Nikki Haley ends her campaign, Fox News cuts away from a woman saying she wouldn’t vote for a woman, and scientists might bring the woolly mammoth back to life.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1441
- - -
DailyWire+:
Tune in on TONIGHT at 8:30 PM ET for the Daily Wire Backstage SOTU coverage exclusively on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3T3YgGt
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Helix - Get 20% off + 2 free pillows at https://helixsleep.com/Knowles
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.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 2024 Republican presidential primary is officially over as Nikki Haley suspends her campaign, clearing the last hurdle for President Trump to clinch the nomination.
We all knew it was coming.
As I mentioned on the show yesterday, and Nikki made her formal announcement just moments after our show wrapped yesterday.
But, as I said then, the interesting thing about Nikki's concession was never going to be whether or not it happened.
It was always going to happen.
There just wasn't a path to victory.
The interesting aspect was always going to be how she would do it.
As I've said from the beginning, I really like Nikki Haley personally and I think she's a very talented politician.
But as Nikki continued to double down, even as the nomination seemed further and further out of reach and the money was running out, the problem for the Haley campaign was that it could not find an off-ramp.
It couldn't figure out how to claim any kind of victory and save any kind of face and just end it until yesterday.
I am filled with the gratitude for the outpouring of support we've received from all across our great country.
But the time has now come to suspend my campaign.
I said I wanted Americans to have their voices heard.
I have done that.
I have no regrets.
And although I will no longer be a candidate, I will not stop using my voice for the things I believe in.
So that was the reasoning.
The reasoning was, we promised to give voters a choice, and we did.
We made it to Super Tuesday, voters had their choice, and they chose Trump.
So then, the question for Nikki was, would she follow the voters' decision?
Would she adhere to the RNC pledge that she and the other candidates, except for Trump, signed to endorse the eventual nominee?
Would she endorse Trump as well?
In all likelihood, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee when our party convention meets in July.
I congratulate him and wish him well.
I wish anyone well who would be America's president.
Our country is too precious to let our differences divide us.
I have always been a conservative Republican and always supported the Republican nominee.
But on this question, as she did on so many others, Margaret Thatcher provided some good advice when she said, quote, never just follow the crowd, always make up your own mind.
It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it who did not support him.
And I hope he does that.
This is the most perfectly political answer I have perhaps ever seen.
It's just so crafty Nikki has always supported the Republican nominee, which means she's supported Trump twice.
She's always supported the Republican nominee.
She supported Trump in 16.
She supported Trump in 20, which should appease the Trump supporters, right?
It seems to insinuate that she'll support this this time around as well.
She's refusing to endorse Trump outright, which should appease Trump's GOP political opponents.
And she's even leaving open the possibility that she could endorse Joe Biden.
Probably wouldn't, but maybe she could.
Depends.
What if Joe Biden offered her some really sweet post in the administration?
She could switch parties.
It's so perfectly political.
That everyone will hate it.
This answer is so perfectly political that it's supposed to appease everyone, and actually everyone is going to hate it.
Just like at the end of Trump's other GOP primary in 2016.
So the toughest rival to Trump leaves it ambiguous.
He will have to earn Republicans' votes.
Except he won't.
He won't.
He'll have to earn the votes of Independents.
He'll have to earn the votes of some Democrats, maybe.
He'll have to motivate the party to show up in November, but he won't have to earn the support of Republicans.
That part is over.
Trump is the nominee.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
The funniest clip of the entire Republican presidential primary at this point occurred just a day or so ago when Fox News had to cut away from a local voter, a woman in a diner, saying that she would not under any circumstances vote for a woman, period, no matter who that woman was.
So we'll get to that in a moment.
It was really charming.
First though, subscribe to the Michael Knowles YouTube channel.
Smash the button and ring the bell and do all the things that one does in order to subscribe to a YouTube channel.
We focused on the Republican side.
There is a Democrat primary, and I'm not even talking about Bobby Kennedy or Cornel West or the woo-woo New Age lady Marianne Williamson.
There was a Democrat challenger in this race, and that person is Dean Phillips.
You've maybe heard of him on this show, otherwise you probably haven't even heard of him.
He's a congressman who voted with Biden, I think, I think actually 100% of the time.
So he's a total liberal Democrat and he was just running as Biden but younger.
And most people didn't even know he was running, and he just dropped out.
And he dropped out.
I can't even read you the whole tweet.
The tweet is one, two, three, four, five, six paragraphs long.
That is more paragraphs than supporters of his campaign.
But it goes on, in 2011, I hosted the this and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But here's the meat of his dropping out.
He says, I ran for president in 2024 to resist Donald Trump again.
Because Americans were demanding an alternative, and democracy demands options.
But it is clear that alternative is not me, and it is clear that Joe Biden is our candidate and our opportunity to demonstrate what type of country America is and intends to be.
I ask you to join me in mobilizing, energizing, and doing everything you can to help keep a man of decency and integrity in the White House.
That's Joe Biden.
Okay.
Okay, Dean.
Sure.
Bye.
Who are you again?
Okay, yeah.
Man of decency and, yeah, nothing says decency and integrity like Joe Biden, one of the most callous, nasty liars in American politics.
But okay, Dean, that's fine.
Bye.
There was never much of a primary on the Democrat side.
Bobby Kennedy was never going to be the nominee.
That's why he realized that.
He realized even if he had support, the Democrat party wouldn't let him.
So he's running independent, might run Libertarian now.
Marianne Williamson, going nowhere.
This guy, you know, the problem for a guy like Dean Phillips is, is the same problem as you saw for a guy like Ron DeSantis.
Which is, if your candidacy is, I'm just the better version of this other guy, bigger, better, faster, stronger.
And the other guy is in the race, people are going to want the other guy.
There's no substitute for the real thing, okay?
And so even if you can make all these arguments, even putting aside the Trump-DeSantis race for a second, Dean Phillips is obviously a better version of Joe Biden in that he still knows what his name is, and he can speak coherently, and he's energetic, and so he's wealthy.
He's got all these great traits, and he believes all the stuff that Joe Biden believes, which I guess is nothing because I don't think Joe Biden is a particularly convicted politician.
In any case, yeah, sure, he's way better.
And so what?
Biden's the guy, and Trump's the guy, and we're getting a rematch.
Now, you're gonna hear, just like in 2016, you heard one weird trick that could give Bernie Sanders the nomination, you know, no, actually, they might take it away from Trump, no.
You're still gonna hear, actually, maybe the Democrat nominee will be Michelle Obama.
Here's one weird trick to get Biden out of the spot.
It's not going to happen.
I've said it from the beginning.
And now Michelle Obama is saying it too.
According to Crystal Carson, the Director of Communications for the Michelle Obama office, as former First Lady Michelle Obama has expressed several times over the years, she will not be running for president.
Mrs. Obama supports President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris's re-election campaign.
Simple as.
All sorts of people, especially on the right, love to get so excited about all these secret theories.
Here's what they're going to do.
They're going to let Joe keep on pretending to be the nominee.
And then at the convention, the five delegates with the superdelegates and the Illuminati and the aliens are going to come down and they're going to swap the bodies of Joe Biden and Michelle Obama.
And then they're going to reanimate the corpse of Franklin Roosevelt.
And the ticket is going to be Grover Cleveland And Thomas Jefferson.
No, no, it's not.
None of those things are going to happen.
Michelle never wanted to run.
There was no reason for her to run.
She's already had the pleasure of being in the White House.
She's already had the pleasure of the fame and the power and the influence.
And now she's making money and living a private life and doesn't have to put up with all the strabats.
Running for president is a brutal, brutal experience.
I'm not sure there's anything quite so brutal in public life, or ever has been.
Probably not since antiquity when, you know, the stakes were, you know, if you lost, they'd kill you.
And, frankly, we seem to be approaching that point again in America.
So, no, she never wanted it.
There was no reason for her to do it.
She's out.
It's a rematch.
There is so much more to say.
First, though, go to HelixSleep.com slash Knowles.
I have been talking about my Helix mattress for years.
At this point, I have had that mattress for, I think, four years now, and it is truly the gift that keeps on giving.
In fact, you know, my little boy, my eldest son is transitioning from the crib to the bed and I realized I am spoiling my poor son because his first bed is going to be a beautiful, luxurious helix mattress.
It's basically everything's downhill from there.
He has got the twin size that is firm yet breathable.
If you're an adult like me, maybe you want more of the queen or even the king size, you gotta check out the Helix Elite Collection.
Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness Preferences.
They got a 10-year warranty.
You can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They will even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
Helix is offering our listeners 20% off mattress orders and two free pillows.
Go to helixsleep.com slash Knowles.
Helixsleep.com slash Knowles.
This is their best offer yet.
It won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
My favorite clip from the entire 2024 Republican presidential primary came just a couple of nights ago on Super Tuesday, when Fox News was visiting a diner in Allen, Texas.
Nikki Haley was still in the race, and the Fox News host asked one of the diners, before an entire Fox News panel that was remote, probably in New York, So, who are you voting for?
What do you think?
What's your view of Nikki Haley?
Here's the answer.
NBC just reported that Michelle Obama has said she will not run for president.
Thank God!
Yes!
Nancy said, I would love the reaction from a woman in the crowd.
I wouldn't vote for a woman.
And especially, you know, Nikki Haley.
I'm just going to say this.
She's probably menopausal.
We don't need that.
She said, how about we vote for people, regardless of their gender, just the right person for the job for America.
Thanks so much, Will.
That's not what she said.
Hold on, you are putting words in her mouth, sir.
That's not, yes, yes, hold on, let me translate that for you.
She said, we totally love women presidents, and women should definitely be president, as long as they're good for the job.
I didn't say that.
I said I would never vote for a woman.
What are you talking about, you man?
Typical man erasing the political voice of a woman.
Who wants to articulate her view that a woman should never be president.
So great.
I love it.
And Fox just can't.
Fox just is institutionally incapable of having fun with an answer like that or even permitting a woman to articulate her view that she wants a guy to be president.
The funny thing about it, though, is I know a number of people Who would not want a woman to be president.
I know a number of people who have said, I would not vote for a woman to be president because she is a woman.
And the craziest thing about that is that most of those people that I know who feel that way are women.
Actually, that woman who Fox interviewed and then regretted interviewing, in my experience, is not the aberration.
Most of the people It's just anecdote, but the plural of anecdote, I suppose, is data.
Most of the people who don't want a woman to be president might just be women.
Okay?
Maybe it's because they know women better than we do.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not venturing any guesses.
I'm not making any statements about that woman's declaration.
Just pointing out it's a delightful clip.
Washington Post is more somber about Haley's exit in the race.
Washington Post says, Haley exits the race and proves the Reagan GOP is no more.
That's it.
R.I.P.
Ronald Reagan.
R.I.P.
Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan left office 35 years ago.
Ronald Reagan was elected president 43 years ago.
And he was the oldest president ever at that point.
Ronald Reagan first came on the political scene in the 1960s, and then he left office 35 years ago, and then he made his last public appearance 30 years ago, and then he died 20 years ago.
I love Ronald Reagan as much as the next guy.
Let the man die.
Let the man rest in peace.
Good grief, you people.
You just want to reanimate his corpse.
That's what they all want to do.
They do the same thing to William F. Buckley Jr.
Another man I love.
I wrote the foreword, the new introduction to William F. Buckley Jr.' 's most famous book, God and Man at Yale.
I was the first Buckley Fellow in the inaugural class of Buckley Fellows at Yale.
I love the man, okay?
This is no knock on Reagan.
This is no knock on Buckley.
But good grief, let these people die.
They did their time.
They fought their battles.
Now we can deal with ours.
We can fight ours.
And frankly, the people today who most ostentatiously claim the mantle of the Reaganites and the Buckleyites, these people are the least like their supposed heroes in American politics.
Ronald Reagan was not a Reaganite.
Ronald Reagan was a trailblazer.
He helped change the Republican Party.
Ronald Reagan, he came up with the slogan, Make America Great Again.
Ronald Reagan advocated tariffs when they were in the American national interest.
Ronald Reagan was seen as heralding a kind of religious revival in America, even though he personally had a somewhat unorthodox kind of religiosity.
He was larger than life.
He was a big Hollywood star.
Sound familiar?
Does that sound familiar?
Because today, what we are told Is that the Trump movement or the MAGA movement is a total betrayal of the Reagan movement.
It's a total betrayal of the conservative movement of William F. Buckley Jr.
I just think it's all ridiculous.
And frankly, many of the people who claim to be the Reaganites and the Buckleyites of today, I think that the opposite is true, actually.
It's amazing how much a man's legacy can be distorted and perverted over the years.
You know, when you hear people inveighing against a new McCarthyism, oh, this new kind of persecution in American politics, this new revanchist right-wing, I think, you know, William F. Buckley Jr.
wrote a book defending Joe McCarthy, said that McCarthyism is a political movement around which all Americans of strong moral fiber can rally, okay?
Give me a break.
Ronald Reagan was the one who shook up the Republican Party conservative establishment.
The whole premise, I think, is dubious.
Even the notion...
Donald Trump, he's for a weak American policy.
He doesn't want to be terribly involved all around the world.
Ronald Reagan, he was the one who would send in the tanks.
He just wanted to go bomb every country on earth.
That's ridiculous.
Even when Americans were attacked in the Beirut barracks bombings, what did Reagan do?
He didn't retaliate, and he withdrew all the troops from Beirut.
Who better typifies the spirit of Reagan and the spirit of Buckley?
Is it the people who claim their mantle today, many of whom are squish, half-lib types like Liz Cheney?
Or is it...
You know, the conservatives, the ones who have a little bit of a populist streak.
Even this notion that the old, the really high-minded conservative movement of William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan would never have indulged in this sort of populism.
William F. Buckley Jr.
famously said that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard College.
That's the most populist statement I can possibly imagine.
Ridiculous.
Reagan's GOP is no more.
Reagan's GOP is no more because he died 20 years ago and because he left office 35 years ago.
But the spirit of Ronald Reagan is, you know, he expressed an aspect of a conservative spirit that long predated him and will survive, I hope, long after him.
If you're asking me which side of the GOP, the more hardcore right-wing side or the squishy side, which better exemplifies that spirit today, I think it's very clearly the former.
Now, speaking of things associated with Trump, Diet Coke might be very bad for your health.
There's a new study out.
It's a shocking study.
If you're driving, pull over.
If you're standing up, sit down.
Diet drinks with the artificial sweeteners apparently greatly increase your risk of an irregular heartbeat.
Drinking two liters or more per liter.
I don't know how I feel about that.
When I would drink Diet Coke, I would drink it by the gallon.
But okay, two liters, that's a two-liter bottle, or more per week of artificially sweetened beverages, the equivalent of a medium-sized fast-food diet soda a day, raised the risk of an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation by 20% when compared to people who drank none, a new study found.
Drinking a similar number of added sugar beverages, so, you know, regular soda or, you know, other kind of drinks like that, raised the risk of the condition by 10%, so not quite as much as the diet sodas.
And drinking 4 ounces of pure unsweetened juice, orange juice, vegetable juice, whatever, was associated with an 8% lower risk of atrial fibrillation, according to this study.
Why do I even mention it?
I remember when I was a kid, truly, I grew up on diet beverages.
I drank Diet Peach Snapple, That was basically my blood type.
If we ran out of Diet Peach Snapple, I drank Diet Raspberry Snapple.
If we ran out of Diet Raspberry Snapple, I drank Diet Coke.
And worst case, I drank Diet Pepsi.
It was just diet all the way down.
And it was the 90s, that's what everyone did.
And I actually do remember I had like, I had a little bit of an irregular heartbeat for a little while.
And so I'm not surprised at all, just anecdotally.
But we should not be surprised today to read these things.
Because outside the realm of soda or drugs or whatever you put into your body, conservatives ought to know nothing in life is free.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
There's no such thing as a free calorie.
There's no such thing as a free soda.
Everything has a cost.
I know President Kofefe loves the Diet Cokes, and the man's apparently just absolutely unbreakable and indestructible.
But for everyone else, it's an important political lesson, regardless of what you drink at lunchtime.
Everything has a cost.
If something seems too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.
And in this case, it's amazing we're finding out 30, 40, 50 years later, that just pumping your body full of artificial chemicals that are intended to mimic sugar So that you don't become a little too chubby for having so many Coca-Colas.
That that actually might have a deleterious effect on your health.
Shocking.
There is so much more to say.
First, though, go to preborn.com slash Knowles.
I really love Preborn.
I think it is a magnificent charity.
I strongly recommend that you give whatever you can right now, whether it's five bucks, whether it's five thousand dollars, because Every one of those dollars will go directly toward saving babies, specifically toward providing ultrasounds for women.
Once women see their child on ultrasound, it doubles that baby's chance at life.
I met someone and I got pregnant and I wasn't ready.
When I was at the clinic, after they told me how far along I was and that the baby had a heartbeat, I cried.
And they gave me a minute by myself in the room.
I broke down, and I prayed to God.
I asked the Lord to, when I walk out of those doors, to just give me the strength to be able to go through the pregnancy.
I made my decision at that time.
Treasure I chose because I know that she was a gift from God, and she's just gonna be a treasure.
I'm super grateful that I'm able to go down this journey with my daughter, and I'm just super glad that I didn't have an abortion.
To donate securely, dial pound 250, say keyword baby.
Pound 250, keyword baby.
Or go to preborn.com slash NOLS.
Preborn.com slash NOLS.
Speaking of modern science, scientists might bring the woolly mammoth back to life.
I've been hearing about this since I was a little kid.
That actually in the tundra and in Siberia and in Canada, they've found these fairly well-preserved remains of woolly mammoths.
Not just fossils, but actually like flesh and meat.
There was one scientist who, it was so well-preserved, not only have they taken DNA samples, one scientist actually ate a piece of the mammoth meat.
that is many thousands of years old, pretty gross.
Scientists now believe that they are on the cusp of bringing something like the woolly mammoth back to life.
And the something like is the key here.
Because you, the question is, can you really bring an extinct animal back to life?
And from a biological standpoint, what they would have to do here is they would take these elephant stem cells, so they have a line of Asian elephant stem cells, and stem cells are very malleable, so they can be coaxed to transform into other types of cells.
So, they're going to take the Asian elephant stem cells, and they're going to coax them into behaving like the woolly mammoth cells.
And then, because woolly mammoths and elephants are very similar, They're going to try to gestate the woolly mammoth in some kind of elephant womb.
And then what?
One ethical question.
Is it okay?
It's the Jurassic Park question.
We spent so long asking if we could.
We never asked if we should!
I'm getting the line a little bit wrong, but that's the question.
Should we bring an extinct animal back to life?
And two, can we?
Let's ask the should first.
I really have no problem with it in principle.
It's funny because these days...
People have no problem on the left, and even in a lot of quarters of the right, they have no problem with tinkering around with the origins and destiny of human life, but they have some ethical qualms about doing it to hairy elephants.
They say, oh, with human beings, yeah, we're gonna create human beings in a test tube, and we're gonna make them to order, so, you know, you want blonde hair and blue eyes and a certain sex, and they're gonna be bigger, better, faster, stronger, and you're gonna pay us $200,000, and we're gonna, we're just gonna mix up all these little ingredients in a Petri dish, and then we're going to, Freeze or kill most of the ones that we don't use, but some we're going to create your designer baby for you.
No ethical problem whatsoever.
Not only are the Democrats for it, not only are they making this apparently a centerpiece of the 2024 campaign, even a lot of Republicans are saying they're for it.
No ethical problems at all.
Oh, but hold on.
You want to make a hairy elephant?
I don't know.
We need to bring the ethicists in, don't we?
Oh, I don't know.
What's the morality of that?
Call me crazy, I care more about the human being, the little human baby, than I do about the hairy elephant.
I think the human baby has more moral significance than the hairy Siberian elephant does.
In principle, I have no problem with bringing this woolly mammoth back to life because we are the stewards of creation.
And that's the birds, and the fish, and the plants, and the animals.
And we do this all the time.
We breed animals in a particular way for To help us, or even just for our amusement.
I think of the bulldog, which is a kind of hereditary anomaly that we've created, a kind of ghastly monster who's really, really cute, but that's just a result of a particular kind of breeding that gave him the flat face and the curly little tail and the breathing problems and, you know, they don't move that much.
And anyway, I don't have a problem with it.
We're the stewards of that, of creation.
But then you get to the, can we?
And ironically, the scientists say, yes, we definitely can, but I don't think we should.
And I'm saying, no, we should, I mean, if we want to, if we do it, you know, within relatively moral parameters.
But I don't think that we can, because the question becomes, as some scientists are even raising in the reporting here, how is the mammoth going to learn to be a mammoth?
Who's going to teach the baby woolly mammoth how to be a woolly mammoth?
The elephant?
No, the elephant's going to teach the woolly mammoth how to be an elephant, but a woolly mammoth is different than an elephant.
They have totally different habitats.
The Asian elephant's not going to be able to live in Siberia, so how is the woolly mammoth going to learn the behaviors that are appropriate to a woolly mammoth?
Elephants and mammoths, presumably, are relatively advanced as far as animals go.
They're relatively intelligent as far as animals go.
How do you do that?
And I think this here is the major problem with bringing an extinct species back to life.
You can't actually do it.
The very notion that you can just bring an extinct species back to life assumes so many modern liberal premises.
It assumes a kind of materialism that just whatever is needed to become a mammoth, to be, to act like a mammoth, and to thrive as a mammoth, it's just going to be in your DNA.
It's all DNA.
None of this is learned from parents or grandparents, from the herd, from the pack, from the environment.
No, no.
It's just all in your DNA or something.
That, to me, speaks to a very modern materialism.
But even more than that, it's this individualism, which is the dominant spirit of our age, on the left and on the right, which is this notion that, I'm fundamentally an individual, and I will thrive most, I will be most my true self as an individual.
Society, I don't need society.
The left says this when it comes to norms and customs and the moral order, and the right says this when it comes to obligations and when it comes to, specifically when it comes to money.
They say, I don't owe anything to anybody, I don't need anybody, I don't, it takes a village, what are you talking about?
Uh-uh, I'm just, I'm me, I'm gonna go live on my own in the woods, that's my ideal life.
But, that's not true.
It's not true for humans.
It's certainly not true for woolly mammoths.
Humans are the political animal.
We are the social creature.
And that's certainly true of herd animals, of course.
Your identity derives from your relation to others.
Ultimately, your identity derives from your relation to God, but even at a terrestrial level, your identity is going to come from your family, and the town you grew up in, and your community, and the others around you.
We're memetic creatures.
Human beings are memetic creatures.
We imitate each other, the way that we speak, the way that we behave, even the things that we desire, and even the virtues that we practice, even the vices that we practice, that comes from other people.
So if you just create a new individual, whether we're talking about a big hairy elephant or we're talking about a human being, and you just say, okay, here you go, grow up in isolation somewhere, that thing is not going to be what it's supposed to be.
The mammoth is not going to be the mammoth, the human is not going to be a human.
You just can't do it.
Whatever they do, they'll do some science experiment probably, and they'll create some kind of animal, and who knows if the animal will even be able to live very long, but whatever that animal is, it's not really a woolly mammoth.
And a human being who is totally alienated from society, whatever that thing is, probably not going to be a human being.
Not going to be, it's not going to be recognizably human, at least.
Speaking of extinction, There is a clip of Seth Rogen that is two or three years old at this point, but it's gone viral in recent days because it's really captured the zeitgeist.
And it's this clip of Joe Rogan, I think he was on the Howard Stern Show, bragging about how wonderful his life is because he does not have children.
Take it away.
We have so much fun.
Like, I don't know anyone who gets as much happiness out of their kids as we get out of our non-kids.
Like, we're f***ing psyched all the time.
We're laying in bed on Saturday morning, smoking weed, like, watching movies naked.
There's people like, if we had kids, we could not be f***ing doing this.
Like, this is, well, like, there is no one whose child is giving them as much joy as we are right now getting because we do not have a kid.
Okay, before I get into all the dumb things he just said, I owe an apology to Joe Rogan.
I can't believe, because I don't think about Seth Rogan that much, and Joe Rogan is a much more important cultural figure, so I just, I accidentally said Joe Rogan.
So, Joe Rogan and Seth Rogan are very different people.
They both apparently love marijuana, so I guess they do have that in common, but otherwise, Joe is basically a very sensible guy.
Seth Rogan, not very sensible.
At all.
And what he said here is certainly not sensible.
We have so much fun.
I don't know anyone who gets as much happiness out of their kids as we get out of our non-kids.
Like we're effing psyched all the time.
We're laying in bed on Saturday morning, smoking weed, watching movies naked.
If we had kids, we could not be effing doing this.
I agree that you should probably not puff the devil's lettuce when you have kids.
I know people who do it and who have done it.
It can be done, I suppose.
Probably not advisable.
But you can watch movies naked.
Even if you procreate.
You don't want to do it probably when they're awake.
Probably wait until they go to bed or something like that.
But you can, it's okay.
You can, even if you have children, you know, you can go into your bedroom or into the shower.
You can undress.
You can still do that.
It's not that you have to wear a uniform all the time.
You can watch movies.
You can watch movies sometimes with your children, or if you want to watch an R-rated movie, you can watch that once your children go to bed or take a nap.
You can do that.
And I know that potheads who are totally not addicted in any way, it's not addictive at all, it becomes their whole personality, but they're not addicted.
I know it's difficult to believe.
I've puffed the devil's lettuce once or twice, I'm not proud of it, you know, but every now and again back in my wayward youth.
And there are better things.
Kids actually are better than that sticky, icky, you know, kush.
Alright?
I promise you.
The kids, the kids are better.
So why, does he really believe this or is he just fooling himself?
In the case of Seth Rogen, look, some people just can't have kids.
It's terribly sad.
It's a very difficult thing.
Sometimes people then adopt, or sometimes people just get more involved with their godchildren, or their community, or whatever.
You know, some people are called to religious life.
Having kids is not for everybody, but to choose a bong over a child Speaks to either a profound degree of denial or just an amazing immaturity and ignorance.
But I kind of get it because you see it especially with Millennials and with even Zoomers.
There is this reluctance today to have kids.
And the reason is people don't feel that they're mature enough to have kids.
And in many cases they're right about that.
So they need to get mature.
But they don't want to do that.
This is why this term, adulting, has become popular.
Because people are just very afraid of growing up.
And maybe it's because they weren't educated to grow up.
Maybe it's because our public education system failed, and because our parents were too soft, and because our country's too decadent.
I don't know.
I mean, you can come up with a million excuses.
But just figure it out, guys.
Because it's not Whatever propaganda, we were fed as children, that, you know, the children are the children of the future.
Well, the future is now.
Actually, the children, they understand from the voice of babes, we learn the wonders of the world.
No, actually, kids are uneducated by definition.
And I guess what we were told The culture that we grew up in seemed to be that this is as good as it gets.
Don't grow up too fast.
This is as good as it gets.
Enjoy.
Take your time.
Don't worry about working too hard.
You'll get inflated grades anyway.
Don't go to college.
Party for four years.
It doesn't even matter if you work that hard in college.
Just enjoy it.
This is as good as it gets.
And then life just gets harder and worse and worse.
And life does get a little bit harder in the sense that you have more responsibilities, you know, fewer excuses.
But life gets better.
It gets better, actually.
The best is yet to come, and babe, won't that be fine?
That's one of my favorite lines from the American Songbook.
It was my yearbook quote, both in high school and college.
I love that line.
And it's been my experience.
It's true, it does get better.
But you have to be able to kill the pleasures that you've got now.
C.S.
Lewis made this point, I forget in which book, when he said, when you're a little kid, you can't imagine there's anything as good as chocolate.
And then if you hear about something called sex, you say, oh, there's no way sex is better than, unless, sex must involve chocolate.
If sex is, and you say, well, no, it's not supposed to, at least.
But you can't, when you're a kid, you just can't imagine that.
Then you find out, oh, sex actually is better than chocolate.
But that's where most people stop.
They say, oh, sex or whatever, just pleasure, smoking pot or whatever, that's as good as it gets.
There is something better, but in order to discover that, you have to be willing to sacrifice.
You have to be willing to risk.
The childish pleasures that you have now, and put away the things of the child when you become a man.
Otherwise, you end up as an overgrown child, smoking pot, naked in bed, watching movies alone.
Tonight, watch The Daily Wire's backstage as Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Andrew Clavin, and Jeremy Boring watch and react to the 2024 State of the Union live on Daily Wire+.
I will hopefully be on the show.
But I will not be here because I will be in Washington, D.C.
I was invited to the State of the Union.
I'm really honored.
Congressman Andy Ogles invited me as his guest this year, so I will be in the room with the President and the Congressman and the Senators and the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And you can try to pick me out on the TV somewhere.
I'm not sure where I'll be sitting.
But I will try to call in before and afterward, so we'll break down the State of the Union as it happens, and of course, answer your questions live.
Watch it tonight at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern on the Daily Wire app and dailywire.com.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Dr. Pepper Zero, who says, the way Michael says because is iconic.
Thank you.
Very honored.
You found a word.
There are only a couple of words that I think give away my place of origin.
I, you know, I trained in acting conservatories, I took, I studied the American Standard Accent.
I feel, I don't talk like Fran Drescher from The Nanny, okay?
I don't talk like caricatures of New Yorkers.
There are two words that I can't extirpate in my pronunciation.
Because, because, I don't know, because, I said because, because the world is round, no, and then coffee, coffee is the one, coffee, coffee, like toffee, like English toffee, I don't know, that's where I sound like a New Yorker, all right, all right, you understand, forget about it, forget about it.
Speaking of excessive drug use, a German man, He has received 217 shots of the COVID vaccines.
Why has he done that?
According to this article, he's done it for personal reasons.
Whatever that means.
He's had 217 of these and apparently has no side effects.
Now, I think we have a picture of the man.
If you're just listening to the show right now, he seems to, I don't know, it looks like he's got some side effects to me.
Kind of like the drooling plasma coming out of his neck and the, you know, recessed eye sockets that are now just filled with goo and the shrieking kind of nightmarish.
I think that's it.
I haven't verified that that is a picture of the German man.
But in any case, I would be skeptical of 217 of these vaccines.
He's a 62-year-old from Magdeburg, Germany.
Had no signs of ever being infected with the virus that causes COVID-19.
Isn't that just COVID-19?
What do you mean the virus?
I'm just reading the report here.
It says the virus that causes COVID-19.
I don't know, what is that?
Had not reported, I guess the flu is probably what it is, had not reported any vaccine-related side effects according to the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg.
Now, there's only official confirmation for 134 of these vaccines, so The other, you know, a little under a hundred, unconfirmed.
Those are eight different types of vaccines.
And they say, the observation that no noticeable side effects were triggered in spite of this extraordinary hyper-vaccination indicates that the drugs have a good degree of tolerability.
Okay.
My take on this news article, it's very convenient.
It's very convenient.
Because the subheader is, People in the UK will have received a maximum of seven jabs.
Oh no, look this guy had a bazillion jabs and he's totally fine.
Who is he?
I don't know.
I don't think we even know his name.
He's just anonymous, but he's had a bazillion and he's totally fine.
Take the jab, sheep!
Come on, get more of your jabs there.
It's totally safe.
I don't know, because like some women in America had one jab and then they died of blood clots, and a lot of young people had one or two jabs and then they died either of heart problems or just had nerve damage or myocarditis or pericarditis, so I don't know.
Seems like a little bit of a...
This seems a little bit more like a PR operation than a scientific discovery to me.
Speaking of the Germans, those krauts, is a very famous image from World War II.
Probably the most famous image.
It's the soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima, maybe is the most, but actually probably even more famous than that is the kiss.
It's the kiss from Victory over Japan Day, and it's that sailor who's just in the middle of Times Square and he grabs that nurse and he pulls her back in his arms and gives her a big, big kiss.
And it's a lovely photo, really, you know, charming.
Truly one of the most famous in American history.
And the liberals running the Veterans Affairs Department want to shut it down.
So, there was a memorandum that went out from the VA This is from the Assistant Undersecretary for Health Operations.
Subject, removal and replacement of VJ Day in Times Square Photographs.
Purpose, this memorandum requests the removal of the VJ Day in Times Square Photograph from all Veterans Health Administration facilities in alignment with the Department of Veterans Affairs commitment to maintaining a safe, respectful, and trauma-informed environment.
Trauma-informed, what does that mean?
This action is promoted by the recognition that the photograph, which depicts a non-consensual act Okay, it goes on.
I mean, there's no ambiguity here whatsoever.
There was some pushback to the removal of the photograph.
Not just from veterans, who are a little tougher than all that, but also from the granddaughter of the woman in the picture.
So, this woman, this young woman says, My grandmother, the woman who was in the picture, who was an Austrian Jew who was a refugee, she fled Europe and she came here to America, said, my grandmother never felt violated or anything like that.
She was always very proud of the image.
And she thought it was two young people celebrating in the street.
My grandma signed images of the photo up until she died.
She was proud to be an American citizen.
She was a refugee from Austria.
And so the end of the war marked more to her than for everyday people.
She never felt it was something inappropriate.
It's interesting they tried to reframe historical events in today's values.
I have a picture in my house that my grandma signed and even George Mendonca signed.
So George Mendonca seems to be the likeliest claimant to be the guy in the picture.
Both of their faces are a little obscured but the woman almost certainly I think basically that's in dispute that it was it was this woman and the guy it's most likely is this guy George Mendonca and They both signed the picture.
My grandma stayed in contact with George, and she did parades on VJ Day with him.
She never said it was anything she felt was uncomfortable.
And then this young woman, this was the key, this young woman, the granddaughter of the woman in the picture, goes on and describes a class she had in college.
Not a normal class, like a history class, or a philosophy class, or a math class.
No, no, no, it was of course a gender studies class.
It says, at college I had a women's and gender studies teacher.
Who showed that image and said, this is sexual assault.
I put my hand up and said, that's actually my grandma.
She didn't view it that way.
And the teacher disagreed with me.
I can understand the argument, but for my grandmother, it represented the end of the war and they're celebrating.
Okay.
The best part of all of this, look, I'm happy to say the actual secretary of the VA, Came out and he said, no, we're not getting rid of the image.
It's here.
It's going to be kept in all the facilities.
It's the most famous military image probably in American history.
We're not getting rid of it because of some woke, ridiculous undersecretary of the VA.
But the most interesting part is what that college professor said to the granddaughter.
When the granddaughter says, no, no, no, you have a narrative.
You say this is sexual assault, but I actually know the woman in the picture and she says it wasn't.
And the college professor says, yeah, your grandma's wrong.
Who knows what happened to your grandmother better, me or your grandmother?
Me, of course, says the feminist.
This is the Marxist concept which the feminists adopted of false consciousness.
The notion that you don't know your own oppression.
You might have heard this statistic on college campuses.
They say one in four or one in five women at college will be raped during their time in college.
Which is just obviously a false statistic because if it were true, no father who did not hate his daughter would ever send his daughter to college.
Furthermore, if that statistic were true, no woman would ever go to college in the United States.
If there were a one in four chance that you would be raped at a place, you just wouldn't go.
That statistic would mean that Harvard Yard Was more dangerous for women than the back alleys of Botswana, okay?
And no one actually believes that.
So where do they get this number from?
They get this number from a few different surveys, but they all kind of have the same upshot.
And it goes all the way back to a Ms.
Magazine survey back in the 1970s from the feminists, which asked women, okay, did this happen to you?
Did this happen to you?
Did this happen to you?
Were you ever raped?
And the number of women who said they were raped It was relatively low.
Not nobody, but it was relatively low.
And don't forget, there's even a response bias here.
You are more likely to respond if this has happened to you than if it hasn't.
But they go out and they say, you know, a number of women answer, yes, I did.
Most women say, no, they didn't.
And then the people creating the survey go back and they add A number of people who said that they were not raped, they will add that to the number of people who were raped, because they said, these women just didn't know.
They were.
Given their answers to the other questions, you know, I don't know, did a man ever kiss you in Times Square?
Oh, actually, that qualifies as a sexual assault.
You might not think it, you might not know it, but it's because you're laboring under a false consciousness.
The feminists did this in the 70s.
The New York radical women's groups in not only New York, but throughout the country.
Would go out, they'd get these happy housewives, they'd bring them together for wine and cheese soirees, W-H-I-N-E, and the women would go in happy and they'd leave miserable.
And then come out and so they'd say, well, I had no idea how oppressed I am.
This woman who says, I'm here, we won the war, this brutal, awful war is over, I'm free, America won, I'm celebrating with these young men, we're kissing in Times Square.
Oh, that, that's a very terrible thing.
That's a very terrible, if only you knew, lady!
How terrible this very happy moment in your life actually was.
