Arizona's 160-year-old abortion ban goes back into effect, Whoopi says Republicans want to bring back slavery, and the UK considers banning smartphones for kids.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1466
- - -
DailyWire+:
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://bit.ly/49kXXgI
Watch the brand new series, Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Knowles, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
The Ballad of Davy Crockett - Watch The Ballad of Davy Crockett today! https://vmiworldwide.biz/3Tux2dM
- - -
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 Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that since the U.S.
Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, a 160-year-old local law banning abortions is now enforceable, which everyone seems shocked by, and I'm not sure why.
Laws are laws.
Laws don't cease to be laws just because they're old.
The Constitution is 235 years old.
It's 47% older than this Arizona law, and the Constitution is still the law of the land.
Court rulings can overturn laws, but those same court rulings can be overturned as well, and then the laws are back in force.
So abortion is illegal in the state of Arizona, which is great news.
I am thrilled.
The only strange wrinkle in this pro-life ruling Is that many Democrats are also thrilled and many Republicans, including our presidential nominee, are not.
We'll get into why.
I'm Michael Knowles.
Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Whoopi Goldberg says Republicans want to bring back slavery.
How'd they find us out?
I thought we were so secret about it.
And we were playing the long game.
You see, like when Republicans got rid of slavery during the Civil War, you know, we thought, ah, this is the perfect fake out.
This is going to be the way that we're going to reinstitute it 160 years from now.
But Whoopi found us out.
So anyway, we'll get to that story in a moment.
The Democrats are oddly happy about the Arizona Supreme Court ruling that the 160-year-old Arizona law banning abortion can go into effect.
We turn to...
One of the top Democrat campaign strategists in the country, David Axelrod, to explain why.
As a political matter, this could not be more of a disaster for the Republican Party.
Yesterday, Donald Trump said, well, it's up to the people in the states to decide.
Let the states decide.
Well, here you find what happens when you let the states decide in Florida.
A six-week ban is in place.
I guarantee you in both those states, if you put that on the ballot, and they will be on the ballot in the form of initiatives, that a majority of voters in those states do not agree with those policies.
So I think what this does is it puts a battleground state more in the leaning D column than the leaning R column, because I think there's going to be a massive turnout In in November for a constitutional amendment in the state of Arizona, because the voters of Arizona now have a demonstration of the fragility of abortion rights in the post Dobbs era.
I think this is an earthquake.
Those electoral votes in Arizona could be the ones that tip this election.
Hate to say I agree with David Axelrod, but he's right.
As a political matter, it is true.
When the abortion issue post-Dobbs has come up as a ballot initiative, generally the pro-abortion crowd has done very well.
Now, what does that mean?
Does that mean that conservatives now need to say we're all okay with infanticide?
No.
The reason that we need to defend innocent human life in the womb is not because it plays really well at the ballot box.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
The reason we need to protect innocent life in the womb is because these are the most defenseless among us and it's wrong to murder babies.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but If we do not defend the right to life, we cannot plausibly defend any other rights because the right to life is not just one right among many.
You know, you have the right to drive a car after the age of 16, you have a right to do this, you have a right to do that.
No, the right to life, you don't even actually have the right to drive a car because it's sort of a privilege that the state can revoke.
The right to life is the fundamental right on which all the other rights rely.
So that's why we do it.
It's not some kind of consequentialist ends justify the means political expediency argument.
It's that it's just obviously wrong to murder hundreds of thousands of babies a year.
It's wrong to murder one baby a year.
And so we're going to defend the right to life.
But that doesn't mean the pro-lifers can ignore the politics of it because the people who win the elections go make laws and the people who lose the elections go home.
And David Axelrod is probably right.
The way that this happened in Arizona is really great for the Democrats because it's not even as though the people of the state of Arizona today went out and voted to ban abortion.
It's that a law that was on the books 160 years ago has been deemed enforceable again.
That that law was deemed unenforceable after the Supreme Court wrongly decided the Roe vs. Wade case and invented a constitutional right to an abortion.
And then the issue went away for 50 years, and now it's back.
And so the Arizona Supreme Court ruling is absolutely right, and it is a good thing.
And also, the Republicans need to figure out a way to talk about abortion heading into November that is not going to turn off voters, particularly in the swing states that we have to win.
Arizona and Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
So what does President Trump think about all this?
President Trump was asked about this while getting off of the Trump Force One, you know, his gigantic airplane.
This is right after the Arizona Supreme Court ruling.
President Trump, the most pro-life president of my lifetime, gives this strange answer.
Mr. President, did Arizona go too far?
Did Arizona go too far, sir?
Yeah, they did, and that'll be straightened out.
And as you know, it's all about states' rights.
That'll be straightened out.
And I'm sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason, and that'll be taken care of, I think, very quickly.
What do you think about Florida?
Florida's probably maybe going to change also.
See, it's all about the will of the people.
This is what I've been saying.
It's a perfect system.
So for 52 years, people have wanted to end Roe v. Wade to get it back to the states.
We did that.
It was an incredible thing, an incredible achievement.
We did that, and now the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want.
It's the will of the people.
So Florida's probably going to change.
Arizona's going to definitely change.
Everybody wants that to happen.
And you're getting the will of the people.
It's been pretty amazing.
Okay.
Huh.
What's confounding about this answer is that it's two answers that are contradictory.
On the one hand, President Trump is rightly taking credit for getting Roe v. Wade overruled, which is great.
He's the guy who did it.
George Bush didn't do it.
Mitt Romney and John McCain didn't do it.
They didn't even get elected.
Ronald Reagan didn't do it.
Bush Senior didn't do it.
Donald Trump did it.
He gets the credit for it.
And it bothers me when people say, you know, previous Republican presidents and presidential candidates were much more pro-life than Donald Trump.
Practically, no, they weren't.
They all had the same line, which is the issue should be returned to the states.
They all had the same line, which is there should be certain exceptions because babies conceived in one way are apparently not as valuable as babies conceived in another way or whatever, whatever their arguments are.
Donald Trump had that same line, and then he actually got it done, and he actually overruled Roe v. Wade.
So, it bothers me when I hear the pro-life criticism of Trump vis-a-vis the other Republican presidents.
He got it done, they didn't.
And he gives the line, says, I overruled Roe v. Wade, and sent it back to the states.
Would I prefer if we just said, hey, it's wrong to murder babies everywhere, it's just as wrong to murder babies in New Jersey as it is in Tennessee?
Yeah, I would prefer that.
But as a practical, political reality, we're not even close to that right now, and the best argument that we had, and the argument that ultimately swayed the Supreme Court in Dobbs, was that this is a state matter, not a federal matter.
This is a matter for the legislature, not for the judiciary.
So okay, there we are, and Trump gives that line.
But then, the issue goes to the states, and Arizona enforces its law.
And President Trump says, yeah, we're going to change that they went too far.
Well, you know, obviously that that is a contradiction there.
You can't simultaneously say that the issue has to be decided by the states and the states can do whatever they want.
But also when the states go too far in protecting life, we have to correct that.
Same same thing with Florida.
So what is he doing here?
I'm really not attacking Trump because he's the guy who got it done and he's just trying to win an election, I think.
He's not running for governor of Arizona.
He's not running for governor of Florida.
But he could exert some pressure, and so that's why we've got to pay attention to this.
And the pro-life movement needs to be very careful about how we handle this.
Trump is not only our best vessel for pro-life policy at the national level, he's the only one.
He's the only shot.
The alternatives are Joe Biden and Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Not a great idea.
So on the one hand, great stuff.
Gotta work with President Trump, gotta make sure that we craft his policy in a way that is conducive to flourishing and life and helps us get elected.
But what are we supposed to say?
What are the conservatives supposed to say here?
What should Trump's take be?
I think that Trump's take should be two-thirds of what his current take is.
His current take consists of three things.
Arizona and Florida are going way too far in protecting life.
And we support the will of the people.
And Roe v. Wade should be a state's matter, or abortion should be a state's matter.
It shouldn't be decided at the federal level.
Those are the three simultaneous takes that he has on this.
And two of them I think are perfectly acceptable to the pro-life movement, probably the best we're going to get practically for a while.
It's the latter two that are, send it back to the states.
Okay, you could make an argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits abortion as a matter of constitutional law because the 14th Amendment says that you need equal protection.
So, little babies in the womb who are being murdered don't have equal protection.
They're not being given due process rights.
So, you could make that argument.
John Finnis and Robby George, Robby George, the conservative professor at Princeton, have made that argument.
They made it in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court during the Dobbs decision.
But it hasn't won the day yet.
So, okay, we can keep pushing for these kinds of arguments, but I think states' rights works.
I think will of the people works.
Because you can say, look, this is a matter for the people of the state to decide.
The only place where Trump is going too far here, and if I were advising him, I would say probably a good idea to pull off a little bit, is when he says, well, the states are going too far and we need more abortion.
No, no, no, man, there's no way.
Politics is the art of inclusion, politics is the art of the possible, but there you are going so far that you will alienate some of the pro-lifers.
Who are the boots on the ground?
And the really cynical Republican strategists for many years said, hey, we should never get Roe v. Wade overruled because the moment we do that, we're going to lose all this free work, all this money.
All of these campaign volunteers who are motivated by the abortion issue, the moment you solve the issue for them, they're going to go away.
So we got to keep dangling that carrot out in front of them so they keep running on the treadmill and powering the Republican operation.
Trump, contrary to that sort of cynicism, actually got it done, which is a great thing.
He is now at risk of alienating the pro-lifers, who are the boots on the ground for a lot of Republican politics.
So, if I were advising him, I'd say, Mr. President, very good strategy, very smart stuff.
Two-thirds of what you're doing is absolutely right.
Pull it back on that third.
It's not Arizona that's gone too far.
It is The campaign here that's gone a little bit too far.
Pull it back.
The pro-life movement will accept.
Leave it to the states.
The pro-life movement will accept.
Leave it to the people to vote for.
They're not going to accept that we need more abortion in any of these states.
It's just not going to happen.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, text Knolls to 989898.
As our national debt continues to skyrocket, you need to be confident in the financial services companies you work with, especially regarding your money and future.
Birch Gold demonstrates how precious metal investments can fortify your lifestyle and retirement.
even in turbulent economic times.
If you're considering converting an existing retirement account into a precious metals IRA, their dedicated in-house IRA department is there to guide you every step of the way.
Birch Gold values your questions and concerns.
Their team is always available to provide answers and clarity and to ensure that you are heard and informed.
I really like having a decent chunk of my portfolio in gold.
You ought to text Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S to 989898 to talk to one of Birch Gold's experts and claim your free info kit You will learn how to convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
The best part is, it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.
Just text Knolls, K-N-N-W-L-E-S to 989898.
That is Knolls, K-N-N-W-L-E-S to 989898.
98, 98, 98.
That is Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 98, 98, 98.
Speaking of death and Democrats, Mayor Pete, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, he went on Jen Psaki's show on...
On MSNBC, to answer for the skyrocketing crime in Washington, D.C., so many of America's cities have become death traps.
There's just violence.
People don't feel safe walking around.
And Mayor Pete here is saying, actually, that's all really overstated, haha.
Why?
Because, Mayor Pete says, he's able to walk his dog.
We need to talk about the reality here.
And again, there is a lot of funding and a lot of energy going into telling a different story, especially on ideological news outlets and online.
But the simple facts and the simple reality are right here staring us in the face, including the fact that I can safely walk my dog to the Capitol today in a way that you couldn't do when we all got here.
Excuse me?
I can walk my dog, I, a cabinet secretary with presumably 24-7 security detail, I can walk my dog in the nation's capital without being murdered.
That is the bar.
That is the low bar pushed by Democrats for safety in our cities.
That is not satisfactory.
That is certainly not sufficient.
I'm glad that a cabinet secretary with lots of government-provided security can walk his dog in the Capitol.
What about the people who don't work for the president?
What about the people without the 24-7 security?
What about the people who don't live in the best parts of DC?
They can't.
What about the people in New York and Portland and San Francisco and Los Angeles?
And what about those people?
Is simply a fact that crime is skyrocketing, specifically in DC.
For goodness sakes, you remember Naomi Biden, the president's granddaughter, was I think around Georgetown and Secret Service caught a guy trying to jack their car.
And then Secret Service wasn't even able to catch the guy.
That's pathetic.
And Mayor Pete and the whole Biden administration need to claim that this is the party of law and order, but it's just not.
This is a party, and this predates Joe Biden's presidency, a party that is called to release more criminals, to empty out the prisons, to abolish prisons in some cases.
They've installed district attorneys that don't prosecute the criminals, that will arrest them for committing heinous crimes and then let them out immediately, and then the criminals go commit more crime.
This is not an accident.
This is not just, you know, how cities operate.
This is a very intentional political agenda by the Democrats and it's contrary to the flourishing of a country and voters know that because the first thing you need, the first thing that a state has to provide Is peace, order, security.
That is the argument as to why states are good natural institutions, is that mankind is a social creature and we need to live in community with one another and in order to do anything at all, to exercise our liberty, to build a business, to have a stable family, to grow and to flourish, in order to do any of that, you need peace and security and stability.
That's the first thing that the state has to provide and this government is failing at that.
Joe Biden is failing at that.
Not only are they failing out of their incompetence, they're failing out of their subversion.
They're failing because they don't want to provide those things.
But they also don't want to deal with the political consequences of their own actions.
So what do they do?
They lie.
And they trot out Mayor Pete, psycho Mayor Pete, to stare at you on camera and say, oh, what are you talking about?
There's no crime.
We don't want to abolish the prisons and let all the criminals out of jail.
No, we don't.
We don't actively install district attorneys all around the country to to punish the innocent and to give all sorts of goodies to the guilty.
And so they can go around and push you in front of the subway tracks.
What are you talking about?
Well, I've seen the videos, I've looked at the statistics, the people are rightly angry with you.
No, these are not the droids you're looking for.
It is happening.
So the only thing they can do is lie.
Is that going to carry the day in November?
I'm skeptical of that.
Now, speaking of Biden and crime, Joe Biden According to some leaks, this was leaked after a meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
A journalist asked Biden if he is considering dropping the prosecution into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and Biden says, we're considering it.
This is massive.
Whether this is a policy that the Biden administration intended to tip its hat to, or whether this is just Biden speaking out of turn, or whether Biden is just totally wrong, as he is on a lot of things.
If this is true, it's massive.
Julian Assange has been on the lam for a decade and a half now, or something like that, for, his defenders would say, for journalism.
For publishing leaked material about the American security state and the American system of surveillance.
Now, Assange's critics would say that he has undermined American national security and we're going to go get him, but whether you're favorable toward Assange or unfavorable toward him, both parties previously agreed, get this guy.
And then the Democrats started to weaken on it, and the Democrats and the leftists started to say that he did nothing wrong and you gotta let him off the hook.
Then, in recent years, it was the Republicans who said this.
We're talking post-Trump era.
All of a sudden, the Republicans went from being, you know, give us his head, kill Assange, to let Julian Assange off the hook.
What changed?
What changed is that we saw the Democrats wield the security state and the surveillance state On Republicans, and specifically on Donald Trump, because they tried to prevent him from being elected in the first place.
They illegally spied on his campaign.
They cooked up fake intelligence with Russians, ironically, and the Hillary campaign and the FBI.
And then they, when that failed, they tried to undermine the rest of his administration.
They went after General Mike Flynn over nothing.
They just totally set him up.
They entrapped him.
They tried to ruin his life and his family simply because they didn't want Trump to be the president.
They wanted to oppose the will of the people who voted for him.
And then they tried to impeach Donald Trump.
They did impeach him, I guess, multiple times.
And Republicans are sick of it.
This is a major, major shift when you've got Biden coming out and saying they're considering dropping the prosecution into Assange's.
And then, what does President Trump say?
He just tweets out, or truths out, kill FISA.
It was illegally used against me and many others.
They spied on my campaign, DJT.
Both parties now.
This is one of the biggest shifts in the American political order in my lifetime.
Both parties switching sides.
So why doesn't it get done?
Well, it reveals the fact that both parties are now criticizing.
Namely, our government is not just Democrats and Republicans and elected officials in the Congress and the White House and appointed judges in the Supreme Court.
Our government is also made up of an entrenched bureaucracy, including the national security state, the surveillance state, the intelligence community.
And even when both parties are Against the surveillance state, the surveillance state still has a ton of power.
The government is a lot different than we were told with the bill up on Capitol Hill and Schoolhouse Rock.
There's so much more to say first, though.
You know, we here at The Daily Wire are big fans of entertainment content that is not trying to push a woke agenda.
That is why you need to go check out The Ballad of Davy Crockett, a pro-America, pro-family, pro-God, PG-13 action adventure.
that fathers and sons can watch together.
In historical fiction from the imagination of writer and director Derek Eslund Purvis, the film explores some of the many myths that helped to create the legend of Davy Crockett.
The story begins in 1815 when Crockett's wife falls deathly ill, leaving his young children to survive on their own.
The American legend must fight his way back to them across the many perils found in the savage lands of the wild frontier.
This film examines the complex 200-year-old story of European settlers and Native Americans living side-by-side as neighbors long before Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act.
The Ballad of Davy Crockett is in select theaters and available to buy or rent everywhere you buy movies.
If you want to support films that are decent, family-friendly, and push back against Hollywood's anti-American agenda, Please support this small independent film.
Click the link in the description and go check out The Ballad of Davy Crockett.
Ladies and gentlemen, you asked and we delivered.
Six months late.
Yes or No is back, baby, with Ben Carson this weekend.
Host your own show at home with Yes or No, the game.
This is a card game you can get at the DailyWire.com slash shop with 200 cards and the ability to play up to nine people at once.
It is easy to see why this is the best-selling game at the Daily Wire.
Also, Get the Conspiracy Expansion Pack.
Find out even more about your friends and family.
Judge their stances on the most hotly contested conspiracies in American life.
Because the original game wasn't controversial enough.
Dailywire.com slash shop and then check out Ben Carson on the show coming up this weekend.
Further complications for Joe Biden and good news for Donald Trump.
The New York State Director for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.' 's presidential campaign ...is raising a question in the minds of a lot of the political establishment.
Is RFK seriously running to become the president, or is he merely a stalking horse for Donald Trump?
The Kennedy voter and the Trump voter, the enemy, our mutual enemy, is Biden.
Since Biden is counting on us, with Bobby in the mix, my thought is for the Republicans.
See, Bobby right now, he's pulling from both sides.
Right now he's actually pulling a little bit more from Biden, which explains why the DNC is kind of ganging up on him.
If the Republicans accepted the fact that New York, Maryland, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, most of the Northeast is going to go blue.
Why wouldn't we put our vote to Bobby and at least get rid of Biden and get those 28 electoral votes in New York?
The card's a little wrong.
It says 26 electoral votes.
Give those 28 electoral votes to Bobby rather than to Biden, thereby reducing Biden's 270.
If nobody gets to 270, then Congress picks the president.
So who are they going to pick?
Who are they going to pick?
If it's a Republican Congress, they'll pick Trump.
So we're rid of Biden either way.
Okay, there's the evidence, there's a smoking gun that Bobby Kennedy is a secret Republican, he's a secret Trump supporter.
No, not exactly.
This is a pretty interesting strategy.
In winner-take-all kind of states where the electoral votes are all going to go to one candidate or the other, in a state that Trump simply cannot win, Maybe the Republicans should cast their votes for Bobby Kennedy so that Biden is deprived of a clear win.
And what happens?
Well, if it's unclear that anyone is going to get the requisite electoral votes, then the election is going to be thrown to the House, and then Trump gets elected.
Which is a little bit dubious right now, because the Republicans in the House have a one-vote majority.
So, actually, I don't know that it's all that clear.
People keep dropping left and right.
But in any case, regardless of this, you know, 3D chess, 10,000 moves, here's how Bernie Sanders can still win kind of campaign strategizing.
I don't think the video even proves that Bobby Kennedy's campaign is just a stalking horse for Trump.
If I were working for Bobby Kennedy's campaign, this is the kind of strategy I would be pursuing too.
Because Kennedy is not running against Trump.
Kennedy is not really even running for president.
I'm sure he wants some political power.
But Kennedy is running to first take his party back from Joe Biden.
Take his party back from the leftists who have taken over it.
He's running as a Kennedy.
All of his campaign ads are like 1960s, remember my dad, remember my uncle kind of campaign ads.
The Democratic Party today is rather different than it was 50, 60 years ago.
And Kennedy is capitalizing on that.
Kennedy is not just some kook and some fringe figure.
Regardless of his views on any particular subject, Bobby Kennedy is a Kennedy, okay?
That still carries weight in the Democrat Party, and I don't think he appreciates that these two-bit Joe Biden people and the Clintons and the Obamas are taking his party away from him.
So, whatever the Kennedy political project, The chief enemy is Joe Biden.
You gotta get him first.
Then they can deal with Trump and the Republicans.
And, knowing that these are the guys who are pitted really against one another, the only chance that Kennedy's gonna get any political power in the next administration is if Trump gives it to him.
If he names him a cabinet secretary or something.
Secretary of Vaccines or something.
Something like that.
So this is a smart strategy for the Kennedy campaign.
I'm not sure it's a smart strategy for the Trump voters, but It's also not proof that Kennedy's a secret Republican.
He's not.
He's a liberal who just doesn't like that his party has been taken away from him.
He, a member of one of the most important dynastic families in that party.
Now, speaking of Democrats retreating to older talking points, Whoopi Goldberg has accused Republicans of trying to reinstate slavery in America.
Take a look at the things that they're rolling back.
Remember I said ages ago, you know, in their minds, they want to bring slavery back.
They're okay with it.
Because, you see, things change.
You know, one of the good things about the Supreme Court is you can fight to make sure you make stuff better.
You don't generally fight to make stuff worse.
Or to roll back.
Or to roll back.
And to me, if you're okay rolling that back, When things were not even a state, when we had no say.
Yeah.
So how's that going to roll?
How's that going to roll?
What's the next thing?
Because, you know, on this, with all of this comes birth control.
Right.
With all of this comes everything that you need as a woman to have had put in place to make sure that we were doing better than we were before.
Huh, the Republicans want to bring slavery back because they also don't think babies should be murdered and the Constitution guarantees a right to condoms which women need to have everything that they need.
I think that is the argument that Whoopi is making here.
It's kind of an ironic argument because the best argument The best legal and historical argument today against abortion in America is the argument against slavery.
In fact, the really hardcore portion of the pro-life movement calls itself the abolition movement.
The reason that abortion is wrong is in large part because human beings are proper subjects with rights themselves.
They're not merely objects for our use.
This is also an argument against the surrogacy industry.
You should not be able to buy and sell human beings for your own convenience, and you should not be able to murder innocent human beings for your own convenience, because human beings are not just your property.
Human beings are not just a commodity to be bought and sold and possessed and discarded of.
A human being is a proper subject with rights.
So, Whoopi, obviously a little bit confused on the slavery thing there.
Then to say that Republicans want to bring slavery back, why is that?
Well, because they want to go backward.
You don't want to go backward, you want to go forward.
You don't want bad things, you want good things.
Right, Whoopi, but one mark of education and of civility is being able to entertain the ideas held by your opponents.
And so, I totally understand that you think the things that you're pushing for are good, and the things that we're pushing for are bad.
But can you not therefore see That in our minds, the things that we're pushing for are good, and the things you're pushing for are bad.
Like, we think it's good not to murder little babies, and you think it's good to murder little babies, because you've convinced yourselves that it's an essential matter of human rights for women to be able to snuff out the lives of their own children.
You've determined this because you have an anthropology and a political ideology that begins from the false premise of hyper-individualism.
And because you've come to the erroneous conclusion that being able to sleep around, to be promiscuous, to go work in the city alone, to not have a family, to not have children, and to not feel any responsibility toward anyone else will somehow make you happy.
But it won't make you happy, but that's what you think, and so I understand how you've come to that conclusion.
Can you not see how we've come to the conclusion that it's wrong to murder babies?
It seems to me that's an easier one to understand.
And then further to say that there's a right to condoms in the Constitution.
Maybe you like condoms.
Maybe you want there to be condoms.
Maybe you love the legal license to condoms.
Okay, I guess you can pass a law about that.
But you're really going to tell me that that's in the Constitution?
Where's that in the Constitution?
Our Founding Fathers didn't think that was in the Constitution.
The great statesmen who built up our country for the first 170 years didn't.
180 years!
Even later!
185 years didn't think it was in the Constitution.
It's only through two mid to late 20th century Supreme Court decisions Which is Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, which determined that there's a right to condoms.
And the first one said, there's a right to condoms for married couples in the Constitution, but not for anyone else.
And then Eisenstadt said, actually, sorry, the Invisible Link, we were able to uncover a little bit more of it in the Constitution, and it says that there's a right to condoms for unmarried couples, too.
Okay, well, whatever.
It's just not there.
As far as I can tell, it's not there, and no one ever thought it was there until about 50, 60 years ago.
What is your conclusion here from the principle of constitutional law?
The left's conclusion is anything we want is not only permitted by the constitution but mandated by it.
And anything that we oppose is outlawed by the constitution because we say so.
And our opponents are the devil himself and they want to reinstitute slavery.
And what's our evidence of this?
Nothing.
Okay, it's a sign of desperation from the Democrats, but it's also nothing new.
Don't forget, this is the campaign line trotted out by the current Democrat President of the United States when he was running for re-election as Vice President.
And he claimed that Mitt Romney wanted to do the same thing Whoopi Goldberg is accusing us of.
Look at what they value, and look at their budget, and what they're proposing.
Romney wants to let the, he said in the first hundred days, he's gonna let the big banks once again write their own rules.
Unchain Wall Street.
They're gonna put y'all back in chains.
Gonna put y'all back in chains.
This was in, I believe, in North Carolina, so there were a lot of black people in the audience.
Mitt Romney's gonna put y'all back in chains, is what he's gonna do.
Other notable thing about that clip, you know how Joe Biden, because he's senile and obviously has dementia, he doesn't speak right anymore?
And the Democrats have tried to convince us that he's had a stutter for his whole life.
He had a childhood stutter, and he's always stuttered his whole life, and that's why he talks that way now.
It has nothing to do with his obvious dementia.
Well, that wasn't that long ago.
That was, what, 10 years, 12 years ago?
And Joe Biden sounds Periclean compared to what he is now.
Where was that stutter?
Where was that stutter from the beginning of his political career in 1971 through about 2018-2019?
Disappeared, then the childhood stutter came back.
And the old stupid talking points came back too.
This is it.
So, while I agree with some of these Democrats, like David Axelrod and some of the campaign strategists who say, huh, this ruling in Arizona might be a political benefit to Democrats in a crucial swing state, or, huh, the way that the election is being conducted with still widespread use of mail-in ballots and drop boxes, that might help the Democrats.
That's true, they've got some real advantages going into 2024, but The fact that they've got to retreat to these kinds of arguments, the Republicans want to enslave you again or something, to me is a sign of weakness.
Now, speaking of freedom and slavery, really interesting article in the Washington Post.
I say that very rarely, but it's a fact.
The article takes on a trend that somehow I've found myself near the center of this debate.
It's about traditionalism.
Traditional conservatism and trad wives, headline, trad wives, stay-at-home girlfriends, and the dream of feminine leisure.
We'll get to this in one second.
First though...
It's been two years of fighting the left with great products from Jeremy's razors, and they are only getting better.
Jeremy's second-gen razors are here.
You will notice a redesigned ergonomic handle for superior durability and improved coated stainless steel blades.
For those of you who craft your masculine look with precision, we now have Jeremy's new and improved Precision 5 razor.
If shaving is a chore, and you just want to get done and over with, well...
The brand new Sprint 3 is for you.
Open blade geometry allows for a quick clean shave so you can get back to your manly activities as quickly as possible.
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com to upgrade to your new second gen razor today.
My favorite comment yesterday is from user CF7ZI3EC6I, huh?
The Nala interview was one of the best that Michael has done.
I believe she is sincere and I pray hope that God uses her to further his kingdom.
So glad you felt that way.
My interview with Nala Ray, who is one of the top pornography actresses on OnlyFans, who is now said that she's had a major conversion and got rid of her OnlyFans and, you know, is Living on the straight and narrow or endeavoring to live on the straight and narrow.
It's caused a huge firestorm.
It's got millions and millions.
Last I checked it had over 6 million views on X and YouTube has been suppressing the interview, but it's still got many hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube.
And so you can go check it out.
Check it out on the Michael Knowles YouTube channel or on the Michael Knowles Show X and tell me what you think.
Speaking of women living a traditional life, this article opens up with the story of a Harvard undergraduate.
It's this Harvard undergraduate who published an essay in The Cut called The Case for Marrying an Older Man.
And this Harvard undergrad, she said, look, I don't buy all the feminist claptrap.
I'm going to go over to Harvard Business School.
I'm going to find an older guy who's a little bit more settled.
He's going to have a good career.
He's going to be kind of normal.
And I'm going to marry him.
And I don't care if he's 10 years older, I'm going to marry him.
Here's one of the key lines.
She says, I had grown bored of discussions of fair and unfair, equal or unequal, and preferred instead to consider a thing called ease.
And the writer of this piece, attacking tradwives on the Washington Post, to emphasize it, she writes, italics, a thing called ease.
Can you imagine?
So who's right?
The feminists in journalism, or this Harvard undergrad who wanted to get herself a, you know, hot, hunk, wealthy guy to take care of her.
Mostly the Harvard undergrad is right, but the liberal women have a somewhat decent point in raising a red flag here.
Because it depends on what the meaning of the word ease is.
The libs, the feminists, they don't want to make their lives easy.
They make their lives unnecessarily hard and unpleasant.
When they say, I'm going to put off getting married.
I don't want to get married.
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
I don't want kids.
No, no, sir.
I'm going to be fulfilled by working in the widget factory for Dr. McGillicuddy.
And no, that's actually a type of schnapps.
Mr. McGillicuddy owns the widget factory and he's going to pay me.
And then I'm going to go sleep with a bunch of men and then I'm going to be used up and men aren't going to want me anymore.
And then I'm going to be really bitter about it.
And, and, but that's good to somehow, because I'm going to be behaving like a man and that's, What a real woman is, a real woman is just going to ignore the feminine virtues and pursue the masculine virtues, and that'll make me happy.
I'm so happy, right?
No, no.
Usually that does not make people happy, and it's a very hard life, and a lot of people are duped into it by our stupid feminist culture, but it's unfortunate that they are because it's not conducive to their happiness.
But what about the gal at Harvard who says, yeah, I don't, I just want like a rich guy to take care of me.
I want, I want ease.
A woman finding a man that she admires and respects, who she's going to look up to as the head of her household, who is going to have a clearer leadership vision for their marriage, that is in a way going to be easier.
And that's probably a good thing.
But the headline here is really weird, right?
It says, Trad Wives, Stay-at-Home Girlfriends, and the Dream of Feminine Leisure.
Stay-at-home girlfriend, that's unfortunate.
The traditional word for that is concubine.
Now we have these forever girlfriends because the men don't actually want to man up.
Maybe they'll pay for your nice stuff, but they don't actually want to act like men.
They don't want to act like leaders.
They don't want to act like the head of a household.
They just want to sleep with you.
Well, it's convenient and then maybe throw you out later on.
That's not good, and the women obviously have no self-respect if they're doing this sort of thing, and so you don't, it's easy in the sense that, you know, it's, you don't think about it too much.
You don't even have to go get married, do you?
You just kind of move in and just go along with it, but that's not good.
That's not the kind of ease that you want.
What I think is missing from this discussion is the fact that being a trad wife, it doesn't give you a ton of leisure time, okay?
The tradwives are probably working more than the career women, actually.
They're happier than the career women.
They're more fulfilled than the career women.
They got more going on than the career women who say, no men, no family, no nothing.
I'm just gonna do the sex in the city lifestyle and go work and then go get drinks and then go get brunch and then go back home alone.
But the tradwives are working all the time.
Because if you're a trad wife, you get married, you keep a home, you manage the home economy, you try to have children, not everyone gets to have children, but chances are pretty good that you'll have a kid, and then maybe you're going to keep having kids, and if you're going to be really traditional, you're going to be open to life, and you're not going to be using contraception really, and you're just going to have a big old family.
Have really any children in this country, that's why we have a dying population.
But not all that long ago, it was not uncommon at all for people to have four, five, six kids, or more.
Then you'd have the Catholics and the Mormons, and they'd have like a thousand kids.
That takes a lot of work.
And if you're a real trad wife, you're doing most of the changing the diapers, and looking after the kids, and cooking the food, and doing the this, and doing the that.
And you're very involved in your community, and it's going to take a lot of time.
Okay, you're not going to get to go to brunch as much and you're not going to get to sit home and just binge Netflix quite as much.
The thing that we are endeavoring to find, I'll speak for myself, the thing that I am endeavoring to find is not the ease of the couch potato.
I want the ease of the aristocrat.
Let's put it that way.
It gets to this word in the headline, which is leisure.
Part of a large object of our education in the olden days was leisure.
It wasn't that you'd go to get a liberal education so you could get a job, so you could learn how to weld or something like that, or to be an engineer or to be a lawyer.
The reason you would get an education is to cultivate yourself.
To immerse yourself in culture, to cultivate hobbies, desires, things that you could do in your leisure time.
So I like the ease of living in accord with nature.
I like the ease of men and women being complementary to one another.
I like the ease of two people's love being so real that it actually creates another human being.
I like the ease of building up the strength of the fundamental political unit and that naturally builds up the strength of the country, which is the The broadest political unit.
I like that.
I like that kind of ease.
But that's not the ease of the couch potato.
You're going to be really tired.
You're going to be working a lot.
The difference between the good kind of ease and the bad kind of ease is that the good kind of ease is going to feel natural.
It's going to play on natural strengths, it's going to cultivate virtues, and it's going to fulfill you at the end of the day and at the end of your life.
The ease of the couch potato or of the gold digger, right?
I'm not calling this girl a gold digger, but that's at least how the critics are attacking her.
That is not going to fulfill you.
That isn't even really all that natural, okay?
We are not here to just sit around and veg and amuse ourselves.
I mentioned the quote from George Bernard Shaw yesterday on the show, but the definition of hell is a place where you have nothing to do but amuse yourself.
And a man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package indeed, and I don't know how many more aphorisms I have to note, but that's the difference.
Don't sign up for the trad life because you think it's easy.
Sign up for the trad life because it will fulfill you and give you the ease of living in accord with your nature and fulfilling your purpose.
Now, speaking of family life, the United Kingdom has a new proposal according to a leak that just came out of the British government.
They're considering banning smartphones for minors under the age of 16.
And this is so smart.
I want every Republican, I mean, we have federalism here, so you'd probably have to make this more of a local ordinance, but I want all the Republicans at the appropriate levels of government to endorse this.
This is so smart.
I have, do I have it in my pocket now?
No, I don't.
I have a little portal to hell right here in my desk drawer.
This is called a smartphone.
I believe I like to think that I have cultivated enough self-discipline in my 34 years of life that I can now maybe control myself from the harmful, addictive effects of the smartphone.
Obviously, everyone talks about the fact that there's porn everywhere.
I like to think that I'm...
Old enough to control myself there, but I'm not even old enough to control myself from just wasting time doom scrolling or just having all sorts of brain rot enter my head on Twitter or on Instagram or anywhere.
And I'm a grown man.
I'm a grown man who focuses on this a lot.
You think a 15 year old kid?
Is going to be able to resist the brain rot and the dumb TikTok videos and the porn, which is ubiquitous, where the age of introduction to porn is something like nine now on average?
No way.
It's crazy, man.
And if the UK isn't going to do this, and if the United States government isn't going to do this, you as a family, which is the basic political unit, should do this.
It is nuts.
To give a minor a smartphone.
And you might say, well, you know, when I was a kid, I had a phone.
Yeah, maybe you had a little Nokia or something like that.
Maybe, maybe you got that.
I didn't get one of those until I was much older.
If you're a boomer, you obviously didn't have a smartphone.
Gen X, or any kind of cell phone when you were a kid.
Gen X, you didn't have a cell phone when you were a kid.
This is a very new technology.
You can't use the old rule book of, oh, let the kids just kind of raise themselves.
Because they're not going to raise themselves with a smartphone.
Other people are going to raise them by getting into their very malleable, spongy brains and messing them up.
Absolutely right.
This is going to be one of these issues that pits the Libertarians against the Conservatives, but the Conservatives are right here, and the real, hardcore, smart Libertarians will get along with it.
Ban it, baby, in the UK, US, everywhere else.
The rest of the show continues now.
You do not want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code KNOLLSKIN at WLAS to check out for two months free on all annual plans.
