Ep. 1422 - Lib Praises The SATANIC Temple On Senate Floor
Democrat Senator extols the virtue of Satanism on the floor of AZ State Senate, a Missouri Secretary of State candidate vows to burn LGBT books, and Disney considers a black woman to replace Johnny Depp in next Pirates of the Caribbean.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1422
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3lfVtwK
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, kids entertainment and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Knowles
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
You know how sometimes we conservatives get a little blunt with our rhetoric?
And we just come right out and say that the liberals and the Democrats promote evil.
And then the liberals and the Democrats deny it.
And then the squish Republicans say that we're being hyperbolic and engaging in irresponsible, inflammatory rhetoric.
And that our opponents don't promote evil, they just have a difference of opinion and blah, blah, blah.
So yesterday, Democrat Senator Juan Mendez extolled the virtues of Satanism in the Arizona state capitol.
Members, I would like to introduce a group of Arizonans, some from my district, but they have membership all across the state.
They are here today to confront the arbitrary, tyrannical authority of religious persecution that's scheduled for government committee later on today.
Today, members, I want to introduce you to members.
We are graced with the presence of ministers and members of the Satanic Temple of Arizona.
Please stand today.
They're at the Capitol today to fight for the rights of their more than 12,000 members of their denomination and the rights of free speech and free exercise of all Arizonans.
The temple practices non-theistic satanism divorced from superstition without any belief in gods or devils.
They practice the religious values of compassion, justice, bodily autonomy, free speech, science, humility, and noble action.
As an organized religion, they actively do outreach and community service and participate in public affairs where the issues might benefit from their rational satanic insights.
The mission of the Satanic Temple is to encourage belovedness and empathy among all people.
Of course he's wearing a mask.
The public, according to Senator Mendez, might benefit from their rational, satanic insights and, quote, their courage and their benevolence, whatever that is.
I think he was trying to say benevolence, which means goodwill.
Which is a strange trait to attribute to the father of lies who fell like lightning from heaven to devour us all and torture us forever in an eternal pit of despair.
Now, I obviously have a different view from Senator Mendez and the rest of the liberals.
It seems to me that you actually don't have to hand it to Satan.
Ever.
Under any circumstances.
Seems to me that if your ideology leads you to worshiping the devil, then you've probably taken a wrong turn somewhere in your logic.
But I know what Senator Mendez would say.
He would say what the Satanists say.
He was reading from their press release, which says that they don't actually worship Satan.
It's all just ironic.
They really just worship humanity.
They worship the self.
Because they don't believe in anything higher than the self.
I know that's what they say.
What they don't realize is John Milton said that too in Paradise Lost.
They don't realize that the serpent said that too in the Garden of Eden when he tempted Eve by promising, ye shall be as gods.
What these supposedly ironic Satanists are doing, to the applause of liberal politicians, is precisely what Satanism has always been about.
Liberalism and Satanism ultimately come down to the same thing.
Idolatry of the self.
When conservatives have pointed that out, we've been called hyperbolists and kooks.
Now the liberals are admitting it themselves.
And when people show you explicitly and emphatically who they are, it is usually prudent to believe them.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show, Doug.
Disney reportedly wants to replace Johnny Depp with a black woman, of course, in Pirates of the Caribbean.
We'll get to that in a moment.
First, though, on the topic of left-wing politicians, and black people and white people, I guess, Julius Malema in South Africa is poised to take a lot of seats in the South African Parliament.
He is the leader of what was once the third largest party in the South African Parliament, but now it looks like it's making some pretty big gains.
For those of you who are not familiar with Julius Malema, he is most famous for calling for the genocide of white people in South Africa.
You must never be scared to kill A revolution demands that at some point there must be killing, because the killing is part of a revolutionary act.
I don't know what's going to happen in the future.
I'm saying to you, we've not called for the killing of white people, at least for now.
I can't guarantee the future.
Yeah, but, I mean, you'd understand somebody watching that, especially as it gets shared on Twitter, they freak out.
It sounds like a genocidal call.
Ah, crybabies.
Crybaby.
I'm not calling for the slaughter of white people.
At least for now.
I can't give you a guarantee of the future.
Especially when things are going the way they are.
Subtext.
Especially if things are going the way they are.
There will be a revolution in this country, I can tell you now.
And then we will kill all the white people.
It's not even subtext.
It's just text.
He's saying, never be afraid of killing the white people.
There's a famous chant that Malema leads, which is, kill the boa, shoot to kill, kill the farmer.
So, that's what they want to do.
They want to kill the white people, and right now the ANC, the leading party there, is losing its majority according to a recent poll, and you're seeing major gains for the EFF, which is the party that that guy leads.
You're not allowed to say that.
Because we're told even the very term white genocide, the thing that that guy is explicitly calling for, that's a crazy conspiracy theory and you're not allowed to talk about it, right?
If you use that phrase on social media, if you mention it in the news, you're called a crazy conspiracy theorist, even though it's the sort of thing that that guy is directly calling for.
Maybe not yet, but he also is calling for it yet, right?
He's also saying, don't be afraid to kill these people.
Which shows you that not only According to our modern culture, can you not be racist against white people?
Apparently, you can't even commit genocide against them, even if you kill them all.
There are 4 million white people in South Africa, and there have been increasing attacks on them in recent years, and raids on white farmers, and murders of white farmers and their families.
And you're not allowed to mention it.
You're suspected of being a kind of a racist if you ever even mention that.
You can't.
You can't.
The reason you can't be racist against white people is because racism is the sort of thing white people do.
That's how they define it.
Racism is a relatively new term, and the way that the libs get to control it is they just define it as saying, well, it's the sort of thing that white people can't be.
Or the sort of thing that you can't be against white people, rather.
The sort of thing that only white people can be.
Same thing with genocide.
Genocide is a relatively new term.
The term genocide only cropped up after the Second World War, and it was used to refer specifically to Hitler's attacks on the Jews.
So that was the original context.
It's been broadened out somewhat.
But it remains the case, according to our leading genius experts, that you can't commit a genocide against white people.
It's not possible.
And the abstract, really academic intellectual reasons for this are the same sort of thing we hear all the time.
White people have no culture, white people are not a real race, white people are a historical novelty, white people have all the power, white people this, white people that, white people this.
But the end result is the same.
It's not merely that.
White people will be discriminated against by law in certain countries, including in our own country, by the way, as long as affirmative action was on the books.
It's not merely that white people will be discriminated against by the culture and encouraged to be discriminated against by the culture, as is the case in many countries, including our own.
It's that a major country, South Africa is not just some far-flung, you know, backwater.
South Africa is a major country, can call for the genocide of white people.
And you won't really be able to say boo about it.
You certainly won't get an audience.
More to say in just a moment.
First though, right now go to preborn.com slash Knowles.
Every day, Preborns Network clinics rescue 200 unborn babies.
By introducing a mother to her child via ultrasound, a baby's chance of survival could double.
I met someone and I got pregnant and I wasn't ready.
When I was at the clinic, after they told me how far along I was and that the baby had a heartbeat, I cried.
And they gave me a minute by myself in the room.
I broke down and I prayed to God.
I asked the Lord to, when I walk out of those doors, to just give me the strength to be able to go through the pregnancy.
I made my decision at that time.
Treasure I chose because I know that she was a gift from God and she's just gonna be a treasure.
I'm super grateful that I'm able to go down this journey with my daughter and I'm just super glad that I didn't have an abortion.
One ultrasound is just $28.
$140 will offer five babies a chance at life.
Just dial pound 250, say keyword baby, pound 250, keyword baby, or donate securely at preborn.com slash NOLS, preborn.com slash K-N-W-L-E-S.
Speaking of interracial dialogue.
My favorite clip that has gone around since Ice Spice's new song, so I guess it's only been in the last 24 hours, my favorite clip in any case that has been going around the internet is care of a woman named Suki Hana and another woman named Bobby Althoff, who is a young podcaster, I take it, and they were
Really almost coming to blows over the host's suggestion that the musician is a good musician.
What do you know?
That you're a musician.
But that's why I'm interviewing you today, so I can get to know you.
So I'm a musician.
What the f**k that mean?
Make magic or something?
What is musician?
I think that's... I think you're confusing that.
Yeah, I'm not no musician.
I make music.
I make music.
And that's not all I do.
I make music.
I act.
I'm a TV star too.
A young mogul.
Just really quick, I think you're confusing... I'm not confusing nothing because you don't know.
You thought that all I was was a magician or whatever the f**k you said.
See, that's what I think you think I said.
I said musician, not magician.
I don't think, baby.
I don't think.
What is that?
That's ghetto.
I don't think.
I know.
Think.
I didn't say magician, Suki.
I said musician.
And I think you are a musician.
No, baby.
I do music.
Just really quick, for the record, could you say you don't think you're a musician?
I'm not none of that.
But then after that, you just said, I do music.
Yeah, I do music.
So, in other words, you're a musician.
No, I'm not.
Okay.
Who's on first?
Who's on second?
No, who's on first?
I don't know, third base, that's what this is.
This is obviously a bit.
Some people were sharing this as though this were a sincere miscommunication.
It's obviously a bit.
And it's a very funny bit.
It's a version, in a way, of like an old Abbott and Costello routine.
But it's also, and this is more to the cultural point here, the specific kind of bit this is, is a minstrel act.
And we live at a time where we're erasing all sorts of characters and all sorts of shows and forms of art and jokes because they're supposedly racist.
And they're supposedly racist because they come from minstrelsy.
We got rid of Aunt Jemima from the pancake syrup bottle because it was supposedly so racist deriving from the minstrel tradition.
And it does, the Aunt Jemima character does come from the minstrel tradition.
The irony of it is that The Aunt Jemima character was created by a black writer named Billy Kersanz, who is one of the most famous minstrel performers in history, but we're not allowed to do that.
Now, anytime a woman puts a little too much concealer on for Halloween, we're all trying to figure out if she put on blackface and to see if we can cancel her.
Because you've got to get rid of minstrelsy.
But this is a minstrel act, and everyone's laughing at it right now.
Because they refused to acknowledge that.
Just like the Tracy Morgan character in 30 Rock.
It was a funny bit, but it was a minstrel bit.
The joke of it was, he's a caricature of black culture and he seems kind of dumb and, you know, he seems silly and frivolous.
And it's kind of funny.
It's funny, you know, to make fun of any kind of a culture.
But we're told, intellectually today, you're not in any way allowed to make fun of black people.
Except we do it.
It's not us.
A bunch of libs made 30 Rock.
I am quite certain that Suki and this host, Bobby Althoff, are not right-wing conservatives.
They're probably not Trump supporters, right?
Even the sitcoms of the 1970s, great shows.
The Jeffersons, Good Times, all those Norman Lear shows.
They were kind of minstrel shows.
So all of this to say, it's not that I'm defending minstrelsy or whatever.
I'm not defending Sukihana or any of these people.
My point is more an historical point.
We look back and we throw stones at all of our forebears and how racist our grandparents were and how evil and rotten and terrible everyone was who ever came before us.
We are doing the exact same things.
And in many cases, what we are doing today is much worse.
Take the theatrical tradition and comedy bits aside for a second.
We like to look back on history and say, can you believe that for two or three hundred years in America, we tolerated a particularly egregious form of slavery?
Yeah, man, that's terrible.
You know, we kill 800,000 babies a year now.
You know that, right?
No, no, no, that's good, Michael.
That's autonomy.
That's freedom.
Yeah, I'm just saying, in the future, maybe people will look kind of negatively on that.
Seems a little crazy to me.
Everyone's going to be laughing at this bit.
But when we look back in history, people do the same kind of things.
These same themes that recur throughout history.
It's bad when they do it.
It's fine when we do it.
It's very bad when they do it.
Speaking of putting on an act, Nearly half of trans-identifying people in the United States say that they have considered moving out of state because of the new anti-trans laws.
Here's how the story goes.
I think I'm actually somewhat involved in this story.
The story goes that a year ago at the Conservative Political Action Summit, CPAC, An awful, terrible, genocidal maniac named Michael Knowles came out and said that for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.
And then what happened?
The crowd cheered.
And then, this is even worse, do you know what happened?
Conservative lawmakers started passing laws against The transgender ideology.
And then do you know what happened?
That other evil man, Matt Walsh, he held a rally to stop child mutilation.
And you know what happened then?
Even more laws got passed.
And then there's a genocide taking place.
Not the real genocide that's about to take place in South Africa.
No, no, no.
There's a genocide because some mean old conservative said that big husky dudes shouldn't go into the girls changing room at the public pool.
And that is why Nearly half of U.S.
trans-identifying individuals have considered moving out of state.
They don't, of course.
According to this survey, and I bet this is an overestimation, 5% of respondents, around 5% of respondents, have said that they have moved because of anti-LGBT legislation.
I think that number is probably way, way high.
But even if we take their number, that means that 95% of people are just, they're just kidding.
It's like the celebs who threaten to move to Canada if a Republican gets elected president.
And to them, it's a threat.
To us, it's a promise.
We say, hey, you got to keep your promise, Barbara Streisand.
Come on.
You promised me that if Trump got elected, you would leave.
But then you didn't leave.
You never leave.
They never do it.
But they want to.
They feel uncomfortable in their states.
Yes, of course.
The trans-identifying people feel uncomfortable in their states.
These are people who feel uncomfortable in their bodies.
Of course they're going to feel uncomfortable in their families, in their communities, in their states, and in their country.
Of course.
The thing is, though, for these people, moving out of state is not going to fix anything.
I'm glad most of them don't move out of state because it would be totally pointless.
Virtually all of them don't move out of state.
It would be pointless because of a line that a buddy of mine who goes to AA, Told me, and I really like this line.
The line is, wherever you go, there you are.
Wherever you go, there you are.
The problem for the trans-identifying people is not that some mean old Republican lawmaker won't let them go into the girls' bathroom.
The problem for the trans-identifying individual is that his desires and sometimes perception, but usually they actually perceive reality well enough, it's just that they have a disordered desire and they're angry at reality because it doesn't conform to their fantasies.
The problem is inside, okay?
The call's coming from inside the house, okay?
And so, sure, they can move to Portland, Oregon, they can move to some super lib place, but there's still gonna be dudes who wish they were chicks, and there's no, you can't move somewhere to fix that.
You can't even have a surgery to fix that.
That's why the trans procedures, the hormones, and even the surgeries don't fix the problem.
That's why when you look at the largest data set on this, Which came out of the UK about a year ago.
Anxiety, depression, suicidality, none of those diminish with the transgender affirming care.
And in the case of anxiety, it goes up a little higher.
That's why the suicide rates don't really change.
That's why transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely, because it doesn't help anybody.
It actually only makes the problem worse.
And on that point, CPAC just announced yesterday some news that I've known for a while, which is that I will be speaking there again this year.
Can't wait.
Should be a lot of fun.
I think CPAC is, it's the end of this month.
I want to say it's the 21st through the 24th.
So if you are in town, I look forward to seeing you there.
And I look forward to whatever calumny the liberal press wants to throw at me.
Speaking of transgenderism, there's a Missouri Secretary of State candidate who is She's got maybe the greatest campaign ad of the year.
Her campaign ad consists in lighting LGBT books that are put in front of little kids on fire.
This is what I will do to the growing books when I become Secretary of State.
Now hold on, hold on a second.
I have a question about this ad.
These books from Missouri Public Library.
When I'm in office, they will burn.
Now, hold on, hold on a second.
I have a question about this ad.
And my question is, what is the maximum donation allowed by law that one can make to a Missouri Secretary of State candidate?
That's my only question, actually.
What an ad.
What an ad.
Valentina Gomez, a woman on a mission.
When I'm in office, these books will burn!
Now, I know book bans and book burning, they get a bad rap these days.
Virtually every serious thinker for all of history has supported some degree of book banning or censorship, and many of them supported book burning.
Going back to, I don't know, like Plato, the Apostles, the great geniuses of the Middle Ages, the Scholastics, even people who are not exactly on my side of viewing things, you know, I think like Martin Luther, you know, not my main man, but that guy burned books, that, you know, you get This recurs throughout history, okay?
And we have plenty of book bans today.
What's funny is that the libs pretend, they always have these lists of the most banned books, and it's always like To Kill a Mockingbird or something, one of the best-selling novels ever that every school child reads by the time he's 12.
That's not a banned book.
There are legitimately banned books.
Go, like, some Holocaust-denying historian.
That's a ban.
Go try to buy one of those books.
You're not going to find that anywhere.
And I'm not arguing that certain books shouldn't be banned.
It's the Libs who are saying that certain books shouldn't be banned.
But they're the ones who ban all the books.
Forget about books that most people would object to.
Even just get down to the one book you're not allowed to teach in schools.
The Bible.
That's the book.
The Libs support that book ban.
They would probably burn it if they had the chance.
But they're going to get on this woman.
They'll say, she's a threat.
She's an authoritarian.
She wants to censor.
That woman Compared to the liberal establishment, that woman is as open-minded as they come.
More to say in just a moment.
First though, right now go to WokeTearsWater.com.
Seems like wokeism is everywhere.
It's in the air we breathe, the news we watch, even in the water we drink.
That is why Woke Tears bottled water.
An American brand is on a mission to save America from the brave new woke world one sip at a time.
Woke Tears water is a legitimate brand of drinking water bottled right here in the U.S.
by people who know what a woman is.
Made from pure snowflake meltdowns, Woke Tears water is making hydration great again.
While everyone else's water is just water, Woke Tears provides a refreshing gulp of laughter in a world thirsty for sanity.
If you want to try Woke Tears Water, visit WokeTearsWater.com.
Indulge today in laughter and hydration.
Two of the most important things in your life.
Right now, go to WokeTearsWater.com today.
I love that this has clearly taken some inspiration from our famous Tumblr.
Great, great thing to be sipping around the office.
WokeTearsWater.com.
The Daily Wire is looking to add an experienced senior social media manager to our marketing team.
This unique position will provide leadership and guidance on various Daily Wire social media pages.
If you have over four years of experience managing social media teams, Apply now.
Don't miss out on this extraordinary opportunity to do brilliant work that matters.
Join us in shaping the future of conservative media as our senior social media manager.
If you're interested in joining our team, visit dailywire.com slash careers.
That is dailywire.com slash careers today.
Speaking of political donations...
Ronna McDaniel is reportedly out as the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
According to reports, Ronna McDaniel has told President Trump that she plans to step down shortly after the South Carolina primary on February 24th.
You'll remember there was a pretty bruising battle for the chairmanship of the RNC.
Everyone was convinced that Harmeet Dhillon The challenger was going to win this race.
I like Harmeet very much, have a lot of respect for her.
I didn't think that was going to happen.
I knew Ronna was going to get re-elected, and she did, but it looks as though now she might not even finish out her term.
Looks like she's fallen afoul of President Trump, or he just thinks that they need someone new.
So, reportedly, Trump wants to promote the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Michael Watley.
As her replacement, and Trump doesn't get to just pick the RNC chairman, even though Trump is effectively the leader of the Republican Party right now.
So there will be some kind of election, but probably what Trump wants will go.
A lot of people really, they hate Ronna McDaniel.
They blame her for Republican losses.
A lot of people think this is a major embarrassment for Ronna McDaniel that she's being pushed out.
My take on it is sort of just whatever.
Whatever.
I have an unpopular opinion here, I guess, which is I don't think the RNC actually matters all that much.
I don't really think the DNC matters all that much.
I don't think the party committees, I'm not saying they have no influence, but compared to candidates who are the real face of the party and who actually determine elections much more than party chairmen, compared to the candidates, compared to the political action committees, compared to the super PACs, I just don't think the RNC carries all that much weight.
Also, Ronna McDaniel's been in that office now for what, six, seven years?
That is two to almost four times longer than most people.
A lot of RNC chairmen, historically, serve for a couple years.
Some serve for only one year.
Some for a couple years, maybe you get to like four years.
But, but Ronald McDaniel's been in it for a long time and some of the elections have been disappointing, no doubt about it.
But I don't know, I just don't blame the party flax.
I kind of think it's a matter of, well, in certain cases, it might be a matter of rigging the election system and using COVID as the excuse.
But in other cases, it's the candidates.
And in other cases, it's the PACs and the super PACs, which actually fund the campaigns.
And in other cases, it's just the political mood.
So, Ronna, okay, she's out.
I'm not saying she should stay in the office, but I don't think it's quite such the big news that the Beltway elites want to pretend that it is.
Now, certain leadership in the party really does matter, especially when we're talking about leadership in the U.S.
Senate.
The Senate majority leader wields insane amount of power, not just in the Senate, but also from the leadership packs that will fund other candidates, pick other candidates around the country, really affect the outcome of races.
And Senator Cruz is now calling for the ouster of Senate Majority Leader Cocaine Mitch.
Everyone here also supported a leadership challenge to Mitch McConnell in November.
I think a Republican leader should actually lead this conference and should advance the priorities of Republicans.
And I stood up and said, look, in any ordinary organization, when you are faced with failure, if you're running a business, And you lose $50 million, you don't just say, hey, everything's great, let's keep doing it.
No, you sit down and say, what are we doing wrong?
And at that meeting, I turned to Mitch McConnell then, and I said, look, we spent the last two years with a group, a handful of Republicans, joining with Democrats to pass the Democrat agenda.
And I said, maybe that's a good idea.
I don't think it is, but someone could make the argument that's a good idea.
I love the way he says that.
Now, look, maybe there's someone out there.
I wouldn't make that argument because I'm intelligent and I have a vision for the party.
And Senator Cruz is obviously right.
As he is right about most things, by far the best Republican senator and one of the best Republicans that we've had in the country in my entire lifetime.
I'm not a total Mitch hater.
You know that.
I'm grateful to Senator McConnell for standing firm on the judges.
He really held firm when Justice Scalia died during the 2016 election.
He held firm he did not allow Barack Obama to replace Scalia, which meant that we got a conservative judge in his place, and then we got more conservative judges and then we overruled Rudy Wade.
So I'm far from a cocaine Mitch hater, but What this is about is this immigration bill that Mitch McConnell really tried to push, which would have been a complete concession on the border, would have opened the border even more.
It's completely unnecessary.
You don't need a legislative fix to the border crisis.
The border crisis is a result of the Biden administration refusing to enforce current federal law.
So it's just a complete, a complete miss.
And it's probably time for cocaine Mitch to go.
I think Senator Cruz is probably right here.
Probably need some new leadership.
And part of the reason that the conservatives have been angry at Mitch McConnell for many years now...
Part of the reason I think this leadership challenge could get a little bit more oomph right now is one, because Mitch recently betrayed the conservatives on a major issue, like the defining issue of the last 10 years, which is mass migration.
The defining issue for conservatives not only in America, but in Britain, in Italy, in Hungary, in France, in Germany, in like all over the West.
And McConnell totally tone deaf, and he hung Senator Jim Lankford out to dry on it.
He made him the face of it, but it was a deal obviously negotiated by McConnell and Schumer.
And the other reason why the leadership challenge would get some oomph right now is because Matt Gaetz has largely been vindicated on ousting Kevin McCarthy.
I wasn't a total McCarthy hater either.
I felt Kevin McCarthy was probably the most conservative Speaker of the House of my lifetime.
And yet, it's damning with faint praise.
The conservatives in the House felt that he had betrayed them.
They pushed him out.
They get this guy Mike Johnson instead, and Mike Johnson kills the stupid immigration bill.
Great.
Looks like a vindication for me.
Not only can the replacement of an establishment guy in leadership with a conservative, can it be good, but we've got evidence that it has turned out to be pretty good.
If I were Cocaine Mitch, I would seriously be considering stepping down.
Now, the guy that Mitch McConnell hung out to dry on this immigration bill, Jim Lankford from Oklahoma, I have a fair amount of pity for him.
He's trying to push this bill that nobody wants.
Well, Democrats and Squishes want it, but the conservatives don't want it.
He's getting absolutely eviscerated over it.
I've always kind of liked Jim Lankford.
I don't have anything against him, but this was a huge, huge miscalculation, and now Senator Lankford is playing victim.
Some of it may have policy differences.
Some of them have been very clear with me.
They have political differences with the bill.
They say it's the wrong time to solve the problem or let the presidential election solve this problem.
In fact, I had a popular commentator four weeks ago that I talked to that told me flat out Before they knew any of the contents of the bill.
Any of the content.
Nothing was out at that point.
That told me flat out, if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you.
Because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election.
By the way, they have been faithful to their promise.
And have done everything they can to destroy me in the past several weeks.
I don't know who the commentator is.
It wasn't me, actually.
But the commentator was right.
But the commentator was even more right than he lets on in the telling of Senator Lankford here.
The issue is not simply that we don't want to solve this problem in an election year.
We want to let the presidential election solve it.
That's a great way for the squishes in the establishment to frame the issue.
The issue is We don't stand to benefit at all from this bill.
There's no benefit.
Forget the political benefits or harms during an election year.
We know for a fact the Democrats are not negotiating in good faith.
We know for a fact they're not enforcing the current law, and they're saying, hey, since we're not enforcing the current law, we're going to force you to the table to pass a new law that maybe we'll enforce.
But there's no reason to believe they would enforce the new one either.
And the new law they want to pass would not reduce illegal immigration, it would increase it, almost certainly.
And it would not reduce migration broadly, which is what most Americans want, it would dramatically increase migration.
And it would give Democrats new voters, and it's just a complete disaster.
And so, as I said before, I generally like Jim Lankford, and I feel bad for him here.
I'm feeling less bad for him, and I'm liking him less the more he whines and cries and plays the victim here.
No, this isn't about those self-interested conservatives trying to win an election.
This is about your failure, your horrible political miscalculation to believe Mitch McConnell and the Democrats and to push a bill that would increase migration, which we don't want.
We have too many people coming into the country.
Call me crazy, I think 4 million foreigners a year coming into the country is a little much in a country of 330 million people.
And I think that when you have the largest movement of people ever in recorded history, over the last 60 years, into this country, it's a little much.
Maybe we can push the brakes a little bit.
I'm losing a lot of my sympathy for Jim Lankford here.
Just admit you screwed up, this is a stupid bill, and kill it.
And try to do better next time.
Well, I don't know.
Why are people being so mean?
Because you're pushing a horrible bill that none of us want, that would give Democrats probably a permanent electoral majority.
And everyone makes mistakes and we're willing to forgive you, but stop whining and man up and kill the bill.
Good grief.
Speaking of Republicans failing in Congress, Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Was about to be impeached by the Republicans until he wasn't.
The vote failed.
Final vote, 214 to impeach, 216 don't impeach.
This was after the House GOP Vice Chairman Blake Moore from Utah flipped to a don't impeach vote, though we shouldn't really blame him for that.
The only reason he did that Was to break a tie and then hope that they can bring this back up when another Republican is back, Steve Scalise, who was out for medical treatments.
Had Steve Scalise been there, probably the impeachment would have just barely passed.
Although, I don't know, maybe some squish would have flipped in that case too.
And then they would have, maybe we would have just once again gotten pretty close and then it doesn't work.
My question here is not Why didn't they schedule the vote for when Steve Scalise was in town so that we would have had the votes that we needed?
That's not even my issue.
My issue isn't, well, why don't they bring it up again next week?
I don't know.
Maybe they will bring it up again next week.
My question is this.
It goes back a little further.
Why did Republicans kick out George Santos?
Remember George Santos?
He's the kind of wacky, crazy, Republican from Long Island who apparently lied about everything in his past and was a financial fraudster and was a drag queen, I guess, and did all... He's like a weird guy, you know?
And maybe lied about even being a homosexual.
He's an odd duck.
I'm not telling you he's not.
Why did we kick him out?
We kicked him out because of how principled we are.
And we're so principled that now we only have a three vote majority in the Congress and we can't even impeach the worst Homeland Security Secretary in history who's flagrantly violating the law.
Because of how principled we are.
And what's the principle exactly?
George Santos lied about his ethnic heritage.
Oh wow, we've never seen that in the U.S.
Congress, right?
We don't have a woman whose nickname is Senator Liawatha.
Focahontas up there in the Senate?
No.
Well, George Santos was financially quite dodgy and fraudulent.
Oh, really?
Okay.
Are we going to kick out half of Congress then?
Well, Santos was sexually deviant.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
You're going to kick out the other half of Congress then?
Well, Congressman Santos was this, that, or the other thing.
I'm not defending him.
I wouldn't really like to vote for the guy.
I don't like him at all.
But why would you kick him out, you dummy Republicans?
You clutch defeat from the jaws of victory so often to impress liberals who hate you and who would never extend to you any such grace.
For nothing, for no end, not for the end of justice, not for the end of morality, certainly not for the end of political flourishing.
Pathetic.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Frank S111, who says, Joe Biden talking to Francois Mitterrand was just him talking to one of his millions of voters.
That's a good point.
Actually, you're right.
Francois Mitterrand was not able to vote for Democrats when he was the living president of France.
But now that he's dead, you're right.
Actually, I think he's registered in Pennsylvania.
Now, speaking of replacing people, Disney, they've heard you.
You know, Disney, they got a little blowback when they were caught on camera saying that they were pushing a not-so-secret gay agenda on your children.
Disney got a little bit of pushback when they replaced Snow White with this woman in a new Snow White story who, she emphatically, you know, isn't Snow White.
We, I call her sometimes like sand beige or something like that.
But that's not, that's by far the least silly part of her casting.
The silliest part of her casting is she hates the story.
And she says we don't want love, we don't want a Prince Charming, we don't want this, we don't want that.
It's obviously so woke, it was obviously DEI, it was obviously, you know, any kind of traditional Traditional is bad.
White is bad.
Men are bad, though in that case it's a female character being replaced by a female.
But now we've got a better opportunity for Disney.
They've heard you, so they're going to replace Johnny Depp with a black lady, according to reports.
The lady is Ayo Eddebiri.
I'm not familiar with her work.
She might be a fine actress, but one thing I can tell you is she's not The Johnny Depp character, because she's not a dude.
And this would be for Pirates of the Caribbean 6.
Her character is named Anne.
So, it's not an exact one-to-one of Captain Jack Sparrow.
It's this new character named Anne, and it might be based off a real-life pirate named Anne Bonny, who was Irish.
So, what Disney's pushing back, and they're saying, look, we want to replace all the white guys with black ladies in the name of DEI, even if it doesn't serve the story, even if it doesn't make sense.
But you, you racists and you sexists, you don't even understand.
This is based on a real character, and the real character is a woman.
Well, that's true, but the woman's Irish.
And I don't think this is what Black Irish means.
Have you ever heard that phrase Black Irish?
Black Irish is a term used among Irish Americans to explain why certain Irish people here have slightly darker features or dark hair or dark eyes, but it's totally made up.
The myth around Black Irish is that some Spaniards landed in Ireland some centuries ago, and that's why some of them look a little bit more Mediterranean.
But it doesn't appear to be backed up by any genetic analyses, so it's just a fake American kind of story.
And in any case, black Irish doesn't mean actual African people.
Now you might say, well Michael, who cares?
Any person of any race, or some would say of any sex, should be able to play any character.
I don't think that's true.
Some characters, I think the race doesn't really matter.
All characters, the sex usually matters.
But some, the race doesn't really matter.
But that view was not the view of August Wilson, the leader of the modern American black theater.
That wasn't the view of a whole lot of people in the history of theater.
And it isn't the view of audiences.
Like some... Sexes are different.
Cultures are different.
And every time that Disney does this, the movies are flops.
But they don't really care, they feel that they have hegemony, so they're gonna serve it up and doesn't matter.
Go see it, don't go see it.
The DEI leftist agenda continues apace.
Now speaking of women potentially replacing men, The Nevada presidential primary took place.
Most people didn't pay attention to it because the Republican primary is effectively over and Trump is the nominee.
But what was weird about Nevada is that Nevada had both a primary and a caucus.
So, in Nevada, it used to be that the nomination fight was settled in a caucus, and then in 2021, the legislature said, no, we're going to become a primary state, not a caucus state.
But the GOP didn't like this, so the GOP has held firm to the caucus.
They had a separate caucus, and they said that if you participate in the primary, you don't get to participate in the caucus.
So even before all the other candidates dropped out, most of them were going to participate in the caucus.
Nikki Haley was not.
Nikki Haley said, no, I'm going to be in the primary.
And so, as a result, Trump, who is the last remaining serious candidate in the primary, he was not in the Nevada Republican presidential primary.
He won the Nevada caucus, which is actually what's going to count toward the nomination, and Nikki Haley won the primary.
Well, no, she didn't.
She beat Mike Pence, who was still on the ballot, even though he dropped out.
She beat Tim Scott, who was still on the ballot, even though he dropped out.
She beat John Castro, who I've never heard of, even though he was still on the ballot.
But she lost.
To none of these candidates.
Nikki got about 33%, and none of these candidates got 60.4%.
None of these candidates got almost twice as many votes as Nikki Haley.
Not a good sign.
Now, Nikki did not really campaign in Nevada.
Obviously, she wasn't even taking the primary seriously.
That's why she wasn't in the caucus.
But it's embarrassing.
It's not a good headline cycle.
Now they're headed to South Carolina.
And the problem with South Carolina is Trump is currently leading Nikki by at least 20 points.
Depends which poll you look at, but maybe 30 points, maybe more.
That's her home state.
So as I've predicted for a while, Nikki is going to stay in this race.
And she said it.
She said, I'm not going anywhere.
Keep donating.
She's going to stay in this race to be the number two candidate, to be the clear number two once Trump gets the nomination.
And then in 2028, she'll be able to claim, look, I was the last choice.
If Trump loses, she can claim, hey, had you gone with me, maybe you would have won.
And even if Trump wins, he's going to be term-limited out.
So she can say, look, I was the number two choice then, and she can make a credible run in 2028.
And she can claim to represent the lane that she's picked, which is the more establishment, more centrist kind of lane in the GOP, which still represents a lot of voters.
And she can say, I've got appeal to independents, and I've got appeal to suburban moms, and all this kind of stuff.
But one thing that is certain, Is that she will not be the Republican nominee in 2024.
Now, another reason that Nikki Haley is running here is because one, she's a talented politician and she's managed to beat out all the other candidates in the field other than Trump.
And two, because Biden seems so beatable.
I think it was Peter Doocy who just asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre if she could maybe explain why Joe Biden thought that he had just met with the former president of France who died in 1996.
Here is KJP's answer.
And how is President Biden ever going to convince the three-quarters of voters who are worried about his physical and mental health that he is okay, even though in Las Vegas he told a story about recently talking to a French president who died in 1996?
I'm not even going to go down that rabbit hole with you, sir.
What is the rabbit hole?
He said he talked to Mitterrand.
Go ahead.
You saw the president in Vegas, in California.
You've seen the president in South Carolina.
You saw him in Michigan.
I'll just leave it there.
What?
Listen, I'm not even gonna answer your question, which is the best answer she could give.
There's no way to explain.
The honest answer is because Joe Biden's obviously in decline and he's doing that thing that your grandparents all did just before they died.
Which is they confused people, and they confused not just weeks and years, but they confused whole decades and epochs, and they forgot who's alive and who's dead.
That's the honest answer.
She can't say that.
She goes, I'm not even going to answer that question.
And then he goes, what are you talking about?
Your job is to answer the questions.
And the best she can muster is, look, you've seen the president, California, Alaska, Brazil, China.
I had eggs for breakfast this morning.
Look at my hand.
Is that a butterfly?
Gibbledy gobbledygook.
Okay, next question.
That's the best thing.
She's just gonna say words so that maybe if you put the TV on mute, it looks like she's answering the question, but her firm answer is, yeah, man, we got nothing.
We've got nothing as it pertains to a rational debate over Joe Biden's case for re-election.
We got nothing there.
The best they're going to hope for is that they can keep rigging the elections with losing voter ID, with promoting widespread mail-in ballots, and with encouraging ballot harvesting.
That's their only chance.
And maybe they think it's a good chance, and they don't think they have to answer to the people.
Okay, it's Theology Thursday, baby, and Professor Jacob I don't know why I keep giving him more and more rights and freedoms on this show.
He has insisted that we play a new game.
It's going to be a Bible verse game.
I don't know.
Listen, Professor Jacob, he was schooled by those Chabadniks over there, so I don't know Listen, I was not, you know, I was not, I was schooled, I had a semi-week catechesis, and then, so, I don't know, maybe he's gonna get me.
