Ep. 1414 - Taylor Swift May Destroy President Trump
A new poll shows 1/5 of voters would likely vote for who Taylor Swift tells them to, Climate wackos throw soup on Mona Lisa, and a new episode of Law and Order features a woman who refuses to press charges on her rapist because of white privilege.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1414
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the BRAND NEW series The Divided States of Biden on DW+ : https://bit.ly/4999W1e
Get 20% off your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsor:
Woke Tears Water - Indulge today in laughter and hydration! http://www.WokeTearsWater.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Taylor Swift could sway the presidential election votes of nearly one in five Americans.
A new poll from Newsweek has found that 18% of voters would be more likely or significantly more likely to vote for a candidate if that candidate were endorsed by Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swift, for those who don't know, is famous for writing songs specifically about her terrible judgment in men.
So, For a decadent and crumbling republic, that seems to fit the bill perfectly.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
We might go to war with Iran.
We'll get to that in a second.
Obviously, pretty urgent news.
We'll get to that because I have a take on the whole situation that I haven't heard from anyone on the left or the right.
But first, we got to get to something more important, which of course is the Taylor Swift conspiracy theory.
I am not a big fan of the Taylor conspiracy theories.
Not because I don't believe in some conspiracies these days.
Obviously, the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is about six months now.
But the reason I don't really buy the Taylor conspiracy theories is because I'm inclined to like Taylor.
I know she's kind of a lib.
I know that her songs are not for me.
I don't think I would ever intentionally put on a Taylor Swift song.
But I kind of like her.
Because she's normal and she's just kind of pretty and she doesn't have all sorts of crazy tattoos and mutilations and she doesn't, you know, I don't know, she's just like pretty and she's dating a football player and she sings about completely banal and ordinary subjects and I like that.
In a culture such as ours where you have Lil Nas X twerking on the devil himself.
And you got that other rapper lady who's singing about being a demon.
And you got that other rapper dude reenacting a Hieronymus Bosch painting where people are walking into the mouth of the devil and people are dying at his concerts and all.
And that kind of insanity and that depraved culture to just have a pretty little blonde girl who goes out and sings about breaking up with her boyfriend and then shows up to a football game and kisses her football player boyfriend on the cheek or whatever.
That's great.
I'm all about it.
But she also might hand the country over to the Democrats according at least to the conspiracy And it's not just on the right.
It's not the fringe tinfoil hat people who are very conservative.
It's the left too.
MSNBC ran a headline not that long ago.
This was on Christmas Day.
Taylor Swift could save Joe Biden in 2024.
No, seriously.
The musical megastar may be the rare celebrity with the cultural influence to shift the political tides.
A number of people on the right have said that Taylor is really famous and popular because the liberal establishment is trying to blow her up into being the most influential woman in the world so that she can sway the election.
Now, I didn't find that persuasive.
Peachy Keenan, however, who is a wonderful right-wing writer, she pointed out yesterday, if you look at Taylor Swift's tour dates, you got Basically just a constant slew of performances.
I'm just looking at her upcoming performance.
February 7th, February 8th, February 9th, February 10th, February 16th, February 17th, right?
Goes on and on and on.
Then all through February.
All throughout March.
All throughout... She doesn't seem to be working much in April.
Then you go straight May.
All throughout May.
All throughout June.
All throughout July.
All throughout...
August, and then there's a big break.
August 20th is her last tour date scheduled, and then she doesn't appear again until November 14th.
Just, what, a week and a half after the 2024 election?
So, Peachy Keenan suggested, she said, oh good, there's a gap in Taylor's tour schedule here so she can go stump for Democrats around the country.
I don't know.
Peachy Keenan's a very thoughtful, conservative writer.
It might be the case that that's just a coincidence and maybe she's going to go marry this football player and go on a honeymoon.
I hope she does.
It could be the opposite.
It could mean she doesn't want to be touring during the election season because she doesn't want to be asked for comment, and she just wants to kind of lay low.
In fact, I think that's probably the most likely scenario.
Taylor endorsed Joe Biden back in 2020, but it was very, very mild.
It was something like one Twitter post, and she was holding a cookie that said Biden 2020.
So I don't know.
By the standards of Hollywood, she seems to be among the least enthusiastic left-wingers.
I think that's so much of her appeal.
She's just nice and pretty and inoffensive.
So that's kind of what I'm hoping for.
I remain a cautious Swifty, not because I listen to her music, but I like that she's Normal and gives people an alternative in our culture to the particularly crazy brand of popular entertainment.
But I could be proven wrong.
I don't know.
We'll just, we'll keep these tour dates over on the side.
Speaking of artists on the left, a group of climate wackos threw soup on the Mona Lisa yesterday.
They're speaking some sort of barbaric tongue.
I don't know if that's... Are they channeling demons or something?
I can't quite make out what they're saying.
But they are the climate action maniacs who keep traveling all over the world and throwing soup on priceless works of art.
And there's cops there, but the cops... Oh no, those are activists too.
We're the cops.
We're the museum guards.
We're the docents, even.
Why won't someone tackle these people and get them away from a priceless work of Western art?
These people, these climate cultists, are like the Taliban blowing up the ancient Buddha statues, the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
Except they're less justified.
At least when the Taliban blew up the Buddha statues, they were blowing up idols.
I'm not defending it.
I don't think the Taliban is justified in almost anything it does.
But at least I can understand why a monotheist might get rid of pagan idols.
Here though, these climate cultists are blowing up beautiful pieces of Western art.
Or at least trying to.
Or at least trying to ruin them with soup.
Why?
Because the climate cult has always been about punishing our civilization.
The climate cult, I call it a cult because it's like a cultus, you know, it's a form of religion, a perverted and false religion, but it's a form of religion that has all the hallmarks of religion.
It has the notion of original sin, it has the notion of redemption, it has an apocalypse, and it has an eschatology, it has everything.
And in the climate religion, Our civilization is the cause of the fall.
In the climate cult, it's we in the West who have industrialized.
We have polluted our Earth and set the Earth on a course for utter destruction.
And so only we can save ourselves.
We need to stop driving cars and stop having babies and stop eating meat and stop doing anything.
We need to stop living and growing and developing.
In order to, I don't know, save the world.
So that's why they're not going to destroy indigenous art.
They're also not going to destroy modern art because modern art also is about punishing our civilization.
Modern art also is about feeling shame and guilt and looking at ourselves as Decadent objects.
It's about degrading us.
So, of course, no surprise there whatsoever.
They want to punish our civilization and a great way to do it, beyond telling us not to have families anymore and destroying what we eat and destroying how we move and how we live, is destroying beauty.
Destroying beauty is perhaps the most efficient way to demoralize a civilization.
Now when you want to remoralize a civilization, when you want to encourage a civilization, Right now, go to WokeTearsWater.com.
Are you sick of companies trying to turn you into a lib?
It seems that wokeism is everywhere.
It's the air that we breathe.
It's the water that we drink.
That is why Woke Tears Water has a mission to save America from the brave new woke world, one sip at a time.
Woke Tears Water is an American brand that is making hydration great again.
Woke Tears Water is a legitimate brand of drinking water bottled here in the United States by people who know what a woman is.
While everyone else's water is just water, you know, take it or leave it, Woke Tears provides a refreshing gulp of...
Laughter in a world thirsty for sanity.
I also like that it's clearly inspired by the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
It's great.
If you want to try Woke Tears Water, visit WokeTearsWater.com.
You can hand one out to your friends.
You can take it to class.
I love it.
It's just so brazen and audacious and in your face.
It's terrific.
Indulge today in laughter and hydration.
The two things that make life possible.
That is WokeTearsWater.com today.
Speaking of punishment, President Trump's trade advisor, Peter Navarro, has just been sentenced to four months in prison for doing exactly what Hunter Biden did.
Well, no, I'm sorry, not exactly what Hunter Biden did.
You've probably seen those clips, you know, with the hookers and the drugs and the guns.
Peter Navarro never did any of that stuff.
Not exactly what Hunter Biden did in that Peter Navarro never shook down foreign oligarchs and sold American influence for millions and millions of dollars.
He never did that.
Peter Navarro just Didn't show up to testify before Congress.
That's why he's going to the clink for four months.
The exact same thing that Hunter Biden did.
Hunter Biden gets off scot-free.
Peter Navarro was asked to appear before the January 6th committee in March of 2022.
He was ordered to provide documents to that committee one month prior.
He didn't do either of those things, citing executive privilege.
This is a top advisor to the President of the United States, and the Congress has absolutely no right To drag him before them.
That would be a major weakening of the separation of powers.
Congress is not absolute.
Congress is not supreme in the United States.
Congress is one of the three branches of government.
And they have no right to do that.
So now the judiciary has sentenced Peter Navarro to four months in prison.
He was ordered also to pay a fine of $9,500, which is a reduction, by the way.
The U.S.
District Judge Amit Mehta wanted to sentence him to six months in prison and fine him $200,000.
That was what the Justice Department requested.
Actually, I'm being unfair to Judge Amit Mehta.
Judge Amit Mehta was the one who heard this request and then reduced that.
But it's still ridiculous.
The guy sentenced him to prison and charged him a bunch of money for what Hunter Biden did.
Hunter Biden also defied a subpoena to appear before the House Oversight Committee for a closed-door deposition.
He didn't do it.
He held a big press conference in front of the Capitol about how he wasn't going to do it.
Then he made a big hullabaloo inside the Capitol later on about how he wasn't going to do it.
And he gets off scot-free.
Completely lawless.
What's the point of this?
The point of putting Peter Navarro, a very amiable economic advisor, into prison is to demoralize the right.
It's to discourage people ever from working for Donald Trump, even in senior White House positions.
It's to discourage anyone from ever contradicting the liberal ruling class.
Because they'll say, yeah, if you have a difference of opinion on trade, I mean, think about this.
Peter Navarro, he's a protectionist.
Peter Navarro was the pro-tariff advisor in the Trump White House.
And the liberal establishment is globalist.
A lot of the Trump election was about opposition to globalism, just as the Brexit was about opposition to globalism, just as Viktor Orban in Hungary, his election was about opposition to globalism, just like Georgia Maloney's election in Italy was about opposition to globalism.
And the Libs, they love globalism.
They hate national borders.
They hate national sovereignty.
They want to break all of that down and have us all just be governed by the blob.
And so they go after this guy in particular, Peter Navarro.
And Navarro has stood very firm.
He just went on TV to explain that throwing him in the clink is about a lot more than just him.
If anybody thinks they're not trying to put Donald Trump in prison for 700 years, they just need to look at what they did to me yesterday.
They're not messing around.
Four months in prison.
They even want to put me in prison Before I can have my appeal in this case.
And they want Trump in prison and out of the Oval Office, and they want folks like me not to be able to help him out.
Here's the thing, here's what I'd ask your viewers to understand.
It's not rare, I am the first Senior White House adviser, I think I'll alter you to the President, ever, ever to be charged with this alleged crime.
And the irony here, Sean, the irony is that the Department of Justice itself has maintained a policy for more than 50 years that says that senior advisers like me Absolutely cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.
Why?
Because it violates the constitutional separation of powers and interferes with the ability of executive privilege to provide effective presidential decision-making.
Totally right.
If the Congress can jail senior presidential advisors for refusing to give them whatever they want and show up whenever they want, that is an obliteration of the separation of powers.
Rather than having three co-equal branches of government, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, now we've just got a supreme legislature.
And the executive works for the legislature, the president works for the Congress.
That's not what I learned in civics class, but no one learns anything in civics class anymore.
Peter Navarro's point, really brilliant here.
So how do you make sense of that?
How could the DOJ, which for 50 years has maintained this policy of saying that the senior White House advisors can't be compelled to testify before Congress and provide documents to them, how could the DOJ then simultaneously prosecute a Trump senior White House advisor for doing that?
Because they don't view the Trump White House as legitimate.
That's why.
You want to talk about election deniers and deniers of the legitimacy of our sacred democracy?
It's the Biden White House.
It's the DOJ that's doing that.
They don't view Peter Navarro as a normal senior White House advisor because they don't view Donald Trump as a normal president.
They don't view any of them as legitimate.
So anything can be done to Trump.
And in their minds, it won't upset the norms of our sacred democracy.
Yeah, in our sacred democracy, we usually don't jail the opposition leader, but Trump's different.
We can't normalize him.
Yeah, in our democracy, we usually don't jail former presidents, but Trump's different.
He's not a real president.
He's a fake president.
His voters, they're not real Americans.
They're deplorable, irredeemable Americans.
They don't deserve any rights.
Jail them, too.
If any of them happen to be walking even within five miles of the Capitol that day, maybe they were going to go get a drink at Old Ebbets Grill.
But yeah, just go round them up, too.
Some Midwestern granny was taking pictures on the National Mall.
Yeah, get her, too.
None of these people are legitimate.
You, you're not legitimate.
You're a deplorable, irredeemable.
You oppose Joe Biden.
You're a threat to democracy.
That's what this is about.
That's the way it does make sense is the problem.
It makes sense if you accept they're very dangerous premises that half of the country is not not legit or entitled to political rights.
Now, speaking of law and order, a clip from a law and order episode has just gone viral.
This is, Law and Order has been on the air, I think, for 150 years at this point.
I think Law and Order predates the invention of the television.
Law and Order has gotten consistently more and more woke as the culture has gotten more and more woke.
There's a scene that's gone viral of a woman being interviewed by cops, and she's been raped.
She was raped by a black man, but she doesn't want to prosecute him because of her white privilege.
Natalie, Jay Watson raped you.
You think I forgot?
How could I?
This entire trial has been an exercise in reminding me.
And this is your chance to do something about it.
I'm going to.
Believe me.
Because I can.
I can afford therapy.
I have that luxury.
And maybe, one day, I'll be okay.
But if that Everyone's making fun of this clip.
I don't know why they're making fun of this clip.
Stop that.
Natalie, wait.
Everyone's making fun of this clip.
I don't know why they're making fun of this clip.
That seems very accurate to me.
That is exactly how liberal white women think. - Yes.
I think it was Robert Frost who said, a liberal is a man who can't take his own side in a quarrel.
Absolutely.
That's how a lot of liberal white women in New York City would think.
Yes, I've been victimized, but the man who victimized me is black, and I'm white, and so I must have done something wrong.
I must have been asking for it.
Even if I was, and I've got so much privilege, we can never punish anyone.
Of course, the woman, the character is wrong, but I actually think that Law & Order episode is pretty accurate on how white liberals talk about race and justice and crime and all that stuff.
Of course.
Now, in real life, what would happen is this woman would say, no, don't prosecute this man.
Or probably the DAs or someone would say, no, don't prosecute him.
He's black.
He lives in the inner city.
He can't, we can never hold anyone accountable for crime there.
And so he would be released and then he would immediately rape someone again.
And he'd probably do it like 10 or 20 more times.
And then maybe he'd go to prison for about five minutes, but then he'd get out on parole and he'd go do it a bunch more times too.
That's what would really happen.
So it wouldn't help anyone.
If he were punished, there's a chance he might be reformed.
I know people who've gone to prison for more serious crimes than that, actually, and who have been reformed and lived good lives.
So you can do it.
It's called a correctional facility.
The point is to correct you.
But what we're told now by the libs is the complete opposite.
What we're told now by the libs is that if you're held responsible for your crimes, it will destroy your life.
And if you're not held responsible, you'll somehow magically clean up.
Of course, that is not the case.
But that is an accurate reflection of the culture.
Good job.
Good job, law and order.
You got it right.
Speaking of white guilt, Senator James Langford, who is a Republican, ostensibly, is very upset about the GOP Killing a potential border deal with the Biden administration.
It would be absolutely absurd for me to agree to 5,000 people a day.
This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day.
There's no amnesty, it increases the number of border patrol agents, increases asylum officers, it increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and then deport individuals.
It ends catch and release.
It focuses on additional deportation flights out.
It changes our asylum process so that people get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard and then get returned back to their home country.
This is not about letting 5,000 people in a day.
This is the most misunderstood section of this proposal.
Okay, we'll get into what he's talking about here with 5,000 in just a second.
But it sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
It sounds, oh no, it's going to reduce the crossings and it's going to increase deportations.
This bill, it's so misunderstood.
This is the bill that Mitt Romney is pushing.
Mitt Romney is complaining that that mean old Donald Trump, he's encouraging Republican senators to kill the bill.
All the squishy Republicans are pushing this kind of bill.
But some of them, you know, James Lankford here, I don't want to just write him off as a squish.
He's saying, no, it's really good.
It's going to reduce illegal immigration.
Oh, man, it's Lucy with the football all over again, isn't it?
Isn't it?
I don't care what the bill says, and we'll get into what it says in a second.
I don't care what it says.
There can be no deal with Democrats on the border because the Democrats are currently breaking the law.
It'd be one thing if this problem just popped up out of nowhere and, you know, the Republicans and Democrats have different sort of interests, but we're going to come together and come to a compromise.
No, there is a law already on the books, there are lots of immigration laws already on the books, that the Democrats are intentionally violating.
And we're supposed to negotiate with them?
There can be no good faith negotiation there.
There can be absolutely no trust that they'll fulfill any of their obligations in this bill.
They're not fulfilling their obligations under the current law.
There can be no deal.
The deal is completely dead on arrival.
Any Republican who votes for this bill should be thrown out of Congress, should be thrown out of the Republican Party.
It's a joke.
I don't want to ascribe to malice that which is explained by stupidity, but I don't want stupid senators either.
If you seriously believe that the Democrats currently breaking the law are going to magically start enforcing the law with all the promises that they're making you, if you just sign one more bill, then you're useless.
Get out of Congress.
Get out of the Republican Party.
Speaking of the border crisis, America is currently experiencing an invasion with millions of illegal aliens flooding our border under the Biden administration.
As Texas fights the surge, Arizona's governor remains silent as Biden pursues his perverse agenda.
Ben Shpiro traveled to America's southern border to reveal the depths of the crisis.
What he discovered is shocking.
It is criminal.
It is our duty at The Daily Wire to share the truth.
Take a look at the invasion on the southern border.
America is currently experiencing an invasion.
A lot of people coming in from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.
Is there a fair bit of gang affiliation among them?
Always.
These people are just crossing the border illegally, waving their hands in the air at our cameras, saying, hey, here I am, come get me.
We're no longer the Border Patrol.
We're the Welcome Patrol.
The number one site in America for fentanyl trafficking across the border.
And if Joe Biden remains in office, it's only going to get worse.
I'm Ben Shapiro, and this is the divided states of Biden.
Invasion on the southern border.
Watch now on Daily Wire Plus.
Our southern border is wide open.
The blame rests squarely with Joe Biden.
Join Ben on the ground as he uncovers the truth of one of the most destructive presidencies in American history.
Watch Invasion on the Southern Border streaming now on Daily Wire Plus.
What's in this deal?
This supposedly wonderful deal that the Republicans are going to reach with Joe Biden to solve the problem on the border?
Senator Lankford and Democrat Senator Murphy have a deal to expand legal immigration levels by an additional 50,000 green cards annually and then to expedite work permits for illegal aliens who have been released into our nation's interior and then to provide taxpayer-funded lawyers For unaccompanied minors, illegal alien minors.
And then, this is the part that Senator Lankford is disputing, but other senators are celebrating, which is allowing up to 35,000 illegal aliens to arrive at the border every week before imposing border controls, among other aspects.
Forget the 35,000 a week.
Let's say Senator Lankford's right.
Forget about anything having to do with illegal immigration in this bill.
The bill expands legal immigration levels by 50,000 green cards and expedites work permits for current illegals.
That's bad.
That's bad.
We have too much immigration, period.
I have nothing against immigrants.
Some of my family were immigrants.
Some came here before the immigrants, but some were immigrants.
And so I have nothing against them personally.
But we have too many of them.
We take a million legal immigrants a year, and now we're taking millions and millions of illegal immigrants.
Three million illegal immigrants a year, probably.
It's too much.
Since 1965, when the Democrats blew open our immigration policy, Between 1965 and 2015, we took 60 million people in.
Legal, illegal, doesn't matter.
That's the largest movement of people ever in recorded history.
Since 2015, the numbers have spiked.
We've got 6.2 million minimum, according to the CBO, during Biden's presidency.
Illegal.
Plus another 3 million legal.
So now we're at what?
Upwards of nine and a half?
It's just too many people.
It's a country of 320 million people.
It's too much.
No polity could take that many people in from different cultures and assimilate them.
And we don't even try to assimilate them.
It's the end of the country.
This is not some modern, nativist, racist, hillbilly, yokel kind of stuff.
This is perennial political philosophy going back to Plato.
It just doesn't work when you let a ton of foreigners into your country.
So, no.
Sorry, guys.
I know for a long time Republicans have maintained this position on immigration.
They say, illegal immigration is bad.
I mean, we're going to squish to the Dems and give a lot of amnesty, usually, but it's bad.
We're at least going to say, in principle, it's bad.
But legal immigration is always good.
We're all for as much legal immigration as possible.
Even President Trump, who has been the best on the immigration question of any Republican president in my lifetime, even he said, we want to kill illegal immigration, but we want more legal immigration than ever.
Well, he's half right.
We do want to kill illegal immigration.
Obviously, of course, we want to enforce the law.
But we also have too much legal immigration.
And it's not the immigrant's fault, it's not the current immigrant's fault, it's just that the Democrats let way too many people in, it's caused a ton of social problems, and we need to assimilate people before we can let anyone else in.
Or before we can let anywhere near these kind of levels of people in.
Sorry, it's just too much.
It's called prudence.
It's the number one political virtue.
It's prudence, okay?
Being wise here.
So it's a terrible bill all around.
Any Republican who votes for it is a total joke and should be thrown out of politics.
Speaking of foreign affairs, we've got the most disturbing story of the weekend.
Three American service members were killed over the weekend, and many more were wounded in a drone strike by Iran-backed terrorists in Jordan.
President Biden explained what happened on Sunday.
Awful attack, and now you've got a lot of people banging the drums for war with Iran.
And of course, it wasn't Iran directly, but it was Iran-backed militants used a drone to attack and kill some of our service members.
That's very serious.
So the question is, what do we do now?
Do we retaliate at all?
How do we retaliate?
Some people are calling for a strike on Tehran, on the capital of Iran.
Is that what we're going to do?
I don't know that that's a wise idea.
I don't know that that's a wise idea at all.
Because what's going to happen, it's probably happening already, is the US is gonna blame Iran for It's terrorists that it has funded attacking U.S.
troops.
And Iran is going to blame the United States for the war in Israel.
And the reason for that is that we fund the Israeli military.
Something like 6.5% of the entire Israeli military budget comes from the United States.
What is it?
3.8 billion dollars in military funding per year?
Now, then people will say, well, yeah, we back Israel because Israel's surrounded by terrorists and they got attacked and there was a major pogrom on October 7th and so we're going to back them.
Sure, but I'm not talking about anything of the morality of the war or the attack.
I'm talking about who the belligerents are.
If the United States blames Iran for what its proxies do, then Iran, and a lot of other Arab states, are going to blame the United States for what its proxy, Israel, does, because we're the ones funding the war.
Without American funding, there is no war.
So the hawks say, bomb everyone, and the doves say, never go to war ever.
And what I say, I guess, is the least popular view of all, because I'm not a hawk and I'm not a dove.
I try to follow prudence in foreign affairs.
My view, as I've said from the very beginning of this conflict, is we need to contain the war so it doesn't escalate to the point that we will be impelled to intervene.
We're already there.
The longer the war drags on, The more likely it is that Iran is going to attack American troops because we have bases all around the world, because we're a global empire, we have bases in the region and we're funding Israel.
Iran, just as we know that the way to stop all of these little terror cells, these jihadis who keep attacking us, is to go after Iran.
Iran knows that if they really want to stop the state of Israel, not drawing any equivalence between the state of Israel and the jihadi terror cells, but they know that the way to get people is to go after their backers, and they know that we're the biggest backer of Israel.
So the likelihood of attacks on American troops in that region, it's going to continue to escalate the longer this war drags on.
So the question for the Israeli government is, how Does this war end?
What does victory look like and when is that going to be?
The Israeli annexation of Gaza is not a matter of U.S.
strategic interest.
It is a matter of Israeli strategic interest.
If I were Bibi Netanyahu, I would recognize that the only way to have a real security guarantee in that region is for Israel to annex Gaza.
There's not going to be a two-state solution.
The Gazans are not going to have some thriving polity.
Hamas is not suddenly going to become a responsible government.
It's never going to happen.
From the Israeli perspective, the greatest security guarantee would be to annex Gaza.
But if they're going to do that, then they've got to just do it.
I don't even really have any problem with that in principle, in that I don't think Hamas is particularly good for the Gazans.
So, okay, if they're going to do it, though, they have to do it.
The question from the American perspective is, when will this war end and, therefore, thereby reduce the likelihood of more and more attacks on American troops?
Is it in the US strategic interest to just attack Iran?
That's what Lindsey Graham seems to think, Republican Senator from South Carolina.
He says, hit Iran now, hit them hard.
John Cornyn, Republican Senator from Texas, says target Tehran.
Now let's say, let's say that you are of the opinion That war with Iran is in America's strategic interest.
You've convinced yourself that if we go in, hit them really hard, maybe push for regime change, maybe escalate this conflict in the Middle East, that somehow that's going to serve the American interest, not only protect US troops, but protect the American homeland.
Okay, then you got to ask yourself another question.
Do you trust Joe Biden to conduct such a war?
Let's say you're really bought in and you think, no, we just need to project a massive amount of strength in the region and that's going to protect us.
You really trust Joe Biden to do that?
I don't.
And then you might say, well, Michael, you know, we can't just have our entire foreign policy be contingent upon the men who are leading the country.
Yes, we can.
You go to war not with the army you want, but the army that you've got.
And the army is doing great.
Unfortunately, the top brass at the Pentagon are not so great, and the Commander-in-Chief doesn't know what his name is.
Let's check in for a second as we mull a war with Iran and expanding this conflict in the Middle East into potentially a major regional or a global conflict.
Let's check in and see how the commander in chief is doing.
- Beer brewed here.
It is used to make the brew beer in this.
Oh, Earth Rider, thanks for the great legs. - Thank you, Mr. President.
Really interesting.
That's not even some old clip that I pulled up just to take a cheap shot at him.
That was three days ago in Milwaukee.
I don't see how any reasonable person can convince himself that an expanded war in the Middle East attacking Iran, the major regional power, is smart right now.
I just don't see it.
If you figure it out, please explain it to me.
If you figure out what Joe Biden just said there in Milwaukee, please explain to me what he said.
I'd love a translation.
Now, the foreign policy hawks, just even to further undercut their credibility, don't seem to be the brightest bulbs in the shed.
They don't seem to really know what's going on.
Adam Kinzinger, you remember him?
Former congressman who's his Twitter page now says his name is Adam Kinzinger parentheses Slava Ukraini and then the American flag and the Ukraine flag and the Israel flag.
I guess?
I was about to say that makes him one of the few pro-Israel Democrats.
I forgot, though, that he's not actually a Democrat.
He's a Republican who just sides with the Democrats a lot.
Very confusing stuff.
He responds to Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas, who said, there's no way that Texas would have joined the Union if that meant we couldn't protect ourselves from the invasion of the southern border.
Kinzinger says, you didn't join the Union.
You lost the war, idiot.
A little history lesson for Adam Kinzinger.
Texas most certainly did join the Union.
Texas was a republic before it joined the Union.
Before that, Texas was a Habsburg territory.
But for ten years...
From 1836 to 1846, Texas was a republic and then was annexed and then became a state.
It reminds me of this line from the Bacchae by Euripides, which is, talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
The people most likely to volunteer their insults and call you a big dummy and an idiot and a fool are the people who themselves don't know anything.
This guy doesn't know anything about very recent history of the United States.
This reminds me of a great piece of advice from Norm Macdonald, which I'll get to in one second.
First though, my favorite comment yesterday is from MuralEmperor5639 who says, can't wait to watch some Mike's Tom Macdonald reviews.
Yes, last week my producer said, Michael, you got to review this new song by Tom Macdonald.
And I said, okay, well, when did my channel become a Tom McDonald review channel?
I don't know.
Sometime then we changed the channel and everything.
But then they played the song and I finally I realized Ben Shapiro is rapping in the song.
And I thought it was AI.
It's not AI.
So we've got my reaction to their song totally without any foreknowledge that is up on my YouTube channel right now.
The late great Norm Macdonald.
Once had a bit where he he was turning to his sidekick and he said, you know, I was reading this history textbook and You're not gonna believe it.
It turns out the good guys have won every single war ever And and if you read a history textbook, that's true that's true because famously history is written by the winners and When someone like Adam Kinzinger or any of these?
Liberal establishment supporters in the Democrat Party or in the Republican Party.
They'll mouth off on history a lot.
They'll give you their grand view of history and the history of the United States.
And then they will occasionally reveal that they don't know very much about history.
Most people don't know very much about history.
It's okay, I don't know very much about history.
We don't learn history anymore.
We haven't for some time in America.
They won't know basic facts like Texas was a republic before it joined the Union.
They won't know basic things because perspectives on history change over time.
If you asked an average American A hundred years ago.
Describe the history of the United States.
They would give you a completely different story than an American today.
It'd probably be a lot more positive, frankly.
You ask the average American today, talk about American history, they'll say, well, first we killed all the Indians, then we enslaved all the blacks, then we were really mean to the women, then we were, I think we were mean to the homosexuals too, and we're just rotten and terrible.
Give me a can of soup so I can throw it on some artwork.
That's what they would say today.
You ask them a hundred years ago, probably it would be a little different.
You ask them a hundred years before that, it would be a little bit different still.
And in a hundred years from now, our perspective, not on just history, but on ourselves, who we are, is going to change.
People will see the past and the present and the future quite differently.
The people banging the drums for war, just like the people banging the drums to throw Trump in prison, just like the people banging the drums to delegitimize the deplorable, irredeemable half of Americans who are not liberal.
Those people have a highly polemicized view of history.
They're going to justify it by history.
But it doesn't mean their history is correct.
Even this phrase, liberal democracy, we're a liberal democracy, that's a term that basically no one ever used until the 1930s.
It didn't at all become even slightly popular until the 40s.
It didn't take off until the 1980s, okay?
None of our founding fathers considered us a liberal democracy.
None of the statesmen who built our country up until the middle of the 20th century called us a liberal democracy.
Now we're told that's what it is, and that colors the way that we behave and the way we treat our government.
These things are greatly subject to change, and there are going to be people in the future who make fun of us for believing what we do now about history and government.
Now, speaking of local government, a Rhode Island school board has just made an audacious claim that would make all of our founding fathers roll over in their graves, which is that parents should not be notified of their children's sexual behavior in schools.
I don't think parents should be notified simply because society assumes that every child has a well-meaning family culture that is accepting of this.
Sometimes the worst thing you can do is involve a parent in some of these issues based on their own beliefs and their own culture.
Put a pause right there.
Sometimes the worst thing you can do is involve a parent in some of these decisions based on that parent's own belief and culture.
So she's speaking very vaguely here.
She doesn't quite express that she's talking about LGBTQ issues until a little bit later.
But that view is very, very popular among the liberals.
And it's at least an admission that there's a difference between the culture of the public school.
Culture meaning like to cultivate, like how your kid is going to be raised.
There's a difference between that culture and the culture that many parents have at home.
There's a big difference between the beliefs being pushed In public schools, where your children are being indoctrinated by these beliefs, and the beliefs held by those kids' families.
There's a big difference here, and when a conflict arises, they're going to go with their own beliefs, and they're going to override the beliefs of parents.
Keep going.
We'll cause that student to commit suicide.
And there it is.
Put a pause right there again.
This is the second thing we hear, especially in the transgender debate.
We hear, if you don't side with the liberals, If you don't suppress the conservative beliefs, the traditional beliefs, your kid's going to kill himself.
The worst kind of emotional manipulation I've ever heard, but it's effective.
Even me, I'm pretty immune to this.
God forbid I ever heard this from a teacher or something.
I don't think I would for reasons that we'll get to in just a moment.
But if I did, that would scare the daylights out of me.
I would have to take a bite and say, am I totally wrong?
Should I totally cave in my beliefs?
You've threatened me with the scariest thing I can imagine.
And that's what they do.
They say, yes, you gotta side with us.
You can't ever side with the parents.
If you side with the parents, you're gonna kill a kid.
Keep going.
If you tell a student who's trusted you, who has come out to say that I'm lesbian, and you now go back and tell the parent that child has no faith in that school system ever again and will never come forward with any information, And his second recommendation, or the third recommendation... Put a pause.
This is a little subtle point, but she says, and if that student says she's a lesbian.
But that's not really what we're talking about here, is it?
When we talk about LGBTQ, LMNOP, we're not talking about the 16-year-old girl who, you know, kisses a girl at a party after Truth and Dare and thinks she's a lesbian for three days.
No, that's the most anodyne version of it, which is why this is what this manipulative liberal woman is doing.
She won't say what we're really talking about, which is homosexual men who engage in far riskier behaviors than lesbians.
And we won't talk about the real thing that everyone's talking about, which is transgenderism.
A kid who wants to mutilate himself, castrate himself, chop off his body parts, sterilize himself, give himself bone diseases, give himself a 40% chance of suicidality and anxiety and depression, and likely reduces life expectancy either because of suicide or just because of the diseases that come about from taking these powerful drugs to pretend to be the opposite sex.
She doesn't talk about that.
She knows those things are far riskier.
Certainly transgenderism.
Far scarier.
So she says, oh, it's just some girl wants to be a lesbian that week or something.
The fact that that's the example she uses tells you she realizes just how controversial what she's saying should be.
Keep going.
Or where is it here that they should have documentation from their parent or their physician or their guidance counselor?
I can tell you for a fact, as a medical provider, I would never have provided that documentation to the school because it does appear that, you know, you're segregating out this child and you're trying to say that this is a disability.
This is who they are.
And this is not like to set up even an IEP for them or anything.
You're now saying that what you're doing has a stigma to it and it's wrong.
Put a pause there.
You're saying that if you're a man who thinks he's a woman that there's something wrong about that.
Yes, that's true.
That's what virtually everyone for all of history has thought because it is wrong because it's not true and it's not normal and it's not conducive to human flourishing.
Yeah, you can't do that!
How dare you do that?
Well, I don't know, because I have a reason, and I hope that, as an educator, I hope that the children will flourish in my school.
And yeah, you can't!
How dare you?
You've got to encourage them to trans themselves.
Well, that's also, isn't that also a moral judgment that carries?
Yeah, but it's mine, and my moral judgment's right, even though it's contradicted by, you know, all of ethics and philosophy and anthropology and all of history.
But it's still, but mine's right and yours is wrong.
Look at what the disabled students go through for normalization.
These kids are normal.
This is just who they are.
This is who they are?
I mean, that's just the way it is.
Okay, I've heard enough.
Enough of this woman.
I don't think I can take any more of this early in the morning.
This is who they are.
That's one claim.
You look at a boy, the boy says he's a girl, and you say that's who he is.
He's a girl.
So says you.
There's no evidence of that.
And what if you're wrong?
As you are, lady.
You've ruined a kid's life.
You've ruined that kid's life.
And you have, ironically, you say, the reason you have to do this is so they don't kill themselves.
You have statistically greatly increased their risk of all sorts of harms and injuries on every front.
You have not ameliorated a single thing.
And also, even beyond the kind of consequentialist views here, calculus, it's just not true.
It's obviously not true.
When you send your kids to a public school today, you are signing that kid up for the possibility of having his genitals chopped off.
Simple as.
Not being hyperbolic, not being provocative, just for the sake of doing so.
That's what they think.
That's what the liberal schools think.
That's what the broader liberal culture thinks.
That's what the federal government thinks, is that that's just who they are.
If he's a boy and he thinks he's a girl, that's just who he is.
And the schools and the government institutions have a right and a responsibility to keep that information from the parents, to hide this information from the parents, and to encourage the kids to harm themselves.
That's what they're all saying out in public.
You can't say you weren't warned.
And we all saw this during COVID, too.
That's what it means today.
Maybe you went to public school.
I went to public school.
Doesn't mean what it used to mean.
That's what it means today.
They're telling you that risk.
When they tell you who they are, you got to believe them.
