Ep. 1437 - DANGEROUS: Rural White People Are Terrorist To The Libs
A new book claims that white rural rage is the greatest threat to democracy. Mitt Romney admits that all the money we're sending to Ukraine is not actually going to change the outcome of the war. And President Trump has a new nickname for Gavin Newsom. Check it out on the Michael Knowles Show.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1437
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Lady Ballers, the Most Triggering Movie in America here: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Knowles
Hillsdale College - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
New threat to democracy just dropped, according to the left.
Can you guess what it is?
If you've been paying attention to liberal politics for even five seconds over the last 60 or so years, this should be an easy one.
You got your guess?
You know the big threat to democracy?
All right, MSNBC, take it away.
Why are white rural voters a threat to democracy at this point?
You would think, as we pointed out, looking at Joe Biden's background and Donald Trump's, that the opposite would be true.
I mean, we lay out the fourfold interconnected threat that white rural voters pose to the country.
First of all, and we show 30 polls and national studies to demonstrate this.
We provide the receipts in Chapter 6.
They're the most racist, Xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, geodemographic group in the country.
Second, they're the most conspiracist group.
QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birtherism.
Third, anti-democratic sentiments.
They don't believe in an independent press, free speech.
They're most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally without any checks from Congress or the courts or the bureaucracy.
They're also the most strongly white nationalists and white Christian nationalists.
And fourth, they are most likely to excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse.
So you mentioned a lot of negative factors about this demographic.
A lot of negative factors, basically none of them true.
They're the most science denying people.
What are you talking about?
The liberals believe that men can become women.
Science, it's the white rural voters or the science deniers.
They're the most in favor of censorship.
The Biden White House is working, and frankly, even the liberal Washington bureaucracy before Joe Biden gets in, is working with the liberal big tech companies to censor who?
Censor the liberals?
No, to censor the white rural voters.
Are you kidding me?
Nobody seriously believes that white rural voters pose the gravest threat of violence.
According to every statistic we've got, whites are significantly less likely than blacks and Hispanics to commit violent crime.
And cities are twice as violent as rural areas, not just in the aggregate, but per capita.
So when we're talking about white rural voters, we're talking about Pretty much, not quite, but almost the least violent group in the country.
They're certainly not the most racist.
They're the least racist.
Pew Research has shown for years now that whites have virtually no racial consciousness whatsoever.
Unlike every other race.
Every other race which has rates of racial consciousness anywhere from 3 to almost 5 times that of whites.
Homophobic?
What a ridiculous word!
And again, not true.
Whites are far and away the most accepting group when it comes to light loafers.
Hispanics, and especially blacks, are significantly less likely to be down with the Friends of Dorothy than the whites are.
It's not even close.
But all of that, actually, is beside the point.
Even if the claims that these guys are making were true, how would that threaten democracy?
Homophobia threatens democracy?
When did that happen?
Nationalism threatens democracy?
Of course not!
Democracy just means government by the people.
Nationalism, ironically, is a prerequisite for democracy.
But, if it wasn't clear before, the liberals are not worried about any threat to democracy.
They're worried about the threat that is coming at them from democracy.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
President Trump has a new nickname for Gavin Newsom.
It's a good one.
We'll get to it.
I'm very excited about it.
First, though, what you need to get is your smells and bells candle.
This candle A Lenten-specific candle, right?
Nice smells and bells, make your home smell like a 12th century monastery or something like that.
This is now about to become the biggest candle in The Daily Wire shop.
Do you know the candle we've got to beat out is my other candle, the Pumpkin Spice candle.
But Pumpkin Spice, you know I love it.
It's a seasonal scent, a seasonal taste.
Smells and Bells, get it right now.
It smells absolutely magnificent.
It's got this nice wood wick.
It's really good.
Dailywire.com slash shop.
Today, get them before they sell out.
I think they're probably going to sell out very quickly, just like our Mayflower cigars.
More things to burn and to smell.
The biggest immediate democratic threat to the liberals is Donald Trump.
Once again, Trump is not a threat to democracy.
Donald Trump is a threat of democracy, to them.
And they admit this.
They say, oh no, Trump is leading in the polls.
Most voters want to vote for Trump.
That's a threat to democracy.
Most voters doing anything can't be a threat to democracy because democracy simply means government by the people.
So what they're really talking about is liberalism, of course.
And Trump is probably the biggest threat to their version of liberalism, secular, globalist liberalism in my lifetime.
And he's really coming at them pretty strong.
So they're trying to shut him down.
How are they trying to shut him down?
They're trying to bankrupt him.
They're trying to put him into prison.
They're prosecuting him on four fronts.
And they're prosecuting him at the local level.
They're prosecuting him at the federal level.
But they just had a setback, The Supreme Court has agreed to hear President Trump's request to decide whether or not he is immune from prosecution on charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
So President Trump is being accused of trying to overturn the results of the election.
He didn't exactly do that.
He was questioning an election that was obviously rigged, and they're trying to jail him for that.
Well, what do we do?
He's running for president again.
He's ostensibly the Republican nominee.
He elevates this up to the Supreme Court.
The court will consider, quote, whether and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?
Now, this is actually a very important question.
Whether you love Trump or hate Trump or you care about the 2024 election or not, this is a very important question because in banana republics and tin pot dictatorships, when a party falls out of power, their opponents who come into power prosecute the ousted party.
That's what happens in a lot of unstable regimes.
In our country, we don't do that.
That's just not the sort of thing we do.
We certainly don't prosecute people for things that they did while they were in office, official acts as President of the United States.
And we don't do that, not because sometimes presidents don't get a little bit loose with the law.
Barack Obama certainly did.
He behaved in a way that was not only illegal, weaponizing the government against his enemies, but unconstitutional in the case of the executive amnesty.
We don't even really do it with Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton perjured himself as President of the United States.
It's a very serious crime.
He was impeached when he was president, but we didn't go after, try to throw him in prison after he left office.
Clintons have done many, many shady things that were pretty clearly criminal over the years.
We just don't do it, and we don't do it not because we like the Clintons, not because we like Obama, not because we like Trump, but because that would pose a grave threat to the integrity of the office of the President and to the way that our government functions.
So, the Court has decided that oral arguments will begin the week of April 22nd, and the Court has instructed the Appellate Court to keep Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against the President, against President Trump, paused until the Supreme Court Reaches a decision, obviously, because the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not Trump has immunity.
That's the bedrock of the entire Jack Smith investigation into Trump, the whole federal Joe Biden, DOJ-led investigation into Biden's top political rival.
Why is the court hearing this?
Because they have to, of course.
I mean, if the Supreme Court doesn't hear a question like this, what are they supposed to hear?
What are they supposed to decide?
We have Co-equal branches of government, for this reason, have checks and balances, to have a separation of powers, and to resolve questions for which there is no immediately clear answer.
So it's not going to be an appellate court that does that.
It's not going to be a district court that does that.
It's going to be the Supreme Court of the United States.
The liberals are furious over this.
The gals over at The View are suggesting, as the libs always do, this is the end of democracy!
They're listening to these arguments in April.
The end of their term is in June, right?
They return again, I believe, in October.
The Bush v. Gore case happened real quick.
Do you remember that?
The Supreme Court knows how to work real fast.
That was the day democracy died.
Well, it was certainly an injustice to many people.
So I guess that's a relief that democracy already died 20 years ago, 24 years ago, so we don't need to worry about democracy dying again.
But it wasn't the day democracy died, and it wasn't an injustice at all.
And most libs who bring up Bush v. Gore as a way to attack the credibility of the Supreme Court No, absolutely nothing about that case.
The irony of Joy Behar saying, the Bush v. Gore case the day democracy died, the Bush v. Gore decision upheld democracy by saying that the vote, which was clear enough, it was a close election in Florida, but it was clear enough, and there were recounts, and it stands.
The guy the people elected gets to be the president.
And when the libs tell you, That this is an outrage to democracy because it was a 5-4 decision, and it was the five conservative judges who ruled for Bush, and it was the four liberal judges who ruled for Gore.
That isn't even true.
There were two decisions that came out.
One, over the substance of the case, over the Equal Protection Clause, over how the election was conducted.
And two, a remedy for what to do because the supposedly greatest democracy in the world couldn't conduct a presidential election.
On the more substantive matter, The decision was 7 to 2.
So you had two liberals coming over and siding with the conservatives.
It was only on the remedy.
What do we do now?
Do we drag out this recount even further and stop the President of the United States, who obviously won the election, from taking office when he's supposed to?
We can't even have the peaceful transfer of power in the United States?
Are we going to do that?
Or are we just going to cut to the chase and uphold what everyone has found already, which is that Bush won the election?
Well, that was very bad, though, because the people elected Bush, and the people had to be wrong.
They had to be wrong.
Even though, I guess, technically, you know, that was an expression of democracy, it can't be.
Because for the liberals, democracy, if the people are operating in a rational way, they always have to vote for the liberals.
So any time that the people oppose the liberals, any time the people vote for the conservatives, in the liberals' minds, it has to be an attack on democracy.
Somehow, either because you've suppressed a vote or you've brainwashed people or you've put them under a false consciousness where they're voting against their own interests or whatever they're going to call it.
It can't ever be legitimate for people to vote for the conservatives and to vote against the liberals because the glories of liberal government are just so clear that if they don't win, something had to go wrong.
The election had to be.
In the face of all evidence, it had to be illegitimate.
There's much more to say.
First, though, go to TNUSA.com slash Knowles.
Are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns this year?
In these challenging times, your best defense is to use Tax Network USA, along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers.
The IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay-up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed.
These guys are not your friends.
Don't waive your rights and speak with these agents independently without backup.
Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved over $1 billion in back taxes for their clients, and they can help you secure the best deal possible.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help.
Whether it's business or personal taxes, whether you have the means to pay or are on a fixed income, Tax Network can help resolve your tax burdens once and for all.
Seize control of your financial future now.
Don't let tax issues overpower you.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance.
Call 1-800-245-6000 or visit tnusa.com slash knolts, K-N-O-W-L-A-S.
Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind That is TNUSA.com slash Knowles.
Speaking of democratically elected leaders, Mr. Javier Mille, the new leader of Argentina, the arch-libertarian who got elected.
He's sort of a populist.
He's got kind of crazy hair and many American right-wingers find him eccentric and delightful.
He has just done something that I'm really happy about.
Javier Millet in Argentina has banned trans language in government.
And you might say, of all the things that matter, you know, he's got to fix the economy, he's got to give greater representation to the people, he's got to restore some traditional norms.
Why does this matter?
Well, first of all, this is a traditional norm that he has to reassert.
And also, I was a little skeptical of Millet.
You know I love the leader of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, who I was supposed to meet a week ago and then I had to fly out too early and I missed him.
He's really great.
Why do I like him?
Because he's doing good things and he's stopping bad things.
He turned his country from the most crime-ridden country in the world into the safest country in the Western Hemisphere.
And he did it by exercising power in a just and moral and effective way.
Really like him.
Daniel Naboa in Ecuador, I think he's doing a very good job.
He's going about three quarters of the way to the Bukele option.
But he's rounding up the gangsters.
He's doing a good job.
Javier Millet, I was a little skeptical of because he's not a rock-ribbed conservative exactly.
He's a libertarian.
And there's a lot of overlap, but there's a lot of places where the libertarians and the conservatives disagree.
But this decision, On this trans language in government.
That's not a libertarian decision.
That's not a you-do-you-do-whatever-you-want-who-am-I-to-judge-we-can-just-get-the-government-out-of-it-we-just-we-I-can't-say-what-a-man-or-a-woman-is-and-let-anyone-use-whatever-bathroom-they-want.
It's not that kind of decision.
This is conservative.
This is what the libs call authoritarian.
It's not authoritarian, it's just normal, but that's what they call it.
Argentina announces That they're going to ban this leftist inclusive language across all public administration offices and documents.
Everything related to the gender-based perspective, end quote, will be banned throughout the administration.
This is really, really great news.
They're going to ban, they're going to proceed to initiate the proceedings to ban inclusive language and everything related to that.
And we all know the details.
This is the sort of thing that conservatives have wanted for a long time and that ordinary people want for a long time.
I mention the story not because Argentina matters all that much to American politics, but because Even the libertarians know that the trans thing is totally nuts.
It's nuts.
Nobody wants it.
It's crazy.
There's no right to it.
It's not good for anybody.
It's especially not good for the people who are chopping their genitals off and pretending to be the opposite sex.
This issue is a total winner for conservatives.
When I came out and did my CPAC speech about how the ideology is terrible for everyone and should be eradicated from public life entirely, like it was until six, seven years ago, When I said that there were a lot of squishes who said, we can't have this kind of language.
This is going to scare off the independent, moderate voters.
No, this is a total winner.
Everyone agrees with this.
Everybody agrees with this.
Who has two functioning brain cells and who isn't totally deluded and perverted by our crazy, irrational culture.
The vast majority of people.
No, that a man can't be a woman.
It's so obvious, it's so clear.
Any conservative who doesn't run on this full steam ahead is nuts.
To say nothing of the fact that it's the right thing to do is just politically, it's a total winner.
Now, speaking of problems in foreign countries, Mitt Romney has just made a pretty stunning admission during an interview on CNN, of course he's on CNN, and he's being interviewed about Ukraine funding, which he's very much in favor of and most Americans, but especially most conservatives, are opposed to.
The CNN interviewer, to her credit, she comes out and she raises the big question about Ukraine war funding, which is, How will this money possibly change the outcome of this war?
If we're going to, forget for a second any other thoughts you have about foreign policy.
Let's say that we're just going to give them this money based on whether or not it's going to be effective or not.
How can you say this is going to be effective when everyone agrees that the amount of money that we're giving them, the amount of arms that we're giving them, To say nothing of the amount that's just going to the oligarchs through graft.
How are you going to say that this is going to change the outcome of the war?
And Mitt Romney says, oh it won't.
So you disagree with your colleague, Senator J.D.
Vance, who is making the argument that $60 billion more won't fundamentally change Ukraine's stance on the battlefield.
Yeah, that is an interesting point.
It just happens to be as accurate as it is irrelevant.
It may not change their stance on the battlefield.
What it does do is communicate to the entire world that we honor our commitments, and we stand with our friends, and we will help freedom fighters around the world who are our friends and allies.
So initially when I heard Romney say this, I thought, hold on, was that a gaffe?
Did he mean to say it's as accurate as it is relevant?
Meaning to say it's not accurate?
No, no!
He's saying it's accurate.
J.D.
is right.
The money that we're about to send them, it's not going to change the outcome on the battlefield.
But that doesn't matter.
The effect of our money in actually helping the Ukrainians doesn't matter at all.
All that matters is that we look like we're helping the Ukrainians.
But of course he's just undermined even that point because he's admitting we're not actually helping the Ukrainians because it won't change the outcome on the battle.
It's all just kabuki theater.
It's all just a show.
And a way to launder some money.
And a way for Ukraine oligarchs to get rich.
And a way to keep our military industrial base, I guess, churning out weapons.
Although, frankly, we could probably use some of those weapons ourselves.
It's not like you can ramp up that kind of manufacturing forever.
So, what's the end?
We're going to keep giving them money.
To prove that we stand with our allies, even though we're acknowledging that we're not actually going to help our supposed ally Ukraine at all.
And we're going to do that to prolong the war so that many, many more Ukrainians and many more Russians can die not to achieve anything.
That is a very, very wicked view of politics and foreign policy.
I can't believe it, but he clarified.
It's not even that he just said it's as accurate as it is irrelevant.
He says that point might be true.
Yeah, sure, it is true.
He said, no, no, I know what I said.
It's accurate.
Not going to change a thing, but we can at least pretend and we'll make some more weapons and a lot of Ukrainians and Russians are going to die and nothing will change.
But, you know, we'll feel good about pretending that we're doing the thing that I'm admitting that we're not going to do.
America!
And we're the bad guys?
Hold on.
We, the people who have been skeptical of the Ukraine conflict and our involvement in it and a proxy war with Russia and Ukraine joining NATO for that matter, we're supposed to be the bad guys.
We're the Putin apologists.
We're the ones who are going to let the evildoers go in and do all sorts.
This guy, the nice guy, just admitted that he's just going to needlessly kill or allow to be killed or fund to be killed thousands and thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians for no reason other than to pretend.
We're the bad?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm starting to think maybe these pro-Ukraine war guys are a little...
They're a little confused or worse.
There is so much more to say.
First, though, go to hillsdale.edu slash knowles.
Are you a few years or decades out of school and wondering, what the heck did I even learn and what was the point?
You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.
If that's you, you're not alone.
It's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic, Or the history of the ancient Christian Church with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you are not sure where to start, check out C.S.
Lewis on Christianity.
In this seven-lecture course, you will examine some of Lewis's classic works, including Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, and The Abolition of Man.
You'll also see what Lewis had to say about scripture, prayer, suffering, joy, heaven, and hell.
The course is self-paced so that you can start whenever and wherever.
Enroll now in C.S.
Lewis on Christianity to discover Lewis's core lessons on Christianity and how to apply faith To your life.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to enroll.
There's no cost.
It is easy to get started.
That is hillsdale.edu slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to enroll.
Hillsdale.edu slash Knowles.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Dominic Zelenak, who says, some girls are dancing around a gas station with Stanley Cups for...
For this, we reference the works of St.
Thomas Aquinas.
That's true.
Actually, you know what's amazing?
So, yes, my analysis of the dancing white girls underneath the gas station did basically come down to St.
Thomas Aquinas on the relation of the natural law to the human law and how we ought to legislate these things and how we ought to encourage virtue and discourage vice.
But even when I was driving into work yesterday, I was listening on audiobook to The City of God by St.
Augustine, and St.
Augustine is much more readable than St.
Thomas Aquinas.
He's just more vivid, he kind of pulls at the heartstrings a little bit more than St.
Thomas is in encyclopedias, like a human encyclopedia.
And St.
Augustine, I was reading this part of him, of City of God, where he's talking about Reply guys where he's saying it's he's examining the obligation you owe to reply to every one of your adversaries who makes some dumb point and he basically says don't fall into the trap of going too far down a Twitter thread and replying to some dummy.
I thought, man, I know both St.
Thomas Aquinas and St.
Augustine, I know their works are so relevant to today, even though people don't read them as much as they should, but like, wow, man, St.
Augustine, the guy is so perspicacious, he's so deeply insightful, he understood Twitter many, many centuries before Twitter ever existed and then became X. Really important news has come out, speaking of slick politicians like Mr. Willard Romney, President Trump has a new nickname for the slickest politician in America, that would be Governor Newsom.
Now, Governor Newsom reminds me of Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.
So I've called him Governor Bateman, you know, I just, not to be clever or anything, just because that's what he, to me, they look and sound identical.
But Governor Bateman, it doesn't work on a campaign trail.
No one's going to make that connection.
So President Trump has just unveiled his new nickname for Newsom.
We weren't promising free education, free medical, free everything.
I mean, all the promises that are made, no wonder they come.
I mean, you look at what this Governor Newscombe from California, isn't that his name, Newscombe?
What he's done to California is unbelievable.
Did you hear that?
I said Newscombe.
What do you think about that?
It's pretty funny, huh, Newscombe?
It's a good nickname.
It's a good nickname.
And it reminds me of something About Trump's nicknames that make them better than the other nicknames.
I say this with true humility, no false modesty here.
My nickname for Newsom is not that good.
Because it just doesn't... I mean, if you've seen American Psycho, maybe it's amusing, but it doesn't hit you right away.
New Scum does.
Everyone gets New Scum.
It's just like when Trump started calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas.
The name that we had all been previously calling Elizabeth Warren was Faux-Cahontas.
It was a pun.
It was a little play on words there, because she pretends to be Indian, but she's not really Indian.
You get it?
So it's not Pocahontas, she's Faux-Cahontas.
F-A-U-X.
But that's too much!
It doesn't work on the campaign trail.
Faux-Cahontas, it's a little too clever.
Trump just punches them at the absolute lowest, most grade school level.
Yeah, she's Pocahontas.
And it's much funnier, and it worked a lot better.
Even all of the nicknames for the contenders in 2016.
There are all these sorts of attacks you could think of to hit Marco Rubio.
That would be clever, have something to do with his personality, but Lil Marco, that was it.
Even Jeb.
For goodness sakes, the Bushes have been in American politics for a hundred years.
No, just low energy Jeb.
It's so evocative.
It puts an image in your mind that anybody can get.
And now Governor Newsom has his.
New scum.
Hmm?
Hmm?
Now, you know what scummy people would never do?
They would never subscribe to my YouTube channel.
But you should subscribe to the Michael Knowles YouTube channel right now.
All you have to do is ring the bell and smash it and click it and whatever.
Do whatever you have to do.
Now, speaking of Democrat executives turning from California to New York, New York City Mayor Eric Adams continues his right-wing redemption tour with this guy who ran as a kind of moderate Democrat and then he governed as a pretty liberal Democrat.
Well, he's now recognizing that the consequences of his policies are terrible and deeply unpopular, especially when it comes to illegal immigration, which Eric Adams has previously said Could destroy New York City.
This was months ago.
He said, illegal immigration is going to destroy New York City.
And it really is crazy.
They filled up classic, legendary New York hotels with just young, fighting-age men from Latin America who are obviously economic migrants, who are unvetted, who should not be there.
Nobody wants them there.
We're not even talking about young families here, poor little kids.
No, we're talking about pretty much just young men.
So he said, that's really terrible.
He goes to meet with Biden at the White House over this.
And then just before his scheduled White House meeting, there's an investigation into Eric Adams that's announced, a corruption investigation.
All of a sudden, Eric Adams backs off the White House meeting.
But he's coming back, he's hitting hard again.
He says, at the very least, okay, if we can't get rid of all the illegal aliens, New York has got to do something to in any way circumscribe its sanctuary city status.
The women in the migrants in the San Francisco Center here, they want to rub.
I still don't understand why the federal government is not allowing them to rub.
They need to have the right to rub like all of us that have come to this country and they're willing to do so.
But those small governments that are committing crimes, we need to modify the city.
It is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and it is a right to live in this city, and How pathetic is this?
The audio is a little weak there.
Obviously the Democrats are not blasting this on CNN, so you're not getting really high quality audio.
What he's saying is, hey look, I know we're a sanctuary city and everything, but...
If you commit a bunch of violent felonies, can we at least turn you over to ICE?
Can we maybe at least turn you over to the immigration enforcement?
And then they'll probably do nothing about it because Biden wants them to let all the illegals into the country.
But can we at least do that?
How pathetic.
How pathetic.
If you're in this country illegally, you should be deported.
And then if you really want to come in, you can apply to be a legal immigrant.
We have a lot of that, too, by the way.
We have way more of that than most people want, but that's a conversation for another day.
At the very least, you're here illegally, you get deported.
We don't do that.
If you're here illegally, you get to stay.
If you're here illegally and you commit a crime, you usually get to stay.
You might get out on bail that day and then go commit more crimes.
If you are here illegally and you commit a violent crime, you still get to stay!
And so all Eric Adams is doing, he's not saying we need to restrict all migration, which we do.
He's not saying we need to deport all illegals, which most people would like us to do, but it probably is impractical.
He's not saying we should even deport all the illegals who commit the crimes.
He's saying just these particularly bad crimes, can we please, and even that, you know what that's going to be met with?
Totally deaf ears.
The Democrats don't want that.
Because they think it, one, they think it serves their permanent electoral advantage, but two, they just hate America.
I don't know how else to put it.
I don't mean to be needlessly provocative.
I don't want to be hyperbolic, but they don't like America.
Whenever they talk about America, they talk about our evil racist ancestors and how we genocided the Native Americans and how we had slavery and Jim Crow and it's just a dirty, rotten, evil place.
And the only good thing about America is how we might be able to claw our way out of our terrible, disgusting past.
Everything that America was and presently is is bad, but America might be something decent in the future.
That's why we need to fundamentally transform America.
That was the campaign message of Barack Obama, which is an admission that he hates America because you don't want to fundamentally transform things that you love.
And Obama was not just speaking for himself, he was speaking for most prominent liberals in public life.
Not saying all liberals, not saying all people who say, well, you know, I'm not quite a right winger, you know, but I just, hasn't the left gone a little crazy?
I'm just saying for the current crop of democratic leadership.
They, and the current crop of the Democratic base, you know, the real activist base, the AOCs of the world, they don't like the country, and they want to fundamentally transform it.
And part of that is opening up the borders, not even just as a cynical political play, but because they think America doesn't deserve to exist, because this is stolen land, and it's a terrible country, and we're really racist or whatever, and we need to really, you know, give America its stripes, really just beat it up a little bit.
And so, yeah, poor Eric Adams.
He's saying, well, I gotta bear the brunt of this.
None of you liberals in Martha's Vineyard actually have to deal with this.
When Governor DeSantis sent some illegals to your nice part of the world, you shipped them out of there within 48 hours.
Me, I'm not allowed to ship out even the felons.
And they say, yeah, whatever, Eric Adams.
Shh, be quiet.
We're gonna investigate you for corruption if you raise any more questions about this.
Now, there's so much more to say.
There's so many more stories I have to get to.
There's one story I've been trying to get to for a week, but alas, you know I'm a tease and today is my favorite day of the week when I hear from you in the mailbag.
So, all I'm going to tell you is this.
Lady Ballers is the hilarious story of how a group of male losers who can't win against other men decide to identify as women and join a women's basketball league.
Yes, it's absurd and it's happening right now.
Here's a quick look at what is being called by us the most triggering movie of the decade.
Leftists are losing it over Lady Ballers.
Nothing's changed.
This movie is a straight-up and intentional transphobic hate crime.
What?
I see you.
The Lady Ballers movie needs to be banned.
I'll cancel you.
Can I get the blinds, please?
Go to 11.
The most toxic BS you've ever seen.
You're a monster.
Yeah!
Next-level hate speech propaganda.
That's it?
That's the pitch?
Watch the most triggering comedy of the decade.
Lady Ballers, streaming exclusively on DailyWirePlus.
Don't wait.
Watch Lady Ballers, the movie that Hollywood didn't make, so we did, right now exclusively on DailyWirePlus.
Finally, finally, we have arrived at my favorite time of the week, when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
Our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk.
Go to puretalk.com slash noels, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to start saving on wireless today.
Take it away.
Hey Michael, my question is around pot, weed, devil's lettuce, whatever you want to call it.
My husband likes to smoke and he liked to smoke even before we met over nine years ago.
So I just made it clear early on that I just wanted to know when he was going to do it or when he had done it so I knew when I'm interacting with him what sort of state of mind he's in.
But we've run into a situation, it's probably seven or eight times, where he Smokes does not tell me.
I kind of figure it out after some nagging and then he fusses up to it after lying for a bit.
And so it just feels exhausting.
It feels like the definition of insanity.
Expecting his behavior to change over the last seven or eight times this has happened.
And now we have two young boys under the age of two.
And this most recent time, he had smoked before coming home to see us.
So it just felt a little sad that he was doing that before coming home to see us, insulting, being lied to.
And so I suggested that he either join me in my next session with my faith-based counselor, or we do a joint meeting with some leadership within our church.
And he's not really up for either of those options.
So I wanted to see what ideas you might have and I would appreciate any input.
Thanks.
The big problem is not that he's puffed on the sin spinach.
That's a problem.
But the bigger problem is that he's lying to you.
That's a big problem.
A husband is not to lie to his wife and a wife is not to lie to her husband.
That is a major Major problem.
That is a type of infidelity.
Okay, that is really bad.
And he should be made to know that that is really, really completely unacceptable and a major violation of trust.
And of the marriage.
So why is he lying?
He's lying because he's addicted to drugs.
That's why.
And he probably doesn't know it or he won't admit it to himself.
And in part, that's not all his fault because our culture tells us constantly that you can't become addicted to marijuana.
But you obviously can.
And the evidence is that the people who are really into it exhibit all the behaviors of addicts.
In this case, he's sneaking it around when you're not there.
He's trying to hide it from you.
He's downplaying his dependence on it.
He's not even able to go see his family without toking up.
Obviously, that's addictive behavior.
But it's not just your husband.
I mean, I've got plenty of buddies who, you know, like a little of the Haitian oregano.
And the ones who've really gotten into it, the wake-and-bake kind of guys, they will become furious if you ever suggest that maybe marijuana isn't the greatest thing in the world.
If you ever suggest that maybe it might be at least psychologically addictive, they'll become furious with you.
And Mike Cernovich has made this point, and that's how you know that it's obviously addictive.
Cigars which actually are not addictive because you just don't get enough nicotine from them to have the same effect of like if you were smoking cigarettes or those little pouches or whatever.
Zin.
But they're habitually addictive in the sense that, you know, any habit is kind of addictive.
But if you tell me, Michael, you're having five cigars a day, it's too much, it's not good for you.
You need to have, you know, three cigars a day or one cigar a day or something.
I think I would say, okay, yeah, you're right, five is probably too much.
Okay, you're right, I'll take a little break for a while.
Let's just make sure I'm not actually addicted to it.
Or, if I were drinking too much, I'd say, Michael, you're having three drinks a night.
This is not, okay, maybe I'll take a step back.
You're right, it's not good to have three drinks a night.
But with pot, if you tell potheads, hey, you know, guys, you shouldn't be like smoking, you shouldn't be ripping your vape like five times a day.
They will yell at you, they'll say they're self-medicating, it's actually, it's fine, all the studies show, blah, blah, blah.
So, he's a drug addict and he's lying to his wife.
And I think maybe you should put it in those kind of blunt terms.
And, you know, Wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives.
But especially if you're already going through this kind of counseling and he's not that interested in it, I think you need to make clear to him that he is failing in his responsibility as a husband.
And you don't need to be insulting about it, you should be very loving about that.
But he's on a very bad path that is imperiling your family, and he needs to cut it out and act like a man.
Next question.
Hi Michael, my name is Heather and I am a Christian of the Dutch Reformed tradition, which means that I'm a Calvinist.
I've been reading up on the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas, and it seems to me that they both believed that God predestined all who would be saved.
Like Calvinists, they did not reject free will, but rather understood the expression of free will as acting according to one's strongest inclination.
This view of free will is compatible with deterministic predestination.
As a Calvinist, I believe that humans, in our fallen nature, are inclined only toward evil, but God, in his mercy, grants his saving grace to whom he chooses.
And that saving grace changes our hearts so that we have a desire to glorify God.
My question for you is, why is Calvinism considered heresy and Catholicism, given what Augustine and Aquinas taught?
Thank you for answering my question, and God bless you!
Very good question and very well articulated, though I think you are a little mistaken.
And it's funny because we've been talking about St.
Thomas Aquinas and St.
Augustine over just the past couple of days.
Providential, you might say.
St.
Augustine, usually Calvinists don't cite St.
Thomas Aquinas as being a proto-Calvinist.
I think St.
Thomas Aquinas' defense of free will is Not usually pretty clear.
But St.
Augustine sometimes is one who Calvinists will invoke, and I think it's mistaken.
There's a famous quote from St.
Augustine that comes from, I think it's Sermon 169, which is that God made you without you.
This is actually a point that I make sometimes when discussing the right to life, questions of abortion and the death penalty.
God made you without you, this is the crucial part, but he doesn't justify you without you.
So, St.
Augustine very explicitly says that you participate in responding to God's grace.
Now, if you say, well, you know, no, I'm not describing a kind of Calvinism that denies free will, I'm just saying that, you know, you sort of, you seem like you have free will, but it's all an illusion.
Well, if we're just talking about illusion, then there's really nothing I could possibly say to convince you because you've...
It's unfalsifiable if we're all just living in an illusion, right?
But there I think it's a mistake for Calvinists to, certainly to quote St.
Thomas Aquinas, or to justify their views on St.
Thomas Aquinas, but also Augustine, who is the one that they usually go to.
A question that I have for Calvinism and all novel theological movements is, Why did it take so long?
You know, if this is true, if the true version of Christianity came out in 1652 or whenever, you know, 1545, why did it take so long?
You know, and what happened in those intervening years?
And what did the Church Fathers believe?
What did people believe in the Apostolic Age?
I think this is in part why people who are part of more novel Christian sects or even Even other sorts of religious sects will try to tie their views to antiquity, which is again part of the attraction of St.
Augustine because he was writing so much earlier even than St.
Thomas Aquinas.
I think those are weak arguments, and so the question is, if these are novel views, as it seems to me, why did it take so long, if that's the true religion?
Because also, to me, it's clear enough that the Calvinist premise is contradicted by Scripture.
Again, I'm no expert, but it's clear enough because God does not will that people go to hell.
We see in 1 Timothy.
We see in 2 Peter, we see elsewhere throughout the scripture, that God does not will for us to go to hell.
He wills that all be saved.
But we have a free will and we can respond to his grace in any way we choose.
We can either cooperate with it or we can turn away from it.
So, it seems to me, I'm of the opinion that Hilaire Belloc was.
Hilaire Belloc, a great Anglo-Franco Catholic writer and historian, and he said, Calvin is the true genius of Protestantism, and his idea is fatalist, and obviously, you know, Hilary Bellock would say that it's wrong, but it's a coherent system.
It's a coherent system of thought, unlike some of the other versions, which I think are a little less coherent.
But it just seems to me to be mistaken vis-a-vis Aquinas and Augustine and scripture and sacred tradition.
Okay, next one.
Dirty Mike, USMC Matt here.
Just wanted to ask you a question.
So I, unfortunately, had to move back to California a while ago and am now being forced to go through implicit bias training at work.
I'm not worried about the online portion because I've been just going to mute it and click through it and not pay attention to it and click whatever answer they want me to click.
However, there is a mandatory in-person portion that I can't get out of and just wondering how to navigate this because I don't buy into any of it, obviously.
I think it just creates more division, but unfortunately I don't have a choice in that matter.
I do have a position where I could create something and step out.
I'm contemplating that, but just curious as to what your thoughts are and how to deal with this type of training.
Thank you.
Create something and step out.
I don't quite know what you mean by that.
You mean you quit your job and become an entrepreneur?
Or you mean you could, in your role in this company, come up with an excuse not to go to the training?
Either way, I think it's a matter for prudence.
You know, we do what our bosses want us to do, even if it's unpleasant.
We don't do what our bosses want us to do if it's immoral, but if it's unpleasant or we disagree with it or whatever, we sometimes do it.
This to me is not the sort of thing where you have to show up and then make your stand and tell off this lady and whatever or, you know, quit your job necessarily because you have to sit through a one-hour stupid training.
Depending on your circumstance, I suppose I would suggest that you just sit through it and then ignore it, you know, and then just don't do anything about it.
Now, if the training is going to cause you to sin, if it's going to cause you to behave in a way that doesn't keep with your integrity, then maybe you have to figure out another option.
But we have to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
The problem with this biased training is a political problem.
Some of our focus on individuality and individualism on the right has really weakened us.
You're not going to fix this problem.
Until you go in, you engage in political action, as the left has done, to push corporate culture more in your direction.
And then take political action by electing good leaders and having those leaders replace the bureaucrats with better bureaucrats who can go in and take away some of the mandates from the Office of Civil Rights or whoever is mandating these stupid trainings.
That's what I would recommend doing.
And in the meantime, you know, you don't need to impoverish yourself in the meantime.
Then you probably won't be able to take much political action anyway.
Next question.
Hi Michael, this is David.
Thanks for all you do.
Quick question.
I've been reading some about Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary.
I wonder what your reaction is to the harsh criticism coming from the West toward Orban as a dictatorial strongman.
Thanks a lot.
or whether he is merely attempting to uphold Christian social values and national identity within Hungary.
I wonder if the reaction comes from the progressive left, which is attacking all who would uphold traditional values.
Thanks a lot.
Have a great day.
Sure.
Yeah, I really like Viktor Orbán.
I think he's done a great job.
By the standards of even 30 to 50 years ago, Viktor Orban is a centrist liberal politician.
Okay, the fact that liberals in the right, or in the West rather, are accusing him of being some far-right fascist just tells you that the left in the West has gone completely insane and is now effectively, you know, a bunch of commies.
It's totally crazy.
Viktor Orban leads a very tolerant country.
What does he say?
He says, we need to follow the laws.
We need to recognize that God exists.
In your personal life, you don't even need to, but we're just going to do that as a matter of our public policy.
We're not going to totally throw out our thousand-year political tradition.
We're going to recognize what marriage is.
We're going to have clean streets.
We're going to arrest criminals.
We're not going to totally open our borders to a bunch of Unassimilated foreign people.
Really kind of basic stuff.
And for that, they call him Hitler.
You know, it's just so profoundly stupid and offensive.
