Ep. 1439 - Libs Melt Down After Huge Trump Victory
The Supreme Court rules unanimously to put Trump back on the Colorado primary ballot, Nikki Haley wins her first primary, and new study finds that Haitian oregano increases the risk of heart attack and stroke.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1439
- - -
DailyWire+:
Tune in on 3.7.24 at 8:30 PM ET for another Daily Wire Backstage exclusively on DailyWire+
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Get your own Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/knowles
Pivotal Debt Solutions - Get out of debt today! Visit http://www.ZapMyDebt.com
Trust & Will - Get 10% off today! http://www.TrustandWill.com/Knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
The Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of President Trump and against the state of Colorado, which had tried to boot the former president and current GOP frontrunner from its ballots.
But the decision is not just limited to Colorado.
Despite the best attempts of several Democrat-run states, no state may bar President Trump from running for a second term.
Now, on the one hand, this is great news.
But on the other hand, Duh!
Yeah, of course states can't do that.
That is patently unconstitutional, as everyone with an even semi-functioning brain and a shred of honesty has known all along.
Liberal commentators and politicians, who tend to lack both of those things, are fuming over the Supreme Court ruling.
Liberal jurists, on the other hand, Or generally not.
And the reason, and this is something you might not hear in the liberal press, is that the Supreme Court ruling was unanimous.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Listen up, you wake and bake potheads.
I don't care how much you like puffing on that devil's lettuce.
I don't care if you're over there in California puffing on your cumin.
I don't care if you're down in Peru taking slurps of your parsley from a water bong.
Pot apparently increases the risk of heart disease and stroke.
We will get to that in just a moment.
First though, go to expressvpn.com slash Knowles.
Did you know That social media companies can hide your channel from search results if you express the wrong opinion.
That is censorship, plain and simple.
Nobody should have the right to silence your voice.
The good news is you can fight back by using our trusted privacy partner, ExpressVPN.
Big tech companies track everything you see and do online.
What you're searching for, the videos you watch, everything you click.
They use these data to serve you targeted ads by matching your online activity to your true identity using your device's unique IP address.
When you use ExpressVPN, your identity is masked and anonymized by a secure VPN server that encrypts 100% of your data.
ExpressVPN is super simple to use.
Just open the app, tap one button, and turn it on.
Even I can use it.
I'm a total Luddite, and I love ExpressVPN.
I trust it, and I can use it.
Take back your privacy at expressvpn.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S.
You will get an extra three months of ExpressVPN for free by visiting this exclusive special link.
exprssvpn.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. That is expressvpn.com slash Knowles to protect your data today.
The Supreme Court ruling is great, and it's great in particular because of its unanimity.
So the libs are furious.
They hate Clarence Thomas.
They hate him especially because he's black.
They hate him because he's the oldest conservative on the court now, but especially because he's black because he's not supposed to be conservative.
He's supposed to be liberal because he's black, but he's conservative and that drives him crazy.
They go after Thomas.
They go after Alito.
They really hate Alito.
Kavanaugh, of course, because he drinks beer.
But the thing about this ruling is that Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and the other one, Ketanji Jackson, also supported this ruling.
So all nine justices agree that individual states may not bar candidates from ballot access by invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Which says that if you've ever engaged in an insurrection, that you can't run for re-election.
Now, that was where the unanimity was.
The court then split on some of the reasoning as to why that was.
So the majority of the court, the five-justice majority, in an unsigned opinion, says that Congress must act to give Section 3 force.
So this has been a debate.
This provision of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War to prevent the Confederates from taking over the country after this very bloody Civil War.
The question is, who enforces this provision of the 14th Amendment?
Is it self-enforcing?
What does that even mean?
Is it enforced by the states?
Is it clarified by Congress?
Who does it?
And so according to the court majority, the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.
The four other justices, the liberals, or I guess the liberals plus John Roberts, I don't know, it's an unsigned opinion.
And John Roberts is sort of a lib in himself.
But regardless, they say No, we're just gonna keep this kind of ambiguous.
But in any case, Trump gets to be back on the ballot in Colorado, which means he's also gonna be back on the ballot in Maine, which means he's just gonna be on the ballot.
And the libs can whine and cry about this.
Duh, this is very, very obvious.
It's why all the judges who have very different interpretive principles, who have very different legal perspectives, they all agree.
Colorado Secretary of State hit the hardest.
She goes on MSNBC to whine about the ruling.
My larger reaction is disappointment.
I do believe that states should be able, under our Constitution, to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists.
And ultimately, this decision leaves open the door for Congress to act to pass authorizing legislation.
But we know that Congress is a nearly non-functioning body.
So ultimately, it will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.
Um, this was a unanimous decision.
If you're just listening to that woman, you are missing 90% of what she just did on TV.
Because it's the eyes that give it away.
It's the eyes that reveal the crazy.
And those eyes, I don't think she blinked once during her monologue here.
And I don't know, her face barely moved.
Her mouth moved a lot, but not one other muscle in her face seemed to move.
And she said, and so what's going to happen now?
I can't even do an impression of this.
My face is too expressive.
But she's got the crazy eyes just deadlocked on you, reading deep into your soul.
And she says, and that's why the voters now must protect democracy.
Yes, I suppose that's true.
That's democracy.
You, lady, are the one who tried to undermine the democracy by preventing people from having the opportunity to vote for the most popular candidate in the race.
And now that you got shot down, not just by the court's conservatives, but by the court's liberals too, all of them, every single justice, now you come out and say, that's why I defend democracy.
But of course, these people don't defend democracy.
They quite fear democracy.
That's why they're trying to prevent people even from having the option to vote for the conservative.
Keith Olbermann, formerly of MSNBC, now I don't know what he does.
I think he just screams on street corners.
Keith Olbermann tweeted out, the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy!
Okay, so I guess this is my question.
including Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension.
Any collectively, and collectively, the court has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved.
Okay, so I guess this is my question.
You know I'm not a huge fan of Ketanji Jackson or Sonia Sotomayor or Kagan for that matter, even though Scalia was sort of friends with Kagan.
And half the time, I don't even really like John Roberts or even Gorsuch.
You know, let's not forget Gorsuch enshrined transgenderism into our civil rights law.
So, listen, I'm saying we have disagreements with a lot of the justices.
And yet, who do you think is more likely to have a grounded and sensible view of legal interpretation?
Every single justice on the Supreme Court Or some angry former MSNBC host sports guy.
Who do you think?
This reminds me of during the Bush administration when Sean Penn would go off on his political rants and rallies on George W. Bush.
I thought, you know, Sean Penn doesn't know anything.
He's a pretty good actor, but he has basically no education whatsoever.
And his career is to be guided entirely by emotion and to be a gullible fool in the words of Wynne Handman, one of the great acting teachers in the 20th century.
So him or George Bush?
Whether you like George Bush or you don't really like George Bush, he's actually a pretty educated guy.
He's got a fairly sophisticated worldview.
Who is more likely to be correct here?
Something tells me it is not the Sean Penns and the Keith Olbermanns of the world.
But then there's a young man, Harry Sisson, who is either a college student or he's just graduated from college and he's a Democrat operative.
He's paid by the Democrats to tweet things and post things on the internet.
He's a paid political influencer.
And this guy tweets out, insurrection sympathizer Clarence Thomas ruled that insurrectionist Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in 2024.
That should be the headline.
But of course, the more impressive headline would be...
Katonji Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agree with the insurrectionist Clarence Thomas, right-wing, terrible, awful man.
Isn't that great?
That would be the crazier thing, right?
All these supposedly sensible left-wing liberal jurists agree with this maniac right-wing legal dunce in the description of the liberals.
How weird is that?
But no, I'm sure a 12 year old, I don't know, he was born like three minutes ago and he's almost certainly never read a book in his life cover to cover.
I'm sure that guy understands constitutional law better than every single justice of the Supreme Court.
CNN, for its part, has actually had a more sensible reaction to the court's decision.
Dana Bash on CNN has suggested, okay guys, look, maybe we lost here.
So maybe we need to rethink our strategy moving toward November.
Unfortunately for America, the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be.
They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents, to be able to make the rules of the laws.
Okay, in principle that's true.
That doesn't have a ton of bearing on this particular provision of the 14th Amendment, because the 14th Amendment doesn't come about until after the Civil War.
So even here, this is some of the most sensible liberal commentary I've heard on this decision, but even here the CNN lady is talking about the framers of the Constitution.
No, we're actually talking about something that occurred 170 years after the framing of the Constitution.
So, no, that doesn't even make sense.
In principle, it's true that the framers of the Constitution wanted to give the American people, through their elected representatives, the ability to craft a lot of the laws.
Not all of the laws.
Some of them are going to be circumscribed by the Constitution.
But broadly, they have a lot, a great deal of ability to create the laws that will govern themselves.
So, what about in this case?
Well, we get back to the central question of the case after the unanimous decision, which is...
How is this insurrection provision of the 14th Amendment to be enforced?
Is it going to be enforced by itself, automatically?
Just some random guy in the street says, okay, the 14th Amendment is enforcing itself now and therefore we kick a candidate off the ballot?
No, probably not.
So then is it up to the Secretaries of State in the various states?
Is it up to the state legislatures?
No!
Majority, the unsigned majority of the Supreme Court in this decision says Congress has to do something here.
And that's probably the best option available to the Democrats.
I think it looks bad if they try to kick Trump off the ballot.
I think it makes them look weak.
I think it's an admission that they know right now if it's a fair and square election, Trump is going to win it.
So I think they should probably drop it altogether.
But if they're going to pursue it, The best they can hope for.
You've got a two-member majority for the Republicans in the House.
Just try to pry off a few of those squish Republicans.
It would be difficult, maybe impossible, but there's still a chance.
Never underestimate the squishiness of Republicans.
Go for that!
That's your best option.
If they keep pursuing these wild-eyed state secretaries of state to come out and just unilaterally boot major party candidates off the ballot, it's not going to work.
They're going to end up, just like so many of Trump's enemies have over the last eight years, they're going to end up like Wile E. Coyote when the ACME anvil falls on their head and the Roadrunner goes off, one hopes, to the White House in November.
There is so much more to say.
First, though, go to zapmydebt.com.
Does your debt keep you up at night just whispering sweet little nothings in your ear, you know, massaging you?
No, that's not how it keeps you up.
It keeps you up because it stresses you out.
These insanely high-interest credit cards and loans make it nearly impossible to pay off your debt.
Thankfully, there's a new way out of the debt trap with Pivotal Debt Solutions.
Pivotal Debt Solutions uses new aggressive strategies to end your debt faster and easier than you thought possible.
Pivotal Debt Solutions can cut or even eliminate interest.
They will help find programs to write off your balances so you owe less and they find every solution possible to end your debt faster.
Turning to Trump.
Before you do anything, contact Pivotal Debt Solutions at zapmydebt.com.
Talk to them for free and find out how fast they can help you get out of debt.
Don't let that debt keep you up at night any longer.
Deal with the problem, confront it face on, and get the best help out there.
You can go to zapmydebt.com.
Head on over there today.
Turning to Trump.
Trump has just won two more primaries.
Today is Super Tuesday, right?
Right.
I am voting today in Tennessee.
This is very exciting, though we know what the outcome of this is going to be because we just saw the two most recent primaries.
In Idaho, Trump won by a lot.
They called it for Trump.
He won by considerable margins.
And then in Missouri, he won by 100%.
How does that work?
So in Idaho, the final score was 84.6% to 13.5% according to the Associated Press.
That was with 77% of the votes in.
I don't think we're going to need to wait with bated breath until 100% of the votes come in.
And then in Missouri, it's a caucus system.
It's not a primary system.
So in terms of the local caucuses, Trump appears to have won all of them.
No surprise there at all.
Nikki Haley has won a primary.
She just won her first primary and You might think that's good for Nikki Haley.
I actually think this is the one primary that Nikki Haley could have won that it will not help her to have won.
And that is the Washington D.C.
primary.
Haley ran away with the Washington D.C.
primary.
She won it 63 to 33.
She got almost twice as many votes as Trump did.
Not a great look.
Because the knock on Nikki Haley's campaign is that she's the establishment candidate.
She's the Beltway candidate.
She's opposing the voice of the people, the actual Republican Party rank-and-file voters who want Trump.
She's stymying that at the behest of big donors in the D.C.
establishment.
Nikki has done a good job in her political career of straddling both sides and of succeeding in Trump world as UN ambassador and is succeeding as a moderate and a centrist as governor of South Carolina and as a candidate in this race.
You don't want to be the candidate of DC.
DC is deeply unpopular.
And the kind of people who live in D.C., especially the Republicans who live and vote in D.C., are profoundly out of touch with the Republican Party.
I guess, put Nikki and Trump aside for a second.
It just goes to show you the chasm that exists between the official national Republican Party and the actual Republican voters.
The party is centered in D.C.
National political life is centered in Washington, D.C.
That's where the people with the fancy degrees from Georgetown and Harvard and Yale and the guys who work at the big corporations, who work in the big lobbying firms, that's where they all go.
That's where a great many of them go.
And they run the party and they go into the RNC building, but they don't, they're so deeply out of touch.
With the rest of the actual party.
So what matters?
Is it the RNC committee?
I don't think so.
I think you could dissolve the RNC tomorrow and basically nothing would change about American politics.
The same is not totally true of the DNC.
I think the elite Democrats are probably a little bit more in touch with their base.
Maybe not totally.
You know, the elite Democrats, for instance, still support Israel.
The base seems pretty fanatically pro-Palestine at this point.
There's certain issues where there's a split between the elite.
But generally, there's not a lot of diversity in the party anymore.
They ran out the blue dogs many years ago.
And so it's all just progressives, and some are a little bit more progressive than others.
The Republican Party, it's the libertarians, it's the traditionalists, there's still some neocons, a lot of them in Washington, D.C.
The Chamber of Commerce types, there's just a lot, okay?
There's a lot of diversity there.
The kind of Republican that most people are, that most conservatives are, is just not represented in D.C.
So, frankly, I think it's just a PR win for Trump.
He can say, yeah, there you go, Nikki Haley's Washington, D.C.' 's candidate, and I'm the candidate of every actual state in the country.
I don't know if there was any way to avoid that.
I mean, in a way, the die was cast.
Nikki decided she could have run a number of different ways in this race, but she decided she was going to run as truly the not-Trump candidate.
And it's why she was able to beat out DeSantis and Christie and all the other people who ran.
But as a consequence of that, the party's with Trump.
And so she will be further marginalized as the candidate of the establishment.
Fair or not, that's what's going to happen.
Speaking of the future of Nikki Haley's race and political career, Nikki was just asked, now as this primary gets more and more bruising, if she feels impelled to honor her pledge to support the eventual nominee of the Republican Party, the pledge that she took in order to participate in the GOP debates.
Here's what she says.
You did sign a pledge, an RNC pledge, to support the eventual nominee.
Do you still feel bound by that pledge?
I have always said that I have serious concerns about Donald Trump.
I have even more concerns about Joe Biden.
So is that a no?
Are you bound by the RNC pledge?
The RNC pledge, I mean, at the time of the debate, we had to take it to where, would you support the nominee?
And you had to, in order to get on that debate stage, you said yes.
The RNC is now not the same RNC.
Now it's Trump's daughter-in-law.
So you're no longer bound by that pledge?
No, I think I'll make what decision I want to make, but that's not something I'm thinking about.
And I think that while y'all think about that, I'm looking at the fact What?
Come again?
Hold on.
of people in Virginia.
We're headed to North Carolina.
We're going to continue to go to Vermont and Maine and all these states to go and show people that there is a path forward.
And so I don't look at what ifs.
I look at how do we continue the conversation?
What?
Come again.
Hold on.
Can I get that logic one more time?
I really like Nikki, and she has every right to stay in this race as long as she wants.
And I get why she doesn't want to support Trump.
But are we talking about the ship of Theseus here?
What he said?
She says, well, look, we're We had to take a pledge to get on the debate stage.
And so I took the pledge, but I'm not going to honor it anymore.
Hold on.
So you're telling me that you lied.
You're telling me that you just, you totally disconnected your words from what they were supposed to signify.
Is that what you're saying?
And I think Nikki realized that's not a good lie.
Yeah, I lied to get on the debate stage, but now I don't feel bound by, because I don't need to get on the debate stage anymore, so I don't feel bound by what I said.
That's not going to play.
So then she said, well, no, that was back with the old RNC, but now we have a new RNC.
It's a totally different RNC.
What?
What is that?
How's that?
Because there's a new chairman of the RNC that no longer, is it the same RNC?
It's like the ship of Theseus, you know?
You have a ship and you replace all the parts of the ship, is it still the same ship?
In this case, you didn't even replace all the parts of the RNC, you just swapped out one staff member.
Ronna McDaniel is stepping down, there's going to be a new one.
It's the same organization.
It's the same federal tax entity.
Come on, are you kidding me?
The reason this is a bad move for Nikki, if I were advising Nikki, I would tell her, just say you'll support the eventual nominee.
Just say, even if you hate the guy, even if you don't want to, just say you'll do it.
Your claim in the race is I'm the dignified candidate.
I'm the principled candidate.
I'm the one who's not going to just say and do anything to win and to get ahead.
I'm not just a power-hungry narcissist like they accuse Trump of being.
When they pull this stuff, it makes them look like the sort of thing they're accusing Trump of being.
Because at least with Trump, Trump was asked, will you sign this pledge to support the eventual nominee?
He said, no.
If it's not me, I probably won't support the person.
And he caught all this flack.
You don't care about the party.
You don't care about conservatives winning.
You're a narcissist.
It's all about you.
He says, I don't care.
I'm not going to go to the debates anyway.
I'm winning, and I'm not going to lie.
So no, I'm not going to support some other candidate.
I'm going to support me.
He got all this flack.
And so all the other candidates signed the pledge.
And then what?
Then the moment that it gets hot, they all say, well, I actually don't know if I'm going to support the nominee.
Chris Christie said that and Nikki's saying that.
It's just a bad look.
I don't know who's advising her on this, but it's not a good look.
The one thing you've got going here is you say, I am the principled, reasonable candidate, unlike that unprincipled Donald Trump.
You know, that's the campaign line.
But then the minute you say, I'm not going to honor my word, you make yourself look less principled than Trump.
Not a good look.
Not a good look, okay?
There is so much more to say first, though.
Go to trustandwill.com slash Knowles.
From maintaining control of your assets to easing the burden on your loved ones, an estate plan can ensure your family is prepared and protected, including your most important asset, which is your kids.
If you are looking for a way to set up your estate to offer financial benefits and more, you must check out Trust and Will.
Traditional estate planning can cost thousands of dollars and many one-size-fits-all solutions may not capture all the important details of the life you've built.
With Trust & Will, you can protect your legacy from the comfort of your home starting at just $199.
They have simplified creating and managing your will or trust online from finding out what's right for your family to finalizing documents with a notary.
I have had a will since I was 18 years old.
I update it regularly, especially when you have kids, then you really, really do not want to leave someone in a lurch.
Make sure that you take care of this so that bad guys from the government don't come in and mess with your stuff when you are gone.
Secure your assets and protect your loved ones with Trust & Will.
Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting TrustAndWill.com slash Knowles.
That is 10% off free shipping at TrustAndWill.com slash Knowles.
If you love The Daily Wire's number one hit show and party game, Yes or No, buckle up because now the full uncensored and deleted episodes of Yes or No are available exclusively!
For subscribers on dailywire.com.
A lot of people have asked me, they said, Michael, why do I have to go to YouTube or some other public platform to watch Yes or No?
I'm a Daily Wire member.
I should get it.
I'm a part of the creme de la creme.
I should get it on dailywire.com and on the app.
I agree.
So now you can get all the extra stuff that we weren't allowed to put on YouTube.
Check out this clip from my game of Yes or No with Andrew Klavan.
Michelle Obama has more balls than Lance Armstrong.
What did Lance Armstrong do to deserve that?
Obviously.
There's no question.
Get the classic yes or no game and maybe the Conspiracy Expansion Pack with over 110 new cards today.
Go to dailywire.com slash shop to get yours before they're gone.
Speaking of women's issues, there's a shocking new survey out that conservatives are lauding.
They're celebrating.
I think it's very pathetic, but they're celebrating.
Most scientists agree that sex is binary.
Most?
What do you mean most?
If anything less than 100% is a scandal, what are you talking about most?
A poll, it was out of the United Kingdom, Found that 58% of scientist respondents believe that sex is binary, with the caveat that excludes rare cases involving intersex individuals, which intersex refers to genital abnormalities where there's some ambiguity at birth, but you can still pretty easily classify them usually into one sex or the other.
But in any case, even putting that category aside, only 58% Of scientists say sex is binary.
This is such a classic example of conservatives just losing, and happily losing.
Because the headlines are all saying, most scientists agree with us.
It's barely a majority.
Barely a majority of scientists say that boys and girls are different.
Are you kidding me?
And then it gets worse.
29% of these scientists agree with the statement that sex is not binary.
29% say sex is not binary.
13% did not share a view or preferred not to say.
13% of scientists can't tell you boys and girls are different.
Or they refuse to because they don't want to lose their jobs.
60, oh this is awful.
64% of scientists said they believe gender is fluid.
22% said it's binary.
14% did not provide an answer.
14% did not provide an answer.
This survey is not a referendum on sex and gender as it is being reported in the liberal and the conservative outlets.
This survey is a referendum on the scientists, okay?
We know the answer.
If you don't know the answer that boys and girls are different, you don't know anything.
You don't know anything.
It's not possible really to have a conversation with you.
You were that you need to go back not to kindergarten.
You need to go back to daycare.
You need to go back to your mother's arms and have, and she clearly messed something up.
On the way to your maturity and education, because you don't know anything.
Just as I can't speak to someone who doesn't speak the English language, just as I can't discuss mathematical concepts with someone who doesn't understand the axioms of mathematics, doesn't understand that A plus B equals B plus A, doesn't understand like 2 plus 2 equals 4, I can't really talk to you about calculus or integration or trigonometry, so too I can't discuss any public matter with you if you can't Understand the basic concept that boys and girls are different, okay?
This survey is a referendum on the scientists.
I do not leave this survey more confident in my view that men and women are different.
I don't leave the survey less confident in my view that men and women are different.
I leave the survey with only one conclusion, and that is I am much less confident in scientists.
So now when the scientists tell me, get this shot, it'll stop you from getting a virus, I just am going to be very skeptical of that.
Or, get this shot.
Sorry.
Get this shot!
It's going to stop you from transmitting a virus, you sheep!
I'm going to be very skeptical of that view.
When the scientists tell me that, you know, they switch this every three weeks, they say coffee's good for you, coffee's bad for you, eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you.
I'm going to be skeptical of all of that.
These people don't seem to know very much of anything.
They don't know the difference between men and women.
Do you know who does know the difference between men and women?
The Holy Father, Pope Francis.
And Pope Francis?
receives a lot of criticism from the public because he says things and is reported to have said things that sometimes seem a little strange and often the Vatican chalks this up to errors of a translation where the Holy Father was misinterpreted and one can have all sorts of interesting discussions and debates about that sort of ambiguity.
On the question of gender ideology, Pope Francis has no ambiguity whatsoever.
In fact, he says that trans ideology is the ugliest danger facing the world today.
He just said this again.
He said it many times, so I'm not really surprised, but he just said it a couple days ago.
He says, it is very important that there is this meeting, this meeting between men and women, because today the ugliest danger is gender ideology, which cancels out differences.
He said that through extreme ideologies like transgenderism, the left is pushing to quote, make everything the same.
Quote, erasing differences is erasing humanity.
Man and woman, however, are in a fruitful tension.
He made these comments to members of the French organization, academic organization, Research and Anthropology of Vocations Institute.
Very, very true.
And it's true in all of these different ways.
Men and women, there is a little tension.
Often it's a kind of a nice, you know, romantic tension and then, you know, you date and get married and have lots of children and it's good, you know, there's a... vive la différence.
What the libs want to do is just erase all of that in the name of a false kind of equality.
In the name of a false kind of unity.
A unity where they break everything down and mash it together in an unnatural way.
We like unity is good.
We want unity is where strength is.
But we want the unity of men and women to be in their complementarity, not in their interchangeability.
When men and women become interchangeable, they don't get stronger, they get a lot weaker.
They're mutilated, they're castrated, they're often left sterile, they're often left with shorter life expectancies, they're left far more confused, and they're left alienated from reality.
But even on, he goes beyond gender.
He says here, erasing differences is erasing humanity.
This is true of geographic differences, this is true of national differences, it's true of racial differences.
You're not really allowed to say these things anymore.
And you're not allowed to say it because some people that go too far in the other direction and they make an ideology out of gender and sex or they make an ideology out of race.
You don't want to do that either.
The libs want to deny all difference, national difference, racial difference, sexual difference, all sorts of difference.
Some ideologues swing totally in the other direction and they make an idol out of sex.
You see this a little bit with the kind of red pill community.
They make sexual difference.
Singular, ultimate difference in all of life, the most important thing to focus on.
Or, you see this with people who sincerely have hang-ups on race, when they make race everything.
Race isn't everything.
It's not nothing, but it's not everything, too.
What you want is these distinctions and differences to be understood in accordance with reality, in as much as they correspond to reality, and within their proper place.
I guess it's sort of the difference would be between the attitude of men and women are so different.
And men and women are so different.
How about that?
Different peoples of the world are so different.
Different peoples of the world are so different.
How charming.
Isn't that so wonderful?
Don't you love to travel and experience all these different cultures?
I suppose that would be the difference.
There's an ultimate harmony and unity here, specifically in the religion for which Pope Francis is the supreme pontiff and the vicar of Christ on earth.
And that would be that there is neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor bond, nor male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
All are one in Christ Jesus.
All are not one in terms of the flesh.
All are not one in terms of geography.
All are not one in terms of Speaking of dangers, this is a story I've been teasing for a little bit and we have to get to it.
differences remain.
And there's a higher unity that comes about through the complementary working of those people with their legitimate and natural distinctions left intact.
Good stuff from Pope Francis.
Speaking of dangers, this is a story I've been teasing for a little bit, and we have to get to it.
You know what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about those jazz cigarettes.
You know what I mean?
I'm I'm talking about the old Bob Marley cabbage, you know what I'm getting at over here?
I'm out, I'm out of all of my euphemisms.
A new study has found that marijuana use is linked to a higher risk of a dangerous cardiovascular event.
Puffinon that devil's lettuce as little as once a month can increase a person's risk for stroke or heart attack according to a study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Heart Association that was funded by the NIH.
So despite the corruption that we've seen during COVID at the NIH still they put out a lot of pretty decent research especially in less politically charged areas and These days, perhaps marijuana is a more politically charged area, I suppose less so than COVID.
Another risk associated with the Mary Jane, whether consumed by smoking, eating, or vaping, is coronary heart disease, correlating to the study.
Now, you know, it's not my thing.
I've dabbled, I've tried it, like Bill Clinton maybe in college, you know, maybe every now and again.
Never really was my thing.
I prefer cigars and booze.
Can't get that all into it.
It seems to me that pot, even though I know plenty of right-wingers who get into it a little bit, it's coded left.
It's the sort of thing that libs do.
And nicotine, be it zin or cigars and scotch and things like that, that's what conservatives do.
I don't think, I think there's probably some explanation to that.
It's not totally arbitrary, but anyway, that's, I get a little bit more into that.
I like, I don't know, I like the stimulant, the sharpness brought on by nicotine, the relaxation of the cigar, even the social lubricant of the alcohol.
All in moderation, of course.
Whereas with pot, I've found when I've tried it, I just get kind of dumb and slow and quiet, which I don't really like any of those things.
But also, apparently now, according to this study, pot is dangerous for you.
Why do I mention this?
There are dangers posed by tobacco, I'm not denying that.
Obviously dangers posed by booze, I'm not denying that.
Marijuana though, uniquely, seems to be defended as a miracle drug.
The people who get really into pot They say that there's no downside to it.
It must be the only substance on Earth that has no downside whatsoever.
Why, the potheads tell you it's not addictive.
They tell you that right after they wake and bake and they smoke five times a day.
They tell you it's not at all addictive.
They tell you, oh, it doesn't cause any problems to your lungs or to your brain or to your heart.
It doesn't, no, it's only, it cures everything, actually, believe it or not.
I just think, like, What are the odds that this random hippie plant is the one substance that you can inhale into your lungs that has four times the tar of cigarettes, and it doesn't harm you?
It just doesn't, because it's the Jerry Garcia stuff.
It's cool, happy hippie, Grateful Dead stuff, so it doesn't hurt.
No, of course, it's a drug.
It's just a drug.
So I'm not saying One should never use any substances and obviously I like a cigar every now and again.
I like a glass of scotch or wine every now and again.
But be honest about what it is.
It's a drug.
And so if you're using a drug like marijuana, as some of my pothead friends have done, you know, they're just smoking it throughout the day or they're taking hits on their vapes or they're starting to use it when they're 13 or 14 or maybe even younger.
You think, hey guys, don't...
Don't paper over this and say, no man, I'm having a kind of spiritual experience.
No, you're taking a drug, and you're taking a drug that is particularly dangerous in certain regards, and it's less dangerous in other regards.
Stop trying to elevate this to a spiritual or medicinal sort of experience.
It's not.
You're taking a drug, and certain drugs have certain uses.
Some are worse than others, but like, you know, come on, guys.
Come on, you potheads.
Get over it.
We'll get to another danger in a second.
First, though, this Thursday night, you should join the Daily Wire backstage as Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Andrew Clavin, the God King himself, and Jeremy Boring watch and react to the 2024 State of the Union live on Daily Wire+.
I will not be hanging with them.
This will be the first Daily Wire Plus backstage that I have not I'm going to try to figure out a way to be a part of it in a little way.
I'm the only member of the cast of Backstage that has been at every single Backstage, at least remote, usually in person, but the reason I won't be there is I will be attending the State of the Union.
I was very happily invited to be the guest of Congressman Andy Ogles, and I look forward to attending the speech to see if the President actually does fall asleep while he is up there on the floor of the U.S.
Congress.
Maybe I'll try to pipe in if it's possible, but everyone will be breaking down the State of the Union as it happens, and of course, answering your questions.
Watch it live Thursday night, 8.30 p.m.
Eastern on the Daily Wire app and dailywire.com.
My favorite comment from yesterday is from Undeserted Rose, who says, you got a misinformation flag.
Oh, I did!
My episode got a misinformation flag.
She goes, nice.
Thanks for talking about the blaze, journalist.
This is important.
Well, we'll see what happens.
I mean, now that they're just openly arresting conservative journalists for talking about the insurrection on the Capitol.
I mean, I'm gonna be at the Capitol on Thursday, so.
Listen folks, if they drag me off in handcuffs for making too many jokes about the horn hat guy or whatever, please, I'll miss you.
It's been a lot of fun.
Please sneak me in a nail file and maybe some cigarettes or something that I can trade in the federal gulag.
Speaking of danger, Sweden is joining NATO.
Who cares?
Well, I care a little bit in that we're in this proxy war with Russia right now and I don't want it to escalate and I don't want it to become a world war.
But Sweden is joining NATO, which means that it is giving up a 200-year tradition of neutrality.
All the libs on the left and the right are celebrating this.
That's good, baby.
Join the good side, the NATO side, not the awful Putin-Russia side.
This is good stuff.
NATO, pretty soon NATO's going to conquer the whole world, right?
Probably not.
We're not going to conquer the whole world.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization wouldn't make sense conquering the whole world.
But NATO has expanded pretty significantly.
And NATO, which is supposed to be a defensive organization, has undertaken aggressive wars, notably in Iraq and in Libya.
We've probably had a little mission drift in NATO, which was a Cold War organization to oppose the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
Why is Sweden doing this?
They're doing this now, they've wanted it for a little while, and Hungary's parliament just gave the approval.
Last week, overcoming the final hurdle, and they say it's a big step.
We must take that seriously, but it's a natural step that we are taking.
Sweden is now leaving 200 years of neutrality and non-alignment behind us.
I wish them well.
I hope it works out for them.
I'm skeptical that it will.
Neutrality.
When it comes to statecraft, when it comes to geopolitics, it can be a really great thing.
It can be very helpful.
Because not all states are created equal.
Neutrality, buffer states, can be very, very helpful.
You just saw this in Ukraine, okay?
We like to think in very clear moral terms.
And on questions of morality, it's good to think in clear moral terms.
Clarity is charity.
But on questions of geo-strategic alliances, It doesn't always come down to a bare question of morality.
Sometimes it comes down to political prudence.
And in modernity, we like to think that all nations are exactly the same.
This is one of the premises of our modern era, specifically beginning in the middle of the 20th century, is we pretend, we go to the United Nations, and we pretend that some country that no one's ever heard of is somehow on par with the United States, or Russia, or France, or England.
And it's not.
These tiny little countries with absolutely no power whatsoever are not the same kind of entity that, say, the United States, the global hegemon is.
It's just different.
But we all pretend because we're living at the apotheosis of the Westphalian system, of the nation-state system, where we're all just separate and sort of equal nation-states, at least in theory, certainly not in practice.
But that will leave these weaker states open to a lot of danger.
So in the case of Ukraine, You have got a territory that has been disputed and conquered for a thousand years.
Ukraine has been conquered by so many people that even the Poles, who themselves have been conquered many, many times, even the Poles were able to conquer Ukraine, okay?
So after the Cold War, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine found itself in a nice political situation, a relatively nice one, historically speaking, which is that it was a buffer state between the West, which was on the rise, and the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation.
And so what Ukraine did for a long time was just kind of play off both sides.
Obviously Ukraine has deep economic and cultural and national ties, ethnic ties, to Russia.
But they're also playing with the West a little bit and they're a nice little buffer state and that benefits them.
The moment that Ukraine's present troubles really began was when that buffer state decided to start moving a little more decisively in the western direction.
And so when it moved a little more decisively in the western direction, and you had a coup called the Maidan Revolution, which was funded by the United States government, and you had the head of the CIA landing in Kiev two weeks after the Maidan Revolution, probably not great optics, all of a sudden, what happens?
You get Russia starting to get a little bit more aggressive on that eastern flank in there, and then eventually you get Russia just invading the east of Ukraine, and now you've got the United States and the Western powers broadly funding the war.
Ostensibly it's just Ukraine fighting Russia, but it's really the West, led by the United States, fighting Russia.
This is something that we were able to avoid for the entirety of the Cold War, a direct confrontation, and now we seem to be stepping closer and closer to it.
Not a great idea.
Maybe had Ukraine just remained a buffer state and didn't say I want to join the EU and didn't say I want to join NATO, maybe Russia would have become, would have been a little bit less aggressive responding to a color revolution and a coup.
And maybe, I'm not saying this is ideal, maybe the Ukrainians deeply in their heart really do yearn to join Europe.
But maybe that's not the most prudent thing for them to do.
Maybe these alliances are not without limits.
Maybe actually everything in politics has limits, and when we try to surpass all limits, that's when situations get very, very dangerous.
You want to see how dangerous this situation is here in the war with Russia.
Germany just accidentally admitted that British and French troops are fighting in Ukraine.
So, Germany admitted this accidentally to cover their own hide.
They say, what is being done in the way of target control and accompanying target control on the part of the British and the French can't be done in Germany.
Everyone who has dealt with this system knows that.
And it goes on, says, I will not support any decision that would somehow involve German soldiers in a military operation related to Russia's terrible war against Ukraine.
So, how do you read in between the lines from the German leader here?
They're saying, look, Ukraine wants us to give them more weapon systems, but we're not going to give them those weapon systems in the way that the British and the French are, because doing so would force German soldiers to be operating in Ukraine, and I'm not going to do that.
The implication, obviously, is that British and French soldiers are in Ukraine.
So, is it accidental, or is he just throwing the Brits and the French under the bus here to cover his own hide?
Either way, what he's saying here is That the West is much more involved in the war against Russia than the public believes.
So then the question is, is NATO, is the West, led by the US, interested in and willing to control Eastern Europe?
Do we really want to do that?
All of those states?
All the Baltics, all the states bordering Russia, do we really want to do that?
Or, do we want to, because here's the flip side, and it's a very good argument, do we really want to let all those states fall under Russia control?
Do we really want Vladimir Putin, who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century?
Do we really want him, he clearly has expansionist ambitions, do we want him to conquer those states?
Do we want it to fall to a new Russian empire?
No, we probably don't want that either.
So then what's the alternative?
The alternative is buffer states.
My friend Yoram Hazoni, the very excellent Israeli philosopher, makes this argument well.
He's made this argument with regard to Jordan.
He's made this argument all over the world.
Because Yoram is a philosopher of nationalism.
He points out, you know, being a buffer state, having some neutrality, which everyone seems so keen to give up today, can serve the interests of the people.
It can serve a national interest and it can actually conduce toward world peace and world order.
Perhaps more so than everyone picking a side and then, and then what?
Then going to war.
As the world order frays further and further, we have a president who doesn't really know what his name is.
So what are we going to do about that?
The Republicans are mocking this.
I mean, I'm going to be at the State of the Union on Thursday, so I suppose I'll tell you how he does, if he does manage to show up, and we'll see.
Maybe it'll be a seven-minute State of the Union.
We'll all be out of there by 830 or something.
But in the meantime, The liberals have clearly had it with Biden.
I love this headline from The Atlantic.
They say, other presidents have retired in March of their re-election year.
It's so sad.
It's so sad, because they don't want to make an enemy of Biden, because Biden is the head of their party.
But they know that Biden is just so weak, and right now, in an even remotely fair election, Trump would beat Biden, probably decisively.
And they know that he's just not up to the job.
But they can't say, Biden needs to get out of there, and I support Gavin Newsom, or whatever.
They certainly don't want to say, I support Kamala Harris.
She's probably less capable even than a senile Joe Biden.
And even an active Joe Biden wasn't all that capable.
But what do they do?
They say, you know, Actually, Mr. President, actually, there's a long history of presidents retiring right now.
Please retire.
Please, please, please, Mr. President, please retire.
Now, we have to retire this portion of the show right now, but it's Tuesday.
It's time for the Membrum Segmentum.
You do not want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code Knolls at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
