times ladies of the world, the liberals of the world, Won't be able to resolve the tension they're feeling because they're just like their little kids demanding to be gods.
They're just like their little kids demanding to be totally free of all natural constraint and all natural inclinations.
They resent that the woman might do the laundry and the man might go to work outside of the home.
Everybody works.
They resent that.
They resent that men and women are different.
But someone's going to have to go work outside the home.
So if you deny that men and women are different, then you're both going to go to work outside the home.
And if you both go to work outside the home, then you're just not going to get to spend as much time with your kids.
And that's a sad fact.
These are the people who want this.
The New York Times, these are the people who are driving this.
There are so many people I know.
I mean, I think probably most people I know, the woman works outside the home.
Often not by choice.
Those are the people that I feel the sorriest for here.
Those are the true victims of all of this.
Because we now have, and we've had it for almost a hundred years now, a political economy that forces this situation and that makes it into an unimaginable fantasy that you would get to spend a lot of time with your parents.
Especially with your mother.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine back in the old days, those old awful days when your mother was stuck holding the laundry basket and everyone was really happy and that story is actually so attractive that two shows are about that and they happen to be two of the most popular children's shows around.
Amazing.
Not a good look these days.
When you want to look good, you gotta check out GenuCell.
Right now, go to GenuCell.com slash NOLS.
There's a lot to be stressed about during this Christmas season.
Stress and lack of sleep can easily cause those pesky under-eye bags.
The good news is, you never have to worry about that again when you have GenuCell skincare.
From now until Christmas, GenuCell's most popular package has a special discount just for our listeners at GenuCell.com slash Knollskin, N-W-L-A-S.
Treat yourself and your loved ones to the absolute best skincare in the world.
Those troubling forehead wrinkles, fine lines, skin redness, even a sagging jawline will disappear right before your eyes with GenuCell's most popular collection.
GenuCell promises immediate effects.
You will see results in less than 12 hours, guaranteed, or your money back.
Genucel made Christmas come early this year.
They sent down a ton of products for the whole office.
Everyone is raving about the Under Eye Cream.
This works wonders.
Plus, included in every most popular package is your free Hyaluronic Acid Serum for skin hydration and restoration.
You deserve to look and feel good this Christmas season.
You know I love this company.
I love the founder, Coptic Christian from Egypt, left for the American dream.
Uses absolutely the best ingredients out there.
An amazing discount on your first order because you're going to be a customer for a very long time.
My favorite comment yesterday comes from Bryce Gladwin, who says, You're wrong, Michael.
When you say people of all kinds are going to read this document, no.
No one is going to read this document, and everyone's going to assume it agrees with them.
You make a great point.
Talking about the document from the Vatican yesterday.
That would seem to permit some kind of blessings for same-sex couples, but with caveats and blah blah blah.
You can hear my talk about it yesterday.
You're right.
No one's going to read that document because no one reads documents anymore.
And everyone just assumes that it agrees with them.
So true.
Now speaking of what your kids are learning, the president of Harvard, the beleaguered president of Harvard, is under fire again for more plagiarism.
This started out because Chris Ruffo, the great Chris Ruffo, conservative journalist and think tank scholar, and to Aaron Siberian, another conservative journalist.
I don't even know if he's conservative.
He's certainly anti-left.
They both uncovered instances of plagiarism from the president of Harvard.
This was after the president of Harvard showed up with the president of Penn and suggested that calling for genocide against the Jews, you know, might be okay if we just do it within the right context.
And so after that hearing, the Penn lady was instantly fired.
And she was fired because she's a white lady, so it's easy to fire her because she's a dirty rotten Karen and no one likes Karens, so get rid of the white ladies.
But Claudine Gay, president of Harvard, who said the exact same thing as the president of Penn, She was allowed to keep her job because she's a black lady, and black ladies can do no wrong, and they can't be fired, or you're a racist, if you even suggest that they should be.
But there was a difference between Gay and the Pen Lady, even beyond their skin color.
That being that the Pen Lady seems to have had a perfectly fine academic career, and the Harvard Lady, Claudine Gay, is a plagiarist.
She was caught plagiarizing her doctoral dissertation.
And then, once we started pulling on that thread a little, we saw more instances of plagiarism, and more instances.
Now there's 40 instances of plagiarism.
And plagiarism might not seem like the worst crime in the world.
In academia, it is the single worst thing you can do.
You could walk into a classroom, shoot the professor in the head.
That is a less serious academic crime than plagiarism.
It might be the singular academic crime.
Totally guts scholarly credibility.
And this woman was found to have stolen, actually from a friend of mine, from Carol Swain.
Professor Carol Swain, wonderful political scientist, has been on this show and other shows that I've hosted.
Claudine Gay, the head of Harvard, stole from her and stole from a lot of other scholars.
Well now, this is amazing, Chris Ruffo found this one.
Apparently, Claudine Gay plagiarized the acknowledgements section of one of her books.
The acknowledgements!
I understand you plagiarize scholarship because you're just not that good a scholar, you don't do your own research, you don't... You're just not that... You're just not that good a writer, you're not that good a researcher, you're not that good a scholar.
Okay.
You should at least be able to write the thank you note at the end of the book, don't you think?
I don't... That's not very hard.
But no.
They plagiarized that as well.
Claudine Gay.
I'm also grateful to Gary as a methodologist.
He reminded me of the importance of getting the data and getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor.
As an advisor, he gave me the attention and the opportunities I needed to do my best work.
Now, that's from Claudine Gay, Taking Charge, Black Electoral Success, and Redefinition of American Politics.
Here is an earlier piece from a year, this is one year earlier, from Jennifer Hochschild, Facing Up to the American Dream, who writes, Sandy Jenks showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor.
It's just a direct quote.
There's more.
There's more, too.
I... Wow.
You can't... can't make that stuff up.
How does Harvard go on here?
How does Claudine Gay go on here?
A remedial seventh grader would not have stolen this clumsily.
And yet, here we are.
A lot of people, including Chris, calling for Claudine Gay to resign as President of Harvard.
I don't want her to resign.
I don't want Claudine Gay to resign as President of Harvard for the same reason that I don't want Bob Menendez to resign as the New Jersey Senator.
I want to drag this out.
Every second that these people remain in their offices.
I'm not going to say that they degrade their respective institutions, Harvard University and the Democratic Party.
I'm not going to say that they degrade them.
They don't.
The institutions are already degraded.
What happens is every second that Gay and Menendez stay in their respective offices, they further expose to more and more people how degraded their respective institutions have already become.
And I really like that.
Every second that Bob Menendez remains in office, the likelihood that a Republican replaces him in New Jersey increases by 3%.
Likewise, every second that Claudine Gay remains the president of Harvard, a plagiarist, a notorious plagiarist, if a freshman committed one iota, 140th of the Plagiarism that Claudine Gay has committed over her career.
That student would be expelled from Harvard, probably would not be admitted to another college, would just be done with college.
It's that serious an infraction.
Every second that Claudine Gay remains in office, Harvard looks more and more ridiculous.
More and more students will say, why would I go there?
Now, you might say, well, go there because Harvard still has some credibility, might get you in the door at Goldman Sachs or something.
Yeah, for now.
Sure does.
It has some prestige.
Though, frankly, if you see this kind of scandal, you see Harvard becoming the laughingstock of the academic world, even if you do want to go to those name brand schools, you're probably more likely to go to Yale, you're probably more likely to go to Princeton, you're probably more likely to go to Stanford, you're probably more likely to go to, I don't know, some other really brand name school.
And Harvard will be hit, and Harvard should be hit.
Harvard should be destroyed as a prestigious institution.
Harvard Delenda Est, to quote some ancient Romans, okay?
The universities, the elite universities especially, are the epicenter of the left's power.
They are how the left, the radical left, took control over the last 60 years.
The more they get hit, the more ridiculous they look, the better.
Now speaking of scholarship, I'm gonna tease a little story here.
I'm not gonna totally get into it.
You know me, I'm a tease.
There is a peer-reviewed scientific study, it was published on Wednesday, last Wednesday I suppose, in the Public Library of Sciences Journal, PLOS, and it investigated greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath, and it concluded that one of the significant drivers of global warming, climate change, is your breathing.
You, when you breathe, when you do the thing that is most basic to sustain your life, you're destroying the world.
The inference, I suppose, the conclusion we have to draw from this is that if you want to save the world, you have to stop breathing.
We need to get rid of all the humans.
And this was always the way.
That this global warming cult was going to end.
This global warming suicide cult was always going to end with this study.
