SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls minorities disabled, Kamala Harris claims she was the most qualified Presidential candidate, and Zohran Mamdani wont call on Hamas to disarm.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1837
- - -
DailyWire+:
Finally, Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. TONIGHT at 7pm ET
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now.
GET THE ALL-NEW YES OR NO EXPANSION PACK TODAY: https://bit.ly/41gsZ8Q
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Ave Maria Funds - Learn more at https://avemariafunds.com/MICHAEL
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/KNOWLES to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
American statesmen have given us some great inspiring quotations over the years.
Abraham Lincoln, government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Thomas Jefferson.
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.
And now, Supreme Court Justice Katanji Jackson, minorities are disabled.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
We got tea.
We got pipe and hot tea, folks.
Isn't that what we all want in politics?
A republic, a young Republican has leaked a group chat among other young Republicans, like in the group, the YR is the young Republicans, where they're making all sorts of spicy jokes and edgy claims and talking about Hitler and all that kind of stuff.
And they leaked it to a liberal news outlet, and it's it the tea is so hot it'll scald you.
We'll get to that in a moment.
First, I want to tell you, very excited to tell you about Ave Maria Mutual Funds.
Go to Ave MariaFunds.com/slash Michael.
Folks, I am really, really excited to tell you about Ave Maria Mutual Funds.
In fact, I'm on the Catholic Advisory Board of Ave Maria Mutual Funds.
I believe in it so much, and it's just a wonderful, wonderful fund.
I think, call me crazy.
I think you should not have to compromise your beliefs and your values when it comes to investing.
Why would you put your money into companies that go against what you believe in?
That is one of the many reasons that I like Ave Maria Mutual Funds.
Why I am proud to serve on their board.
They've been around since 2001, founded by George Schwartz.
Today they manage nearly $4 billion in assets with more than 100,000 shareholders.
What sets them apart is simple.
They refuse to invest in companies tied to abortion, pornography, embryonic stem cell research, and those supporting planned parenthood.
Whether you are saving for retirement, kids' education, or you just want to grow your wealth responsibly, Ave Maria Mutual Funds offers a range of options so you do not have to compromise.
I I really, really recommend that you look into these guys.
I I obviously am really, really proud to uh stand with them, and uh they they offer a really important option in today's marketplace that often doesn't consider morality.
Go check out Ave MariaFunds.com/slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
That is Ave Maria Funds.com slash Michael.
All mutual funds are subject to market risk, including possible loss of principle.
Request a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risk fees, charges, and expenses, and other information you should read and consider carefully before investing.
The prospectus can be obtained by calling 1866-283-6274, and it can be viewed at WW.ave MariaFunds.com.
Ave Maria Mutual Funds are distributed by Ultimus Fund Distributors LLC.
Before we get to anything else, the Supreme Court creates controversy sometimes.
You know, they invent a right to abortion.
That was pretty controversial.
Then they get rid of the right to a so-called right to abortion or what license to abortion, then they redefine marriage sometimes, and they upend campaign finance.
Like, you know, the court, sometimes they uphold separate but equal, or they say black people can't be citizens.
You know, the Supreme Court is done and said a lot of things over the years.
I think this quote might go down in the annals of Supreme Court history among among the most infamous during oral arguments over redistricting.
So this is a case about uh gerrymandering about redistricting, specifically in Louisiana, how congressional seats are going to be apportioned.
Katanji Jackson made an audacious claim.
I guess I'm thinking of it of the fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws.
And my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA.
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities.
And so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access These buildings.
The idea in section two is that we are responding to current day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don't have equal access to the voting uh uh system, right?
They're they're disabled.
In fact, we use the word disabled in Milligan.
We say that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.
Am I watching a Ryan Long sketch here or something?
Did anyone catch that little slip of the tongue?
It says, look, and the civil rights law seeks to uh remedy past injustices and racial grounds.
And you know, we hear this in court decisions, and that's why black people are practically disabled.
Was that the Ryan Ryan Long had this sketch where it was woke or racist and they agree on everything?
You know, I just think them the exalted cyclops of whatever, you know, the clan or something comes in and says, uh, well, you know, I just think blacks practically speaking, they disabled.
And then you have the two-time Harvard graduate black Supreme Court Justice Katanji Jackson.
That's what I'm saying.
That we are, we're we're practically disabled.
We're just wow.
Pretty wild uh claim, huh?
So I like I want an inspirational poster up, you know, smiling Katanji Jackson from the woman who couldn't define woman uh during her confirmation hearings.
We bring you the claim that minorities are, for all intents and purposes, disabled.
Okay.
What's the case about let's be as charitable as we can to this read.
The case is about Louisiana's congressional map.
And based on the census, it includes only one majority black district, despite the fact that Louisiana has a lot of black people, but only one district is majority black.
And so the plaintiffs are claiming that Louisiana is unjustly discriminating against black people or something like that.
Okay, and this is what Democrats do.
Both parties gerrymander, both parties control redistricting is just part of our electoral system.
And then whichever side is in power tries to give themselves an advantage, and then the other side makes arguments, often specious arguments, uh, about how the way that the other party gerrymanders is somehow illegal or somehow unconstitutional.
But the way that they themselves gerrymander is totally fine and above board.
And it's all just so tedious and ridiculous.
The way they're trying to do it here is by saying that uh redistricting needs to be based on race.
There's no argument in our legal system or constitutional system for redistricting primarily based on race, but they're making that argument now because they think that it will redound to the benefit of Democrats.
Even though black voters and obviously Hispanic voters are moving considerably to the right, as of now, the Democrats still hold them, so they're gonna say, all right, race has to be the reason that we redistrict.
But it that raises some other questions.
Why is race the chief criterion for redistricting?
Why not religion?
What if uh you you hypothetically have a state where you've got a third uh Catholics, say, but you only have one or two congressional districts that are majority Catholic or Jewish or Methodist or Muslim or whatever?
What if you have the exact same situation pertaining to race, but but in this case pertaining to religion?
Would there be a Supreme Court case about how this is unjust because it's it's uh failing to represent the true identities of the people?
Maybe, probably not.
I guess if we were advantageous to Democrats, they'd bring it to them.
But religion is not advantageous to Democrats, so they probably wouldn't.
Okay, what about, I don't know.
What about actual disability?
Not Katanji Jackson saying black people are practically disabled, but uh, I'm talking about like actual disability, like you're missing an arm or something.
What if a third of the people were physically handicapped in a state, but only one district were majority physically handicapped?
Would that would there be a case about how this is discriminatory and we need to redistrict?
How this could go on forever because we live in a pluralistic system.
Don't forget, pluralism primarily does not refer to just lots of different kinds of people living together as we sometimes colloquially use it today.
Pluralism refers to uh holding multiple offices at the same time.
And in a figurative way, having multiple identities at the same time.
I am an American.
I'm also a Christian.
I'm also a Catholic.
I'm also a Italian extraction.
I'm also kind of waspy.
Uh That's where you get Mayflower cigars from, which is a delicious cigar company.
I'm also a New Yorker, which is why I pronounce a handful of words in a way that amuses people.
I'm also a ukulele player.
I'm also this, I'm also that, I'm also this.
What is my chief identity?
For the libs, it keeps moving.
If it's advantageous to say it's race, they say it's race.
And then our entire political order has to be centered around race.
If it's advantageous to say it's sexual desire or sex or not sex, you know, for a while when they were pushing feminism, when that was advantageous, they said it was sex.
Then when they were pushing the LGBTism, emphasis on the transgenderism, then it was the opposite of sex, and then just it just keeps changing.
But it's totally capricious on their side.
If if black people voted Republican, you just wouldn't see this case.
And so I guess the question for us then is can we come to an answer that's sturdier?
And I think we should, which is, you know, is a matter of our political identity.
It should be that we're Americans and for the purpose of apportioning representation in various states, it should be the state of Louisiana, and we should we should stop being so uh obviously uh arbitrary and capricious about it.
Because it's gonna lead us to say really silly things that make us look even more ridiculous than we already do, such as minorities are disabled.
That's amazing.
Katanji Jackson, man.
The gift that keeps on given.
Okay.
Now, speaking of policies, before we get to another minority woman saying a very silly thing, that would be Kamala Harris.
I want to tell you about Policy Genius.
Go to policy genius.com/slash knowles.
Rising costs have left many Americans overestimating expenses across the board.
While people often assume certain products and services cost far more than they actually do.
This tendency is particularly evident with life insurance, where 72% of Americans overestimate the actual cost of coverage.
Policy genius makes finding and buying life insurance fast, easy, surprisingly affordable.
So if something happens to you, your loved ones have a financial safety net.
See if Policy Genius can help you find 20-year life insurance policy starting at just 276 dollars a year for one million dollars in coverage.
Do the responsible thing, make sure your family is secure, and allow yourself to sleep easier at night.
Get rid of that needless anxiety that you don't even know you're carrying.
Shopping for life insurance does not need to be complicated.
Policy genius proves it.
With just a few clicks, you can compare quotes from top insurers and see all your options laid out clearly.
No confusing jargon or guesswork.
They're licensed agents walk you through the entire process handling paperwork and answering questions along the way.
As the country's leading online insurance marketplace with thousands of five-star reviews, Policy Genius has helped countless customers find coverage that actually fits their needs and budget.
Secure your family's future with Policy Genius, go to Policy Genius.com slash Knowles, Canada WLES to compare life insurance quotes from top companies, see how much you can save.
Policygenius.com/slash knowles.
Kamala Harris lost, as you know.
She lost uh not just the electoral college, but she lost the popular vote.
The first time a Democrat had lost the popular vote in 20 years.
Uh she did worse probably than Joe Biden would have done and Joe Biden was half dead when he was running for re-election.
She did really, really badly.
Now she says she's the most qualified person ever to run for president.
That is that is a decent resume, but go ahead.
But they're well, some people have actually said I'm the I was the most qualified candidate ever to run for president.
Um I like the some people say very nice, but go ahead.
I'm just speaking fact.
Yeah.
Um have people said that?
Who has said that?
Recollections, I think vary.
I don't have that much more to say.
It's just a funny clip.
I just mostly wanted to play it for your amusement and delight.
The one political takeaway from this is the Democrats are still in a great deal of denial.
They don't know what to do to help themselves right now.
They lost the whole government.
They lost the popular vote.
Republicans control the presidency and the House and the Senate and the Supreme Court because they previously won the presidency.
Democrats are really out.
They're on the wrong side of an insane number of issues, Issues that are totally clear 7030 or 80 20.
They're in a really, really bad spot.
But they don't know how to deal with it.
Look at Gavin Newsom.
Gavin Newsom is just the avatar of this.
He realizes there's a problem.
We've gone way too far left.
We've lost a lot of people in the middle, including racial minorities, including women, including, okay, so I gotta be friends with Charlie Kirk.
I got to be friends with Steve Bannon, but I can't really do that because then I'm gonna lose my base.
So I need to uh implicitly threaten Stephen Miller, and I need to uh, you know, move move as far left as I can to beef up my liberal bona fides, and they just don't know what to do.
Kamala Harris, I am the most qualified person ever to run for president.
Meanwhile, you have you have Democrats being interviewed saying, oh, I think she'd be a tremendous candidate in 2028.
They can't admit that she was bad.
They can't admit that she was a bad candidate because she's a black woman, in large part.
She was selected for the vice presidency because she's a black woman, not my words, Joe Biden's words.
He said, I'm gonna pick a black woman.
And his three choices were Susan Rice, who had been the fall man for Benghazi, Karen Bass, who was an actual communist, and Kamala Harris, who was the first person out of the 2016 Democratic primary, but uh I she was still better than the other two, so they picked her.
And because of that, they couldn't step over her in 2024 when it was clear uh Joe Biden was was drooling on himself.
So they couldn't skip over her because of the race hustling, because of the sexual hustling.
So they're stuck with her.
And they're there, she's the symbol of this ideology.
They're just stuck with this ideology.
They don't know how to move about it.
There is at least one woman who is trying to supplant Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee in 2028.
And she's got some help from the perennial candidate, Bernie Sanders.
That would be Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who just did uh town hall on CNN and was asked about her future political plans, specifically whether or not she's going to challenge Chuck Schumer, Democrat leader in the Senate, to a primary in New York.
Here's her answer.
But are you saying that Senator Schumer should not be worried about a primary challenge from you?
I mean, no.
Let me jump in on this one.
This is what we're talking about.
That's exactly what we're talking about.
This is what we're talking about.
We got a house housing crisis, a health care crisis, an education crisis, massive income and wealth inequality, a corrupt campaign finance system.
And the media says, Oh, you gotta run, what are you gonna run for?
Nobody cares.
So one more total.
I care now.
I don't know.
I was slightly cared before.
You know, what?
First of all, how are you AOC and not prepared for this question?
Now I'm beginning to doubt her political skill.
I've been very complimentary of AOC's political skill.
I'm very impressed by her ability to get attention and to moderate and to move around people.
And I actually think she's a pretty talented politician.
That was horrible.
People have been floating this rumor that she's going to challenge Schumer for years.
And her answer is just deer in the headlights, and her eyes are already a rather pronounced physical feature of hers.
Say, hey, um, so are you gonna challenge Chuck Schumer for the Senate?
And her answer is like out of a bugs bunny cartoon.
It's like a triple take.
Woo!
And then you look at Bernie Xanders and he's sort of his eyes start bugging out of his head, and there's red lights going five.
Oh, there's no one of the woman, ha ha ha.
And he just calls so much more or attention to a rather simple question.
Hey, AOC, you know that thing that everyone's been talking about in your political career for like five years.
What is the likelihood that that will happen?
Woo!
So it makes you think, all right, she's obviously very seriously considering a Senate challenge to Chuck Schumer.
Also, she could go further than that.
Because you notice she's not sitting on stage there with Kirsten Gillibrand.
She's not sitting on stage there with Nancy Pelosi.
I don't think she's content to remain on Capitol Hill.
I think she wants to run for president.
She's there with the leading far left presidential candidate for the Democrats for the last like 150 years, Bernie Sanders.
And I think she'd be a pretty good candidate in this moment where the Democrat Party is so far to the left, fully open borders, abolish the police, trans the little kids, embrace Islamists.
We'll get to that in one second because of the Muslim communist running for mayor of New York.
But they've moved so far to the left that AOC in many ways seems like the moderate option now.
And so this problem for Newsom, who's tried to position himself both as a Bill Clinton new Democrat.
I'm the moderate.
I'm slick, I'm reasonable, and also this kind of radical leftist, you know, doing gay marriages in San Francisco long before it was legalized, quote unquote.
That he has a real problem.
AOC doesn't have that problem.
And I think as of now, I said this on Mark Alperin's show the other day.
I I think she is very possibly the best Democrat nominee for president in 2028.
Shapiro can't get it because he's a Jew and the Democrats don't like Jews anymore.
Gretchen Whitmer, I just don't think she has what it takes.
Pete Buttigej uh doesn't have the mojo.
He is he has other issues.
LGBT is not popular anymore.
Uh so uh Pete Buttig loses his one kind of interesting identity point.
And otherwise he's accomplished nothing in his in his life.
So I don't think he really gets it.
Uh newsome newsome is too schizophrenic.
He doesn't know which camp he wants to run in.
Kamala's totally done.
So you go down the list and you start Ram Emanuel, I guess wants to run for president.
He's he's now considered too moderate.
He's also yesterday's news.
JB Pritzker, not gonna happen.
So who do you who do you have?
At a certain point you say, well, maybe it maybe it's AOC, and maybe what she's doing here is not setting herself up for a Senate run by doing this national tour with a uh beloved presidential candidate of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Maybe she's setting herself up for presidential tour.
Okay.
Now turning to New York politics again.
Uh, Zoran Mamdani, the aforementioned Muslim communist who's running for mayor of New York, he went on Fox News, gotta give him credit.
That's pretty impressive.
There are a lot of right wingers in New York, a lot of people who watch Fox News.
So he's going on there to try to shore up the election that is almost certainly already in the bag for him.
And he's asked a totally fair question by Martha McCallum.
The question is, should Hamas disarm?
There have been a lot of pro-Palestine protests in New York.
Zoran Mamdani has weighed in plenty of times on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It's it's the geopolitical question at the moment.
Totally fair question.
But we don't get totally anything of an answer.
Into one that's affordable for each and every New Yorker.
But okay, I and I want to get to that.
Uh absolutely.
But do you believe that Hamas should lay down their weapons and leave the leadership in Gaza?
I believe that any future here in New York City is one that we have to make sure that's affordable for all, and as it pertains to Israel and Palestine, that we have to ensure that there is peace.
And that is the future that we have to fight for.
But you won't say that Hamas should lay down their arms and give up leadership in Gaza.
I don't really have opinions about the future of Hamas and Israel beyond the question of justice and safety and the fact that anything has to abide by international law.
And that applies to Hamas, that applies to the Israeli military, applies to anyone you could ask me about.
What?
Look, man, as you know, I'm not, I'm not hyperpartisan or ideological about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
I have the least popular view of the whole thing, which is I am broadly supportive of Israel, but I recognize the legitimate rights of uh Palestinians, and I have a personal interest in the Christian sites in the holy land, and I recognize it's a complex issue.
So I think I think I have a little credibility to weigh in here.
If you can't say that Hamas should disarm, you're pro-Hamas.
You're pro-Hamas.
Simple as.
And we all knew this guy was pro-Hamas.
Also, Zoran Mamdani's position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is not my position.
My position is it's not the most important issue to me, and I recognize it's complex, and here's where I weigh in, and here's where I think.
Zoran Mamdani talks about Israel-Palestine because his constituency talks about Israel Palestine.
Zoran Mamdani talks not just about the uh Islamic Jewish conflict.
He talks about queer liberation in all of this, you know, how the intersectional quality of radical white leftists, you know, donning kefias and talking about free free Palestine, you know, Greta Thunberg wearing the Palestine uh headscarf, the whole thing is very much in his wheelhouse.
But now all of a sudden he clams up.
Now he's he's reticent little Zoran.
Hey, you think Hamas should disarm?
For Qatar thinks Hamas should disarm.
The Arab League thinks Hamas should disarm.
Qatar, which harbors Hamas thinks Hamas should disarm.
But Zoran Mamdani doesn't, the would-be mayor of New York City.
Whoa, that's pretty crazy.
That's pretty crazy, man.
What?
Well, no, my only interest in the conflict is justice and peace.
Yeah, okay, fair enough.
That's my interest in it too.
So do you support the obvious predicate for any kind of peace?
Yeah, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna say that.
I don't have an o.
Yo, that is.
The guy is a full-blown leftist.
I know some people are trying to say he's like a secret Wahhabi or something, you know.
He's that he that he's some radical Muslim terrorist who's just pretending to be left-wing.
I don't think that's true.
I think he is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who he does happen to be Muslim.
I would be surprised if he practices his religion at all.
In some ways he'd be easier to deal with if he were a serious Muslim.
If he clearly believed in God and at least had some conception of God and religion.
I don't really think it's that.
I think he's I think he's closer to Greta Thunberg than Osama bin Laden.
And uh, in many ways, that creates more of a political problem for New York.
Spooky stuff, man.
You can't I I'm not saying you need to be waving an Israeli flag or anything.
I'm not saying you need to like Benjamin Netanyahu or I don't know.
I'm not saying you have to really be pro-Israel at all.
The genocidal Islamist terrorists don't need to disarm after the Arab League tells them to.
And you want to be mayor of New York City, which was hit by one of the most infamous Islamic terror attacks in our whole 1400 year struggle against that uh political force.
Yo, buddy, crazy.
And he's probably gonna be mayor, is the is the even crazier part.
Okay.
Speaking of young Republicans in New York, I got the tea.
Take your kettle off the stove, baby.
We got tea coming.
First, though, I want to tell you about Pure Talk.
Go to Pertalk.com slash Knowles.
Americans should be able to speak openly and honestly about family, traditional values, patriotism, without retribution.
That is a principle Pure Talk proudly supports.
They sponsor this show, which allows me to stand behind the microphone.
I usually sit behind the microphone every single day and share the truth for you as I see it.
Support the brands that defend America.
I encourage you to switch your wireless service to Pure Talk.
You're gonna get great 5G coverage on an extremely reliable and secure network.
I've had my Peer Talk phone for five years now.
Phenomenal service, phenomenal service, meaning the cell phone service and the customer service is amazing.
In America, it's great.
You don't need to press seven for English.
Just 35 bucks a month.
So you're getting the best service you're gonna get out there for probably less than half of what you're paying now.
You will get a plan that includes a ton of data and a one-year free membership to DailyWire Plus.
That is how much PeerTalk believes in what we do here at DW.
They also believe in creating American jobs, supporting a small business.
If you're a small business owner, you can save even more while enjoying white glove service.
PureTalk.com slash Knowles, Ken WLES, switch to Pure Talk with a qualifying plan of 35, get a free one-year membership to DailyWare Plus.
There's Pertalk.com slash Knowles, K WLES for wireless company that is not afraid to share your values.
Politico breaks a juicy little story that young Republicans, which is a there's a group called the Young, and I'm not just talking about young people who vote Republican.
I'm talking about the younger, there's the college Republicans, there's the Republican National Committee, there's a group called the Young Republicans.
And it's what it sounds like.
It's young Republicans, young professionals and you know, operatives and activists and eccentric kind of kind of people.
They're in New York, Washington, and elsewhere.
They're all in some group chat.
And they're sending edgy, spicy memes, you know, and they're making jokes about Hitler and they're doing it.
It's all like really edgy, spicy stuff.
And reportedly, one of the young Republicans, blackmails, another one of the young Republicans, into leaking the group texts to a liberal news outlet, politico, that makes the all the young Republicans look bad.
What is this about?
I will tell you what this is about, because I haven't heard a lot of people pointing it out, but because I've been in Republican politics since I was a teenager, because I've spent a lot of time around around New York young Republicans in particular, because I grew up in New York and that's where I first worked in politics.
It was my first campaign, my multiple campaigns.
Everyone thinks, looking from the outside in, that this is about some ideological struggle and a battle for the soul of the Republican Party and the whistleblowers blowing the whistle to the liberal outlet because he's so scandalized by the things that these young Republicans were saying, which we are told to believe.
They sincerely believe, you know, they're they're just one step away from brown shirts marching through, you know, Reichstag fire or something, not instead, you know, just young people making edgy jokes as young people are wont to do.
And this is what we're all told.
I'll tell you what this is.
And I don't have any firm proof of this.
I've just been around this kind of thing, especially in New York for a long time.
I guarantee you, this is some personal beef among young Republicans.
I bet you that's the heart of it.
I bet you the heart of this is not about, you know, the fight for the soul of the Republican Party.
I bet you the heart of it is not that these people are sincerely, you know, supporting Hitler or something.
I bet it is a personal beef, people jockeying for power and position to figure who the next guy to run for state senator of Pelucaville is going to be.
I bet it is that.
And these people, all of whom are by definition political operatives who who know exactly how to work the media, stab people in the back and all the rest, it's just people jockeying for power.
And the supposed ideological and moral battles that are taking place on the surface are nothing but a veneer for the uh the political power position battles that are roiling underneath.
That's what I think it is.
And so, as a an observer of politics, a participant in politics, I find this extremely interesting and titillating for that reason.
In in no small part because the whole thing, the leaking of the messages, I believe is uh a kind of a theatrical production playing out in the national media as a cover for what is to me even more interesting, which is brutal power politics.
I want this position in the club, I want this position in the national organization, I want to run for this congressional district.
That's what I think.
That's what I think it's about.
Now, what about the comments themselves?
Which I don't know.
I got the article here, it's kind of long, but you know, it's all this like jokes about Hitler and stuff like that.
Uh should should the uh New York young Republicans and the DC Republicans should they be uh run out of town for this?
Here is how the vice president weighed in.
By focusing on what kids are saying in a group chat, grow up.
I'm sorry, focus on the real issues, don't focus what on what kids say in group chats.
But there's another angle to this that I just have to be honest about.
I mean, I'm like an old guy at this point.
I'm 41 years old, I have three kids.
Uh, you know, we we I grew up in a different world, right?
Where not most of what I, the stupid things that I did when I was a teenager and a young adult, they're they're not on the internet.
Like, I'm gonna tell my kids, especially my boys, don't put things on the internet.
Like be careful with what you post.
If you put something in a group chat, assume that some scumbag is gonna leak it in an effort to try to cause you harm or cause your family harm.
But the reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys, they tell edgy, offensive jokes.
Like that's what kids do.
And I really don't want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke, telling a very offensive stupid joke is caused to ruin their lives.
And at some point, we're all gonna have to say enough of this BS.
We're not going to allow the worst moment in a 21-year-old's group chat to ruin a kid's life for the rest of time.
That's just not okay.
So JD has been extremely consistent about this going throughout the campaign, throughout his political career.
He says, look, young boys, young boys especially, but young people generally, they say stupid things, they make edgy jokes, they do this, and we shouldn't ruin people's lives because at 19 they they made some edgy joke.
And I think the vice president has a lot of credibility on this because often they'll make the jokes at his expense.
So it's not that he's, you know, he's just saying, well, these guys are all my copartisans.
People are knocking him and they're throwing jokes at him.
He says, Yeah, look, but this is we don't want to grow up in a country where a 19, 20-year-old kid has his life ruined because he was j joking around with his friends And trying to, you know, outbassed the other one in a group chat or something.
That's the question is, we got to make sure it's a joke, obviously.
You don't want, you don't want people like actually uh, you know, setting a Reichstag fire or something.
But this is how young guys in particular behave.
Obviously, the reason that political loves this story and the Democrats love this story is because they see it as an answer to Jay Jones.
Remember Jay Jones that he's he's left the news, hasn't he?
Jay Jones, who is the attorney general candidate in Virginia.
Jay Jones, who is not a 20-year-old kid, some nobody uh unknown in a uh young political organization.
Jay Jones is a state legislator who is running for attorney general of uh the top law enforcement official in Virginia, who said in group texts that he would murder his political opponent.
And then when asked to clarify if he was joking, he doubled down on the sort of violent rhetoric.
And he's he accused his opponent of breeding little fascists.
He said that the birth of his Republican opponent's children constituted breeding little fascists.
And he said that he wanted the children to die in their mother's arms.
And it wasn't so much a ha ha ha ha, let's make an edgy joke about a brown shirt.
And it wasn't a kid trying to impress his friends in the group chat.
It was a Democrat legislator with the endorsement of the Democratic Party that has not lost a single vote, uh single endorsement in the Democratic Party, including the gubernatorial candidate, Abigail Spanberg, including the Senator Corey Booker, who made very clear he was not telling jokes.
So that's what they think this is their equivalence.
There's no equivalence whatsoever.
And on the broader point of should we ever criticize anyone on our right or or within the right, or should we just, you know, say anyone who's fighting the left is great, and should I think that the this whole debate is in many ways contrived and uh missing the point?
If the question is, should there be guardrails in a political coalition?
Yes, of course.
All coalitions need guardrails because they need something to delineate what the coalition is.
Duh, yeah, of course there are going to be guardrails.
Just as a nation needs a border or so to any political coalition, any coalition of any kind needs guardrails and features that distinguish the but between members and non-members.
Yeah, of course.
And is it possible that people who would call themselves on the right or would undermine that coalition or would contradict the goals of that?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course.
Does anyone want like Hitler on the coalition?
Like, no.
So then to me, the more interesting question becomes, okay, yeah, we grant that in principle there should be guardrails on a coalition.
What should the line be?
If some kid that no one's ever heard of is like making jokes to his friends in a group chat and he invokes, you know, Mussolini or an Austrian painter or something like that, is that cause to kick the kid out of the party and ruin his life and get rid of his jobs?
And like, no, I think obvious.
I'm with the vice president on that.
No, of course not.
That's ridiculous.
So then how do you come to what the guardrails are?
How do you decide who gets in and who stays out of the coalition?
And my answer to that is very simple.
You do it very carefully.
That's how.
And you're gonna think that's a cop-out.
It's not a cop-out.
This is this answer comes by way of no less a right-wing figure than Antonin Scalia.
When I was a student, I got to meet Scalia a couple times.
One of us in one of these meetings asked, how do you decide?
Uh, which cases we should do we should just leave as decided law because of story decisis, you know, which or which cases are were so egregiously decided that we have to overturn them.
Another example would be how do you decide which sort of guns are permitted for ownership by the second amendment and which sort of guns would be beyond the pale?
And Scalia's answer was was delightful.
He said, well, you decide it very carefully.
Yeah, sorry, there's no like three-point manifesto that says this guy gets into the coalition and this guy has to stay out of the coalition.
That's that's not how it works.
This is a human endeavor.
This is a team sport.
This is a people business, okay?
And in politics, the paramount virtue is prudence.
And so we decide things very carefully.
That's how.
And sorry, we're not gonna, We're not going to ruin people's lives because they told some edgy joke.
We're not going to draw an equivalence between some kid trying to impress his girlfriend or something in a group chat by being like kind of or his buddies or whatever, trying to be kind of funny, and the would-be attorney general of Virginia, who apparently quite earnestly and repeatedly and seriously fantasized about the murder of Republicans and our children.
No equivalence between those things at all.
October is packed with new releases on DailyWare Plus, and tonight is a big one.
The premiere of Friendly Fire.
Join me, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Andrew Claven, unscripted, unfiltered, no moderators, nothing off limits, live at 7 p.m.
Eastern, plus special appearances from Isabel Brown and Jeremy Boring with your first look at the Pendragon cycle.
It all kicks off tonight.
Do not wait.
Join now.
Get 40% off a new annual membership with code FAL40 at DailyWire.com.
Okay, I want to speak about beautiful black women in Chicago, but first, I want to tell you my favorite comment yesterday from Nat Lavelle 122 who says, who would have thought young malleable minds would follow a trend?
Same with the body positivity movement, making a bunch of young fat people.
Yes, that comes from that comes from uh where was it?
Um, yes, the LGBT study.
Sorry, I just totally glitched out thinking about those beautiful black women, which we'll get we'll get to in one second.
No, yes, it was the LGBT study that showed that non-binary identity is cratering and that it looks like trans and other kind of queer identities are following, albeit the L and the G are relatively stable.
Yeah, of course.
Of course.
And this even gets to another point on the like weird sexual identity, which is some people say, well, we're born this way, you know, and there's nothing that's the beginning and the end of the story.
And then some people say, no one's born that way.
It's all just a choice.
And it's weird.
And I think that also misses how human nature works, which is people are born with all sorts of weird inclinations.
You know, it's a fallen world.
People have all kinds of defects and variations.
And also we're rational creatures and we do have agency, and we can cultivate our our freedom by disciplining ourselves and growing in knowledge and virtue, and all those things are true.
And we're obviously social creatures and we're mimetic and we respond to how other people behave.
All of those things can be true.
So then the question becomes do you want to encourage the weird LGBT LMNOP stuff, or do you want to discourage it?
When the libs say, well, these people, you know, this identity is so awful, who would choose it?
Yeah, right.
Maybe we should therefore kind of discourage it and have charity for people along the way.
Seems to me the right idea.
Okay, before we get to the mailbag, we're doing mailbag today because we're gonna mix up the show a little bit tomorrow.
It's gonna be a lot of fun.
I'm gonna have a good friend of mine on.
Uh, but before we get to that, I I I do want to get to um President Trump's comments on beautiful black women.
And the people of Chicago are walking around with MAGA hats.
You have women, beautiful black women walking around with MAGA hats.
Please let the president in, and we don't care how he does it.
They're not interested in National Guard or Army, Navy, bring them in.
Marines, bring in the Marines.
They just want the crime to stop.
And more so because of the success that we had in DC.
I think if we didn't have that success, nobody would even believe it.
Fact check 100% true.
Jesse Smollette was ahead of his time.
MAGA hats in Chicago.
It's MAGA country now, baby.
Beautiful black women.
It's funny.
Early on, the Democrats and the squishy Republicans, they thought that this kind of language was gonna turn off the voters that Trump was talking about.
You know, he says, so like a lot of these Hispanics are murderers and rapists, but some are good people.
He thought that was gonna turn them all off.
The Hispanics liked it because Hispanics are broadly more normal than uh a lot of the highly ideological white people.
Same thing here, when he has beautiful black women.
Oh no, he can't talk about that's a compliment.
That's nice.
I I don't know that I've ever met a black woman who would not like being called beautiful.
And there are these kinds of people in Chicago.
Look at just the 2024 exit polls.
Black men, less so women, but black men moving more to the right, Hispanics moving more to the right.
And uh black people black people, pache uh uh Katanji Jackson are uh not like practically disabled, you know, in any, I don't we don't we don't need to treat black people, that is, as like not human, you know.
They have rational faculties, and they it turns out they don't like crime and and it you know, being perpetrated against them, they don't like crime in their communities.
And uh I think Trump, I think he's on to something here.
Okay, it's finally my favorite time of the week when we get to hear from you in the mailbag or mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk switch to Pure Talk with a qualifying plan of $35 and get a free one-year membership to DR Plus.
Take it away.
Hi, Michael.
I work for a tribal casino and wanted to get uh your perspective on legalized gambling.
Uh it's an issue I haven't heard you talk much about, and there's so many different aspects to it from state lotteries to sports betting, online gaming and casinos.
Uh, what should our stance be as Christians and conservatives?
Should the government regulate it or prohibit it?
Uh really appreciate the time.
Love the show.
Thanks.
Great question.
I'm really skeptical of gambling, even though I do it sometimes.
But I'm really skeptical of gambling.
I'm not saying it should be completely outlawed, but I it obviously should be heavily heavily regulated.
The kind of traditional moral way of thinking about gambling or or betting.
Sometimes people would say gambling is different from betting, and that gambling is by definition immoral and out of control, and betting is different.
But let's just use the word gambling.
The the traditional criteria are that for for the gambler, the money must be his.
He can't be gambling other people's money.
He must act freely.
He can't be being coerced in order for it to be morally licit.
Uh, there can't be fraud involved.
There can be, you know, kind of aspects of the game where you're hiding the ball a little bit, but but you have to be aware of that.
You could there can't be actual fraud for it to be illicit.
And there must be some equality between the gamblers.
So you can't, you can't be, you know, a shark or a hustler.
There has to be some, you can't, you can't just pick a mark and take him for all he's worth for for it to be moral.
So I'm I'm pretty skeptical of it.
I do gamble in the sense that I I hate going to casinos and I don't sport I hate sports betting and all that stuff.
But I've seen I've seen people's lives uh really really damaged by gambling.
But I when I go out to eat with some buddies of mine, or we go get drinks or something, we almost always play rock, paper, scissors, or credit card roulette for the bill.
Now, say over the years, this has probably amounted to certainly thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands of dollars over many, many, over a decade or more of playing this game.
But it kind of evens out, it's kind of fun.
You know, you'd you'd be willing to buy your buddy some drinks or lunch or something anyway.
So it I'm okay with it.
It's got to be heavily heavily regulated though.
I know, and the libertarians will not like that, but it's true.
Okay, next one.
Good morning, Michael.
Hope you're well.
And I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction here because I'm a bit puzzled on what do I do with anger from a Christian perspective.
I've been betrayed recently, very profoundly and intensely.
It's a complicated situation.
I'll spare you the details.
But along with that has come these feelings of rage that I have little control over and dominate my thoughts.
And I'm wondering, what does scripture say about this?
What can I do with this?
How do I spin this in a positive light?
Thank you so much.
I appreciate your wisdom.
Well, uh scripture says a lot of things about this.
The most famous is probably Vengeance is mine says, the Lord and I will repay that his foot shall slide in due time.
That's that's a pretty good one.
Um also, you know, if you harbor enmity and hate and wrath in your heart, uh, you know, it's it's akin to killing your the person that you're thinking about.
So uh these are very serious uh injunctions against harboring this kind of wrath.
So what do you do?
Because it's natural to feel anger.
And it is right to feel anger, actually, in certain circumstances.
Supposing that it is a righteous anger, uh an anger on behalf of justice that is conducive to advancing justice, that well, that would be good.
In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas says that it it's evidence of a defect if you don't feel anger at a righteous, righteous thing, or anger in a righteous way, you know, at some kind of injustice.
So uh don't beat yourself up too much about it, but you have to sublimate that anger.
And one thing that I have done, because I used to have a little bit more of a temper, a little bit I was a little bit had more of that Sicilian desire for vengeance than I do now.
Now I'm pretty placid, I lose my temper like twice a year.
Uh one thing I do is I take a providential view of it.
And I say, okay, some injustice was done to me or to someone I love, and this really angers me.
Why is this happening?
What is the good that can come out of this?
We know it's not that God is responsible for evil, but we know that God turns evil things to good.
And we know that, you know, the cosmos is ordered perfectly.
Uh, you know, according to God's plan.
So what's this about?
You know, one's then therefore sublimates one's anger, and one might even learn something and scrutinize the signs of the times and understand something about the world.
Okay, next question.
Sorry to hear about your betrayal, by the way.
Hey, Michael, no one has bothered you about IVF in a while, so I thought I would.
Okay, so here are my IVF rules that I think would make it okay.
So heterosexual couple have to be married.
They have to try naturally for a year, and then an additional year of other interventions before you actually attempt IVF.
Um, no surrogacy.
Uh, and you can't know anything about your embryos that are created, and you either have to use them or um put them up for adoption.
What do you think about that?
It's a great effort.
It's a great effort, and I appreciate that.
That, you know, people recognize the bioethical problems of IVF and are trying to they, you know, they they want to have IVF, because when people suffer infertility, it's so so painful.
I'm sure I know, actually.
Uh, but they they want to do it in the right way.
It's sort of like um, you know, when if you're uh if you're Catholic, say, and you hold to Catholic sexual morality, and you think, well, surely there's some instance in which I can use a condom, you know, surely there's someone, no, there must be some loophole, right?
Not quite.
So, yes, all of the guardrails you put on it are great and everything, but it doesn't, it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem, which is you are commoditizing human life.
You're going to the baby store, and you're paying someone to make a baby for you.
And you're saying, well, I'm not going to custom, I'm gonna, I'm gonna uh foreclose my options to uh custom design the baby.
Okay, practically speaking, good luck in regulating an industry that way, but it's really the industry that's a problem.
The fact that there's a baby industry.
Uh, and the other thing that you can't get past is establishing the domination of science and technology over the origin and destiny of human life, which sounds like an abstraction, so I'll make it really practical here.
There are cases being litigated right now where doctors screwed up the petri dishes in the test tubes and put the wrong baby in the wrong mother.
You you can have a situation where it goes even worse than that.
So you, you know, in this situation, uh, a black couple gives birth to a Chinese baby.
Obviously, something went wrong.
Now you're faced with this heartbreaking challenge.
Either you just have the couple that gave birth uh raising a baby that's not biologically theirs, and you know, the mother's out there somewhere, wants the kid, or does, but it's either that situation, or they just trade kids, you know, a few months in once they sort it all out in the courts.
And now this child is being ripped away from the only parents she has ever known.
Horrifying situation, either way, horrifying, and it's prioritizing the the uh disproportionate disorder desires of the parents over the needs of the child.
Can't you can't have it.
But think about an even worse situation that can happen, which is the scientist doesn't just mix up the embryos, he mixes up the sperm and the egg and now creates a child with parents who've never met one another.
The parents went to the baby store to order the baby, and they said, Well, we want to use my egg and his sperm or whatever.
And but oops, there was a mistake, and now you have a child who exists with parents who've never met each other, who don't want to raise the child together, who who almost certainly will not raise the child together, who don't want this child, who who want a refund, you know, in manufacturing mistakes happen sometimes.
You should get to return it and get a refund.
What if the product being manufactured is a baby?
You just can't do it.
You just can't do it.
There's no good IVF.
It's a hard saying.
Let those who have yours to hear hear it.
Okay.
Do we have one more voicemail back question or was that the last one?
Good morning, Michael.
This is Arun.
So although I am not a Christian in any capacity, I of course still hope and pray for the longevity and success of the papacy of Pope Leo the 14th.
But let's say that for some reason he decides to resign the papacy, and the next Pope is Cardinal Pizzabala.
Do you believe that it is morally incumbent on the cardinal to pick the papal name of wait for it?
Papa John.
Thank you as always for your wisdom.
Yes.
Be John the 24th, right?
John the 23rd was the last.
Yes, it would have you would it would have to be, it would have to be Papa John.
There's no I I'm pulling for a Pius the 13th, but yes, Papa John.
