Ep. 1791 - Trump's Takeover of Washington D.C. Explained in 5 Mins
President Trump takes over D.C, Gen-Z is becoming celibate, and ISIS is beheading Christians and burning churches in Mozambique.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1791
- - -
DailyWire+:
My new series, The Vatican Files, premieres Wednesday, August 13th, exclusively on DailyWire+. https://DailyWirePlus.com
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
GET THE ALL-NEW YES OR NO EXPANSION PACK TODAY: https://bit.ly/41gsZ8Q
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text KNOWLES to 989898 for your free information kit.
Chevron - Build a brighter future right here at home. Visit https://Chevron.com/America to discover more.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
These are questions that take cultures thousands of years to answer.
During answer the call, I take questions from people just like you about their problems, opportunities, challenges, or when they simply need advice.
How do I balance all of this grief, responsibility?
How do you repair this kind of damage?
My daughter, Michaela, guides the conversations as we hopefully help people navigate their lives.
Everyone has their own destiny.
Everyone.
you you you He's done it.
The madman has actually done it.
Sort of, kind of.
In response to skyrocketing crime, President Trump has sort of taken over Washington, D.C., which has always belonged to the federal government.
The Libs are calling the move dangerous and authoritarian, in between ducking the bullets that are flying all around D.C. But this supposed takeover is about a lot more than just protecting people from criminals.
This is the natural conclusion of MAGA, the one-nation Trumpism that upended decades of what we called conservatism.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Is Gen Z becoming celibate?
The timing is amazing.
My friend Lila Rose got in trouble yesterday for saying men don't need sex.
A lot of men don't like hearing that.
But then Gen Z comes out and is apparently becoming celibate.
We'll get to what that means momentarily.
First, though, the takeover.
We have to get to the takeover of Washington, D.C. Trump's been threatening it.
The Libs have been quaking.
They've been shrieking.
They've been terrified of authoritarianism.
And then he took over the federal district, sort of.
Here he is.
I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor, and worse.
This is Liberation Day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back.
We're taking it back.
Under the authorities vested in me as the President of the United States, I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
You know what that is?
And placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control, and you'll be meeting the people that will be directly involved with that.
Very good people, but they're tough and they know what's happening, and they've done it before.
In addition, I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order, and public safety in Washington, D.C., and they're going to be allowed to do their job properly.
The madman, the lawless authoritarian, the fascist, the usurper, tyrant, our Napoleon is invoking an authority that comes to him from the current law governing D.C., which is the D.C. Home Rule Act, which allows him to take over the police departments when crime gets out of hand, which obviously has.
You can just look at the crime stats going all the way up to 2023.
And then even though it looks like there's a little tick down after 2023, there's a D.C. commander who's under investigation for cooking the books and actually hiding the fact that the crime is still really high.
And it's all so tiresome.
The liberal responses, it's so tiresome.
Trump is not even saying I'm going to assert my constitutional authority and the authority derived from the practice that is grounded in the Constitution, that the federal government runs the federal district, which is District of Columbia.
No, he's actually pointing to the law that gave D.C. home rule in the first place.
From the founding of the country until 1973, the federal government ran D.C. directly.
And that authority was vested in Congress.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 says that Congress controls D.C. in all cases whatsoever.
Then, for over 100 years, for 102 years before the D.C. Home Rule Act, the president would be involved to appoint governors and mayors of Washington, D.C. Then in 1973, Congress and the president, President Nixon, passed the D.C. Home Rule Act that says, okay, D.C. residents will get a little bit more say in their local government, but we still own it.
We still run it at the highest level because of the Constitution.
And even that act says that the president has the right to take over the police departments, which he's doing.
He's authorizing the National Guard, which he, of course, has the right to do.
This is entirely legal.
This is entirely common sense.
As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't go far enough because I think we should repeal the D.C. Home Rule Act, but whatever.
That would be a distraction for the administration right now.
There's not enough appetite for it.
Okay, fine.
But I think it should go further.
And actually, President Trump seems to think it should go further too, because he said that this might extend even beyond the federal district.
It is.
We have other cities that are very bad.
New York has a problem.
And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland.
We don't even mention that anymore.
They're so far gone.
We're not going to let it happen.
We're not going to lose our cities over this.
And this will go further.
We're starting very strongly with D.C., and we're going to clean it up real quick, very quickly, as they say.
Okay, now this is the part that is genuinely somewhat radical.
This is the part that the thing the libs are saying about Washington, D.C. is ridiculous and shows their ignorance of the Constitution or their assumption that the people who are listening to them are extremely ignorant of the Constitution.
But suggesting, okay, we're also going to send National Guard.
We're also going to have a federal takeover of places like Oakland and elsewhere, Baltimore.
These are two failed cities.
Notice, we're not even talking about Chicago and New York and Los Angeles and even San Francisco.
San Francisco really does seem like a failed city now, but we're talking about cities that are even worse in terms of crime, in terms of danger, in terms of social breakdown.
Baltimore, Oakland.
This does go further.
And there are going to be people, including squishy types, who have supported Trump who say, this is too far.
This is too far.
This is an aberration.
This isn't what we voted for.
This isn't MAGA.
And to you, I say, yes, it is.
This is, in fact, what MAGA has always been about.
This is the apotheosis of MAGA because MAGA is a new, updated, improved American form of an old conservative concept, which is one nation conservatism.
One nation conservatism is most closely associated with the 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, but you've seen it crop up in different forms in different places throughout the years.
One nation conservatism.
This is part and parcel of Trump's working class appeal.
What does Trump have that Mitt Romney didn't have before him and John McCain didn't have before him and George Bush had to some degree, but not totally and Bob Dole didn't really have and George H.W. Bush didn't really have and no one had in any real degree since Ronald Reagan.
He has working class appeal.
Well, part of that working class appeal is a reunderstanding of conservatism.
Not a total innovation, not an upending or a betrayal of conservatism like the Never Trumpers and the Squishes would say, but a return to a more traditional type of conservatism, one nation conservatism.
That's really what this is about.
And one nation conservatism is different from what we've called conservatism for the past, I don't know, 25, 30 years or so, in that it is more paternalistic, in that it is more focused on noblesse oblige, in that it is more focused on the real day-to-day practical concerns of ordinary Americans from the elite levels.
It's not denying that there are elites.
It's not President Trump, you know, throwing on a Timex and a hoodie and pretending to be one of the blue-collar workers.
He's not doing that.
He's wearing his Brioni suits and his gold watches, and he's clearly an elite, but he's an elite who cares about ordinary Americans.
And that coalition has existed before.
That is what one-nation conservatism is.
But It's not based on a denial of reality.
It's saying, no, no, no, I am privileged.
Yes, I am.
I've done very well.
I'm very successful.
And I want to share in that.
We don't want to have two nations, a nation of the haves and the have-nots, of the rich and the poor, of the elites and the lower classes.
No, no, we have one nation.
We're all Americans.
We all bleed the same red blood of patriots.
That's a line from Trump in the first term, and he has never changed his view on it.
And one of the clearest instantiations of that is on cleaning up crime in the cities.
Trump was pilloried in the first term, actually when he was running the first time, because they said, why are you running for president?
He said, because I want you to have good, clean, could clean, safe neighborhoods.
And the abstract, ideological, individualistic, liberal, libertarian, beltway conservative types said, this is a terrible bastardization of conservatism.
The president has nothing to do with neighborhoods.
He just needs to sit macroeconomic policy.
He just needs to focus on things like occupational licensing reform.
He just needs, he shouldn't be involved.
And he says, no, what are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
Yeah, you don't care about some of these neighborhoods and some of these failed cities like Baltimore and Oakland.
And yes, our nation's capital, Washington, D.C. But you know why you don't care about it?
Because you don't have to live there because you live in your nice suburbs and you live in your nice big house in your gated community.
And yeah, you don't, that's part of the reason why you people hate gun rights is you don't need guns because you have security and you live in secure neighborhoods.
But what about the Americans who don't have those privileges?
No, we're not going to just forget about them.
This is a big shift and it's one that I've cheered on from the beginning, which is a shift away from this hyper-atomized, individualistic, liberal conception of politics toward social solidarity, toward the common good.
This is the apotheosis of that.
This is not an aberration.
This is not just a weird quirk of Trump.
This is not an example of his authoritarian impulse coming out over and above his ideology.
This is what MAG is about.
This is one nation Trumpism.
And it's a very good thing.
There's another reason.
There's one more reason that Trump speaks to as to why this federal takeover of D.C. is important and why we should look at the other cities too.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, though, speaking of things Trump loves, I want to tell you about gold.
I want to tell you about Birch Gold.
Text Knowles, Kennedy WLAS, to 98.98.98.
Is the continued divide between President Trump and the Federal Reserve putting us behind the curve again?
Can the Fed take the right action at the right time?
Or are we going to be looking at a potential economic slowdown?
What does this mean for your savings?
Consider diversifying with gold through Birch Gold.
For decades, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of economic stagnation, global uncertainty, and high inflation.
Birch Gold makes it incredibly easy for you to diversify some of your savings into gold.
If you have an IRA or 401k, you can convert that into a tax sheltered IRA in physical gold or just buy some gold to keep in your safe.
You know, I'm a little bit of a gold bug and I've had a decent part of my portfolio in gold for a long time.
And especially over the past few years, you've seen that big smile on my face.
I'm very happy about that.
First step is to get educated.
Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.
Just text my name, Knowles, Kennedy WLAS, to the number 98.98.98.
That's Knowles to 98.98.98.
Consider diversifying a portion of your savings into gold.
That way, if the Fed can't stay ahead of the curve for the country, at least you can stay ahead for yourself.
Why?
Why does it matter if the nation's capital is full of crime and Democrat members of Congress are getting carjacked at gunpoint and the granddaughter of the then sitting president Joe Biden is getting carjacked in a Secret Service vehicle in Georgetown?
And I spent a lot of time in D.C. I've seen this stuff firsthand.
This is a failed and failing city.
Why does it matter?
Trump explains with the precision of a real estate developer.
City, you know, my father always used to tell me, I had a wonderful father, very smart.
And he used to say, son, when you walk into a restaurant and you see a dirty front door don't go in because if the front door is dirty the kitchen's dirty also same thing with the capital if our capital is dirty our whole country is dirty and they don't respect us so it's a very good question so true it's folksy it's understandable and it's a hundred percent true if the front door is dirty the kitchen's going to be dirty too
if our nation's capital is is disordered our country is going to be disordered because the capital is a symbol of the country and it happens to be where the federal business takes place and we just can't tolerate it.
This is an even clearer example of this kind of one nation conservatism, this social solidarity, even than its analog in the 90s, which was broken windows policing.
Broken windows policing, popularized by Mayor Giuliani in New York, said we're not going to ignore these ghettos, these bad neighborhoods anymore.
We're not going to ignore the seemingly minor crime.
You know, there's a broken window.
Because if you allow that to just exist, if you allow that to be the image that people have of their neighborhood, crime is going to fester.
We're not going to tolerate that.
We're not going to tolerate the little stuff.
We're not going to tolerate the broken windows.
And in D.C., we're not going to tolerate the carjackings and we're not going to tolerate the vagrants and the homeless.
And we're not going to tolerate that because it's only going to get worse and it's going to encourage that kind of disorder around the country.
The more individualistic kind of conservatism, the libertarian conservatism, the neocon conservatism, the obscure political monikers or the right-wing version of gender pronouns.
So whatever you want to call it.
That more atomized individualistic conservatism says, well, who cares?
It's up to D.C. D.C. has home rule.
Let the residents, if they want to live in squalor, let them live in squalor.
It's that kind of conservatism that says, you know, New York City, supposed to be the greatest city in our country.
New York City wants to elect a Muslim socialist who supports queer liberation in Palestine or whatever, a total lunatic.
Well, let them, you know, just let them.
Who cares?
That's their problem.
Or let's say you zoom in on New York.
Oh, there's that bad neighborhood with the gangs.
And well, that's their problem.
Tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Or alternately, let them deal with the consequences of their actions.
Maybe they'll come to their senses eventually.
No.
Why do we care?
Why do we care?
Because it's one of our neighborhoods, because it's part of our country, because we're a country.
We shouldn't just be divided into lots of little countries.
We're one country.
And we shouldn't be totally divided by social classes, the haves and the have-nots.
That's not sustainable.
That's not sustainable because there's no peace and there's no safety in the palace when there's turmoil in the cottage.
Okay.
The libertarians, the ideologues, they don't like to hear that, but it's true.
You need social solidarity.
We care about our country.
We care about our countrymen.
So this brings me to a story.
This is so fitting.
I'm glad I waited on this.
This is a story I wanted to talk about last week.
And I said, you know, it doesn't seem urgent.
It doesn't seem, it's an interesting story.
And it gets to one of my theses about Trump, but that's kind of shoehorned.
People, I don't know if people are going to totally take to it.
And now it completely fits.
Trump last week donated his paycheck.
And in Trumpian fashion, he talked about this at great length on Truth Social.
He posted, I'm proud to be the only president, with the possible exception of the late, great George Washington, to donate my salary.
My first paycheck went to the White House Historical Association as we make much-needed renovations to the Beautiful People's House.
Great improvements and beautification is taking place at the White House at levels not seen since its original creation.
Make America great again.
And he even posted a picture when he went into the White House Historical Association, which has a little shop in the White House, and he's looking, and Trump is such a good marketer.
He's just ABC, always be closing.
He picks up the White House Christmas ornament and they post it.
All the good little merch that I'm sure sales are going to go through the roof right now at the White House Historical Association.
But he donates it.
He donates his salary to that and he's donating money to improve things at the White House, to install two new big, beautiful flagpoles on the north and south lawns to help build a beautiful state ballroom.
It is embarrassing that we can't hold big state dinners at the White House.
Because the White House, you know, if you've ever visited, if you've ever taken a tour, if you've ever been there for any reason, one thing that'll strike you is it's very small because it was built a long time ago when people were smaller and the scope of the country was smaller.
And so Trump wants to keep things up to size in a tasteful way, but he wants to keep making America great again.
And he's raising money and he's donating his own money to do it.
He's not making taxpayers pay for it.
He's donating his salary.
We haven't seen that in our lifetimes.
We've actually never seen that since Washington.
Why?
Well, is it because George Bush wasn't rich?
George Bush was very, very rich.
George W. Bush and his dad, George H.W., were both very, very rich.
Clinton and Obama became very, very rich because they're crooks and they're corrupt, but they were not totally rich when they entered the White House.
But the Bushes were at least.
Why didn't they donate their salaries?
Well, I don't know.
I don't want to speak to them.
They're fine men in their own ways.
But I think it's because there's been a shift.
This kind of sense of paternalism, noblesse oblige, President Trump, Tucker called him daddy, you know, daddy's home.
That was the election.
That kind of language would not have been popular 20 or 30 years ago.
It would have been viewed as politically incorrect.
It would have been viewed as undemocratic in some way for the president to donate his salary.
No, no, the president must receive his salary because he's just like anybody else.
The Bushes are just like anybody else.
There's something kind of waspy to that.
You know, the really, really rich guy wears a Time X or something, you know, he has rips in his sweaters.
And there's something very waspy about that.
But there's something also quite traditional and quite conservative about recognizing that in one's social state, wherever it may be, at the top or the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum, one has certain obligations.
And they're different.
If you're a really, really rich guy, do different than if you're not a really rich guy.
And both can contribute, but you contribute in different ways.
And I think Trump's paternalism, Trump's donating the salary, building renovations to the White House at his own expense, hawking the merch from the White House Historical Association, that it's a contending with reality.
And it's saying, no, look, we really have, the left actually has a point.
We do have a little too much inequality here.
It's creating a problem.
Even if it doesn't tug on your heartstrings, you're no bleeding heart liberal.
The palace isn't going to be safe and peaceful if there's turmoil in the cottage.
And I've been very, I've been blessed and I've worked hard and I've done all these things and I've become the man, Donald Trump, and I am going to give back.
I do have an obligation to give back.
It's not just greed is good.
Let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
I earned everything I made.
It's no, no, no, I do have an, I have a social obligation, which gets to an even deeper point about politics.
The liberal libertarian politics says we are born as individuals, primarily with rights.
And conservatism says, no, we're not really primarily individuals.
We're born into the context of a family, not primarily with rights, but with duties.
This is great stuff.
This is really, really great stuff.
Nature is healing.
I love it.
Now, the social solidarity port also ties in with one of the biggest issues of the Trump movement, which is one of the biggest issues right now.
And people haven't really made this connection, but it's immigration.
As Trump is asking the Supreme Court to allow the administration, according to reports, to racially profile, racially profile, linguistically profile, the libs up in arms.
How dare you ask the courts to allow you to violate the law and discriminate by what?
We'll get to that in one second.
First, I want to tell you about Chevron.
America is built on hard work and powered by American energy.
Chevron has spent $44 billion with local businesses across all 50 states since 2022, fueling infrastructure and communities, all while strengthening local economies.
Last year, Chevron increased U.S. production nearly 20%, powering communities and businesses from the heartlands to the coast.
We're helping to fuel America's energy advantage, building a brighter future right here at home.
Visit chevron.com slash America to discover more.
The whole point, a lot of people haven't made this connection.
The whole point of immigration restriction, at the very least of stopping illegal immigration, that's kind of where Trump is.
Doesn't necessarily want to restrict legal immigration, does want to stop illegal immigration.
That's where a lot of the country is.
Many people on the right, myself included, want to go further and think that we need to restrict all immigration, dramatically restrict all immigration.
But the whole point of that, the left doesn't get.
The left thinks it's about you don't like brown people or you don't like Mexicans or I don't know, you don't like the Spanish language or you don't like tacos or you're just, you have an irrational animus toward foreigners.
You're a xenophobe.
That's not what it's about.
What it's about is something that the left pretends to advocate and pretends to understand but doesn't, which is social solidarity.
If you flood a country with foreigners, people who speak a different language, who have different customs, different habits, a different understanding of government, if you do that, you're going to lose your country.
And it's going to be unfair to people on a whole host of levels.
It's going to be unfair to the working class.
It's going to lower their wages.
It's going to be unfair to ordinary people trying to live in their neighborhoods when you import a bunch of crime because the gangs control the border.
It's going to be, it's just not right.
And it phrase social solidarity.
So this is how the San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on the latest Trump immigration moves.
The Trump administration asks SCODIS, the Supreme Court, to allow profiling in immigration raids.
Profiling.
What kind of profiling?
Opens up.
The Trump administration is asking the court to allow officers to arrest suspected illegal immigrants in Southern California because of how they look, what language they're speaking, and what kind of work they're doing.
Factors that federal judges have found to be baseless and discriminatory.
Can you imagine that?
That racist Trump, Tom Homan, Stephen Miller, Christy Noam.
They, they're going to go out and arrest illegal aliens based on how they look and how they sound and what they're doing.
And you're not allowed to do that, apparently.
So then let me ask you, quick follow-up question to the San Francisco Chronicle.
On what basis are we supposed to arrest them?
If you're not allowed to consider how they look or how they sound or what they're doing, on what basis do we arrest the illegal aliens?
Based on how they smell?
Based on what senses are left?
Based on how they smell?
Based on how they feel?
Do we have to feel that the texture of their skin, of their hair?
Is that on what basis, if we are not allowed to consider how they look, sound, and what they're doing, on what basis do you arrest illegal aliens?
Well, no, you need to.
You need to just know that they're illegal aliens.
Because that's what the left is saying.
Well, how do you distinguish between the legal Hispanics and the illegal ones?
First of all, you can because they do look a little different and they do sound a little different and they're doing different things.
Generally, they might have the same skin color or whatever, but there's more to it than that.
But what?
Are we just supposed to, well, you have to know.
You have to have a, I don't know.
I don't even know what their argument is.
If you're not allowed to profile, that's just one of the, it's one of the P words, profile, prejudice.
They're words that are used as scare words that when you really think about what they mean, there's really nothing wrong with them at all.
But prejudice can be bigoted if it's irrational, but we all make prejudgments.
You wouldn't get out of bed in the morning if you didn't operate based on prejudgments.
Profiling.
What do you think a cop does?
What do you think the job of a cop is?
The cop's job is to profile, to distinguish between criminals and non-criminals, and then to pursue the criminals.
That's the whole job.
Maybe the article will tell us something, will it?
Goes on.
Last month's ruling by U.S. District Judge Maim Frimpong, upheld by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, quote, threatens to upend immigration officials' ability to enforce immigration laws in the Central District of Columbia, according to the DOJ's solicitor general.
This court should end this attempted judicial usurpation of immigration enforcement functions.
And then furthermore, just to allay any fears that anyone might have, quote, no one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion that someone's an illegal alien.
But in many situations, such factors, alone or in combination, can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.
Of course.
Of course.
If someone doesn't speak a word of English, doesn't look like he knows where he's going or what he's doing, or it looks like it's his first time in America, and he's working in a job that illegal aliens can get.
He's not working as the CFO of JP Morgan.
He's not working in a job that requires you to show your papers.
He's doing all those things.
And he's a young fighting age man, which is what most of the illegal aliens are because they're economic migrants, not actual refugees.
If all of those things check out, mightn't it be reasonable in a country that has effectively had open borders, sometimes explicitly had open borders in recent years because of Democrat administrations with conservatively 11 to 16 million illegal aliens in the country, don't you think it might be reasonable to ask Jose if perhaps he's not here legally?
And if not, this is, this is, I'm being totally straight here.
This is to the libs and the squishes who are watching.
What's the alternative to take on illegal immigration?
And the answer is, you don't.
The alternative is stop enforcing the immigration laws.
Stop enforcing the immigration laws, and we're going to call you a racist.
That's it.
And the Trump administration says, yeah, that's not going to work anymore.
Okay.
Speaking of stereotypes, do men need sex?
My friend Lila Rose, she got in a lot of trouble yesterday.
And look, she was seeking the trouble, obviously.
She was being provocative in the way she posted this clip.
But the clip had the caption, men don't need sex.
A lot of the fellas, they raised their eyebrows, didn't they?
Excuse me?
Men don't need sex.
Here is the point that Lila made, not just in the caption, which was really what was going viral, but in the actual clip speaking to one of her podcast guests.
Can we all talk about Father Mike Schmitz?
I showed him to a girlfriend who's not Catholic.
She's like, wins mass.
What about the man needing sex?
That's just a cultural narrative that basically says men are like animals and they have to be able to do this sexual thing.
Otherwise, they're going to go crazy.
And the reality is there's whole vocations that are celibate.
And these are virile men, men's men.
Some of the most masculine of men I know are priests.
We need food.
We need air to breathe.
We don't need sex.
It's a gift coming together.
And it's designed to bring life throughout the world.
I think the sexiest thing about a guy is like their self-control.
And my husband has amazing self-control.
So after BB number four, when we started practicing NFP, it was like, we couldn't do it sometimes when we wanted to.
And that kind of made things a little steamier, like not going to lie.
It's hard on him too.
Don't get me wrong.
People will say, well, oh, do you just do other things for your husband?
Okay.
Okay.
So this clip has been criticized for any number of reasons.
And when you go point by point, though, you have to, you have to wonder if the criticism is totally valid.
So I want to get this out of the way at the top because this is a very, very important point that legitimately some women don't seem to understand.
Married men need sex.
That's part of the deal.
Women, listen to me.
Women, hold on.
If you're distracted right now, if you're just listening while you're doing some other activity, stop, put down what you're doing.
Ladies, you owe your husband sex.
You owe it to him.
It's called the marital debt.
You have to do it.
Not all the time.
I'm not saying you can never have a headache.
I'm not saying that there are not moments in a marriage when actually you're not able to have sex, which I think is the point Lila's actually making.
The clip is being criticized for all sorts of other reasons.
Because at the top, the podcast guest makes a joke about how Father Mike Schmitz is an attractive guy.
He's a handsome guy.
Everyone's made that joke.
Everyone's pointed it out.
He's one of the most popular podcasters in the country.
Come on, people have made that joke before.
Then they say, well, we don't want ladies going on podcasts talking about their marital lives.
And I kind of agree with that.
But anyway, that exists.
And what are people really upset about here?
I think the point Lila's making is crucial.
And the reason people are getting angry at her is because you kind of have to pick your enemy here.
Is the enemy to attack feminism, which says that wives don't owe their husbands sex?
Maybe.
That's a problem.
Or is the enemy the sexual revolution, which says that we are not rational creatures, that we can never abstain from sex, and that because sex is such a biological imperative, we should engage in all of the attendant vices that go with the sexual revolution.
That's the point Lila's obviously taking on.
And that's crucial.
That's totally right.
She's 100% right about that.
So if we clear off the top that wives, yes, you have to sleep with your husbands and you have to do it probably more than you do.
If we just clear, if we just set that one off for a second, yes, we all agree on that now.
Think about the point Lila's making.
She's saying men don't need sex.
Look at priests.
Priests are celibate and have vocations.
To disagree with that point, you're going to fall into the liberal modern trap of denying the celibate priesthood that has existed for 2,000 years.
You're going to deny religious vocations.
You're going to deny a lot of things that you don't want to deny.
You're going to give up a lot of things that you don't want to give up, that I certainly don't want to give up.
But beyond that, in marriage, there are going to be periods when you have to abstain during childbirth, say, you know, or for some period of time after childbirth, or maybe even right before childbirth, you're going to have to abstain.
If you can't abstain, if you don't have any self-control whatsoever, then the options are going to be weird sex that has been generally discouraged and viewed as grave mortal sin by the church for 2,000 years, or contraception.
Okay, or you're going to use contraception.
Is that what we're going to do now?
Conservatives for condoms?
Is that it?
Conservatives for the pill and the patch and the ring and conservatives for vasectomies and tubaligation.
Is that what we know?
Or it's a very important point.
And because we live in such an overly pronounced feminist kind of age, people are only hearing the first part.
But just knock that one down for a second.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Wives, come on.
You know, let's hold up your end of the bargain.
Put that aside for a second.
I don't think the issue with our age is that we're undersexed generally.
I think we're certainly overstimulated.
We're in a pornified culture.
And when you start to fall for these traps, you're going to lead yourself to a place where you as a conservative are calling to abolish.
Now, some people do want to abolish the celibate priesthood.
I certainly don't.
But where you as a conservative are going to be calling to abolish the celibate priesthood to promote sterilization, to promote contraception, to promote, to promote not being open to life, to promote not having kids, to promote all sorts of things that are pretty liberal.
We need to deal with that.
That's how the devil gets in there.
The devil is really good at screwing people up and causing them to stumble on sex.
It's not that sexual sins are the worst sins.
They're not the worst sins, but they're probably the most prevalent sins.
And they're the most prevalent sins because sex is a very important part of human nature.
I think people are criticizing Lila because they're saying sex is.
They think she's saying sex isn't important.
I think she's saying the opposite.
For 80 years now, Pope Pius XII, the venerable Pope Pius XII, has been smeared as Hitler's pope, silent, complicit, a coward.
What if all those propagandists who wrote the history got it wrong?
My new four-part series, The Pope and the Führer, The Secret Vatican Files of World War II, premieres tomorrow on Dailyware Plus.
We open the Vatican's secret wartime archives to reveal the real story behind the truth that has been buried by supposed history.
Just as we uncover the truth of the past.
This fall, a new voice rises for the future.
Isabel Brown premiers her new show right here.
Plus, do not miss the Daily Wars anniversary celebration show, also coming this fall.
Don't miss a moment of what's coming next.
Go to dailywareplus.com and join now.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Benjamin Haney, Y41, who says, I hate conservatives, but I really hate liberals, says Matt Stone.
Matt Stone, one of the creators of South Park.
There, you understand South Park.
Yeah, no, I thought I thought the South Park thing was great.
People were trying to say, oh, Cartman is Charlie Kirk or this or there.
They're attacking Charlie.
Charlie took it in stride, though, of course.
But it's not even that.
It's that Cartman is Cartman.
And he eventually, as part of the joke, he gets a Charlie Kirk haircut.
But it's Clyde.
Clyde is the one who's everyone on the right.
He says what is a woman.
There's the Matt reference.
He sells vitamin supplements.
There's the Alex Jones reference.
He goes after the Jews.
There's the Nick Fuentes reference.
He says, prove me wrong.
There's the Charlie Kirk reference.
On and on and on.
There were actually a number of others in there and a lot of other people on the right.
And the whole thesis is, you stole my shtick.
The whole thesis is, in many ways, this season of South Park is less a joke about Trump and even less a joke about the right-wing podcasters than it's a joke about South Park and where the culture is now, 30 years after South Park was created.
Okay.
Totally related point to what we were just talking about.
Gen Z is reportedly becoming celibate.
A little weird.
They're all into really weird sex stuff, like their sexual identities, but apparently they're celibate.
This, according to, where is it?
Yes.
Times of London.
No sex, please.
We're celibate.
Why Gen Z have ditched hookup culture?
Dating app fatigue has resulted in an increasing number of Gen Z women considering celibacy, Ruby Conway concluded.
Okay, and you go, it's worth reading.
I'm just going to read the first paragraph.
My friends and I were at a party sprawled around a table drinking wine, listening to a girl we didn't know confidently proclaim her status as celibate.
Openly and unabashedly, she told us about the chaos her sexual encounters had brought her in the past.
Now she had quit sex.
Or rather, she had quit the self-destructive choices she made when driven by sex.
She wore her celibacy like a crown.
So there's got to be a corrective here right at the top.
Well, this whole thing might, I think, is a corrective.
There has to be a correct shun, though, to the thesis and to the headline.
Namely, it's not that these people are celibate.
It's that they are deciding temporarily not to go a whore in all the time.
That's really what they're talking about here, right?
They're not saying I'm taking a vow of celibacy.
Either I am a virgin or after some brief sexual encounters, I'm now going to be celibate for the rest of my life.
They're just saying I'm going to quit a whoren for, I don't know, like a few weeks or something or longer or months or even over a year.
But it's a reaction to something.
This is a corrective to the sexual revolution.
That's what's really going on.
Notice, she says, you know, I've had these chaotic, awful sexual encounters in the past.
Now I'm quitting sex.
I think a lot of people, when you really dig into the sexual revolution, you'll find the propaganda doesn't match the reality.
A good example of this is if you ever talk to a lesbian, a so-called lesbian, a lot of times you talk to lesbians.
They have had encounters with more men than most straight identifying women.
This is anecdotal, but it's correct.
Just if you notice that the sexual revolution is not about one orientation or another orientation or a true identity or the relation of the soul to the body or whatever.
It's mostly just about like crazy, promiscuous, weird, bizarre, perverted sex stuff.
And because it's perverted, because it divorces sex from its natural order and from its tea loss, from its purpose, which is the sort of thing that Lila was talking about, because of that, it's unsatisfying and it leaves people sex austed, to use a phrase.
And it even leads some Gen Z to say, we want to be celibate now.
That's just a corrective.
That's a corrective to the sexual revolution.
And as is so often the case, this was natural.
This had to happen.
You cannot get through such a pornified, insane, perverted, transed out, wacky culture.
You just can't stay in that space forever.
There has to be a corrective.
So now there's going to be a corrective.
But virtue is the mean between two extremes.
That's what virtue is.
And so the answer is not, we need a ton more sex or we need a ton less sex or whatever that kind of false debate is.
The real answer is you need sex in its proper place, in its proper order, with its proper ends done in the proper way.
That's just that could be the definition of a virtuous form of any activity.
This is in fact analogous to the way we were discussing free speech five years ago.
Back then, people were saying, we need way more free speech.
We need way more speech.
And they would say, we need less speech.
We need censorship.
I said, it's a false debate.
What you need is the right kind of speech done for the right purpose in the right way.
In fact, a way to think about lying, this is not an original view.
A friend of mine observed it, though I forget exactly where it came from, so I can't give attribution.
I said, when you lie, it's kind of like contraceptive speech.
It's like a condom for words.
Why?
I was lying like a condom for words.
Because you're cutting off the actual purpose, the end, the t loss of speech.
The purpose of speech is to convey the truth.
When you lie, you're perverting it.
You're cutting it off.
You're sterilizing it from its natural end.
That's what people need.
This is why, taking it all the way back to the top political issue, this is why Trump's version of conservatism is so popular now, is because it's not an ideological extreme.
We need total freedom, understood in the licentious liberal way.
We need totally free.
Do whatever you want.
Have no care for anybody else.
Greed is good.
Go get yours.
Go get your nut.
That's how South Park puts it.
Versus the left-wing version.
We need complete control and domination over everything.
And we need absolute perfect equality.
We're going to live in a Harrison-Bergeron dystopia where we handicap anyone who's in any way exceptional.
No.
No.
No thanks.
That apparent debate between freedom and equality, that is a false debate.
That's a false dichotomy.
We want to live in a good country.
That's what we want for all of us to enjoy the common good.
The poor and the rich and the tall and the short and the black and the white and the southern and the northern and the western and the east.
We all want to have a good country.
We're going to have one good country.
Okay.
And so it matters.
It matters when our nation's capital is falling into disrepair.
And it matters when other cities are falling into disrepair too.
We're going to all rise up together.
We live in society.
We're a social creature.
We're going to all survive together and thrive together and flourish and propagate our country, have kids in a literal way.
We're going to survive or we're going to die together.
