Ep. 1181 - Woke ＂Think Tank＂ Tries To Cancel Me
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
164.85713
Summary
Alexandria Ocasio-cortez is a freshman congresswoman from the District of Columbia who wants to expand voting rights for non-citizens in local elections in the country s most important city. She s got a point.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Those sweltering summer nights that leave you tossing and turning,
00:00:02.420
desperately kicking off the covers, don't have to ruin your sleep.
00:00:07.540
Boland Branch's premium sheets feature a soft, breathable weave that's built to last.
00:00:11.840
Get the best savings of the season during Boland Branch's annual summer event.
00:00:15.320
Get 20% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bolandbranch.com slash dailywire.
00:00:20.340
That's bolandbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash dailywire to save 20% off and unlock free shipping.
00:00:30.280
House Republicans yesterday voted to overturn two bills that had been passed by the D.C.
00:00:35.780
Council that would allow non-citizens to vote in local elections and go even softer on criminals.
00:00:44.520
And Congress Lady Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is not happy about it.
00:00:49.980
In direct contradiction of their quote unquote conservative values of small government
00:00:56.240
and defending freedom have decided to expand the jurisdiction of this body to meddle into the business of D.C. residents.
00:01:06.020
The D.C. City Council has the right to determine its policies for D.C. residents.
00:01:11.940
And if any member of this body does not like that, they can feel free to change their registration, resign their post, and run for D.C. City Council.
00:01:21.520
Now, AOC says lots of things that are not true, but very often the false things that she says are false because they're exaggerations or selective interpretations or imaginative predictions.
00:01:36.520
In this case, though, what AOC said is just perfectly, precisely, easily demonstrably wrong.
00:01:46.780
The D.C. City Council does not have the right to determine the policies for D.C. residents.
00:01:56.780
And that right doesn't come from some obscure section of the U.S. Code or some little-known court decision.
00:02:02.580
It is laid out explicitly in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, quote,
00:02:08.540
The Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the federal district of Washington, D.C.
00:02:21.120
Now, at first, I figured AOC was just being disingenuous.
00:02:27.360
The more I listened to her rant, though, the more convinced I became that she just sincerely doesn't have any idea
00:02:35.560
how the Constitution established the government of D.C.
00:02:42.280
I understand that Republicans may not be happy with what the D.C. City Council is doing.
00:02:49.460
But when cities in Vermont passed the same provisions, when San Francisco, when nine Maryland cities brought up this provision,
00:02:58.400
did the Republican Party corral all of Congress and bring this issue down to the floor for a vote?
00:03:05.700
They are singling out the residents of the District of Columbia and expanding in the history of disenfranchisement
00:03:13.980
that goes all the way back to the legacy of slavery, and they're bringing it right here to this floor
00:03:27.860
The Congress is not overruling laws in Vermont and Maryland and in San Francisco because that's not Congress's responsibility.
00:03:38.800
It's just basic civics, the sort of thing you're supposed to learn by the fifth grade,
00:03:44.040
especially in a republic which cannot endure if even the elected representatives don't understand the basic functions of the government.
00:04:02.200
My favorite comment yesterday is from Vince Dow, who says,
00:04:04.940
That was me in the suit on the panel about assimilation, erasure, and crime.
00:04:13.220
It's kind of funny to play a clip on the show and then have the person in the clip say,
00:04:21.900
This was in the clip yesterday on my show from Vice, this great Vice documentary,
00:04:25.940
where they're talking about all sorts of woke nonsense, and you got this one conservative guy,
00:04:29.900
and then all the libs around him who are just absolutely aghast whenever he says anything even remotely commonsensical,
00:04:42.680
And we got to talk at some point, not just through this show.
00:04:46.940
When you want to talk to your friends on the phone, you got to check out Pure Talk.
00:04:53.300
Pure Talk is the antidote to woke wireless companies.
00:04:57.780
It is proudly veteran-owned, employs a U.S.-based customer service team,
00:05:01.260
and absolutely refuses to spend money on fake news networks.
00:05:05.760
Not to mention, Pure Talk's service is fantastic.
00:05:09.420
They are one of the largest networks in the country.
00:05:11.440
You can get blazing fast data, talk, and text for as low as $30 per month.
00:05:17.000
That is probably half or less than half of what you are currently paying Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile.
00:05:24.040
Switch over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number.
00:05:32.300
And if you are not completely happy with the service, you will get your money back.
00:05:46.060
Make it a goal to support companies that support you.
00:06:02.600
I don't hit her so much anymore because I feel it's played out.
00:06:06.260
I feel this is the most basic, superficial kind of conservative commentary these days.
00:06:17.740
You could fill a show with that every single day.
00:06:21.180
But sometimes, sometimes AOC demonstrates such blithe ignorance that one cannot ignore it.
00:06:30.740
And this occurred not just yesterday talking about Washington, D.C., not knowing what the
00:06:36.740
government of Washington, D.C. is supposed to be, even according to the Constitution.
00:06:40.280
But this happened a couple days ago, too, when AOC was discussing the big tech
00:06:47.580
hearings and testimony when the Congress was grilling these big tech executives,
00:06:54.400
especially on things like the Hunter Biden laptop story.
00:06:56.900
AOC went on a tangent about how upset she is that libs of TikTok, one of the great Twitter accounts,
00:07:02.660
is still on Twitter, despite spreading false information.
00:07:09.000
Ms. Navarroli, are you familiar with the account libs of TikTok?
00:07:20.940
Are you aware that from August 11th to August 16th, that account posted false information
00:07:28.240
about Boston Children's Hospital, claiming that they were providing hysterectomies to children?
00:07:36.320
The claim, the accusation, libs of TikTok posted false information suggesting that the Boston
00:07:44.860
Children's Hospital transes the kids, specifically provides hysterectomies to children.
00:07:58.460
A hysterectomy itself is the removal of the uterus, the cervix, which is the opening of the uterus,
00:08:03.520
and the fallopian tubes, which are attached to the sides of the uterus.
00:08:07.080
Some gender-affirming hysterectomies will also include the removal of the ovaries,
00:08:10.840
but that's technically a separate procedure called a bilateral oophrectomy.
00:08:14.460
And not every gender-affirming hysterectomy includes that,
00:08:17.240
and people who are getting gender-affirming hysterectomies do not have to have their ovaries.
00:08:20.940
So it sounds like libs of TikTok was right, because I'm watching a commercial now from
00:08:27.980
Boston Children's Hospital talking about performing these hysterectomies.
00:08:32.480
I guess you could say that libs of TikTok didn't go far enough,
00:08:37.920
because libs of TikTok should also maybe have talked about bilateral euphrectomies.
00:08:42.760
Is that how you pronounce that? But they did it. AOC could have just Googled that.
00:08:49.720
AOC launches into this long, emotional rant about how libs of TikTok is lying about Boston
00:08:58.760
Children's Hospital and hysterectomy. She could have just Googled it. It would have taken like
00:09:01.920
five words. She didn't do that. She could have saved herself the rant about Washington,
00:09:07.720
D.C. by reading the Constitution even just one time, or having learned anything in civics class
00:09:14.440
in elementary school. And I know that they were teaching civics back when AOC was in school in
00:09:19.520
Westchester, because I grew up one town away from AOC. And AOC went to the schools in the ritzier,
00:09:27.140
wealthier, nicer area. So you assume she had a civics class. She just didn't learn very much
00:09:33.040
from it. And it's not just AOC. I don't just mean to pick on AOC. There is a congressman,
00:09:38.340
Representative Dan Goldman. He has a much more impressive, prestigious academic pedigree,
00:09:44.500
certainly than AOC does. And he was humiliated almost as much, frankly, even perhaps more than
00:09:52.260
AOC, because the expectations for this man were higher, when discussing a basic aspect of free speech
00:09:58.640
law with the legal scholar Jonathan Turley. Does the First Amendment protect someone from
00:10:04.560
yelling fire in a movie theater? Well, unfortunately, that one is not yes or no,
00:10:09.340
because that's become a mantra for people. It's the Holmes-Shank line. Holmes himself walked back on
00:10:16.800
that. All right. All right. We don't need a law class here. But you do agree, though,
00:10:22.920
don't you, that the First Amendment does not protect all speech? No, there are limits to speech.
00:10:29.920
All constitutional rights have limits. I felt as though I were watching Always Sunny in this
00:10:36.000
exchange. So he says at the top, can you yell fire in a crowded theater to suggest that the right
00:10:42.980
to free speech is not absolute, which is true. But of course, it's not absolute, as Jonathan Turley
00:10:49.120
admits. But that phrase, yelling fire in a crowded theater, that comes from a very famous case,
00:10:54.800
Schenck versus the United States. It was a case about whether or not a man could be thrown in jail
00:11:00.000
for passing out flyers against the draft and against the war. And it's a complicated case.
00:11:07.760
I write about it at length in my book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,
00:11:11.240
number one national bestseller on free speech and the evolution of speech. But it's a complicated case.
00:11:15.460
And so Jonathan Turley says, well, actually, Representative Goldman, you've picked probably
00:11:19.180
the worst example to talk about this. And because it's a little complicated, and it goes back to
00:11:23.060
what Oliver Wendell Holmes said. And what is the representative goes, hey, hey, hey, all right,
00:11:27.360
here, listen, we don't need to hear about, listen, we don't, it was just the Charlie Day response.
00:11:33.540
I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings. I'm well educated, well versed. I know
00:11:40.200
that situations like this, real estate wise, they're very complex. Actually, they're pretty
00:11:45.460
simple. The forms are all standard, boilerplate. Okay, well, we're all hungry. We're going to get
00:11:50.580
to our hot plate soon enough, all right? But let's talk about the contract here. Sorry, I forgot.
00:11:55.160
Where did you go to law school again? Ah, well, I could ask you that very same question. I went to
00:11:58.900
Harvard. How about you? I'm pleading the fifth, sir. I'd advise that you do that. And I'll take
00:12:05.700
that advice into cooperation, all right? Now, let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and
00:12:10.560
see who comes out the victim. You know, I don't think I'm going to do anything close to that. And
00:12:14.800
I can see clearly you know nothing about the law. It seems like you have a tenuous grasp on the
00:12:19.200
English language in general. Okay, well, filibuster. Do you know what that word means? Yep. Yeah,
00:12:29.000
what's that mean? Listen, Professor, do you think you can yell fire in a crowded theater?
00:12:38.940
Well, actually, the case that used that example ended up being largely over... Okay, okay,
00:12:45.880
listen here, mister. We don't need any of your lawyerings, okay? Let's go toe-to-toe on bird
00:12:51.060
law. That's what Representative Dan Goldman sounds like. And what's so embarrassing about this is that
00:12:56.180
the joke in Always Sunny is that Charlie Day is completely uneducated. Representative Dan Goldman
00:13:03.000
went to Stanford Law. Dan Goldman went to what is considered the second best, most prestigious law
00:13:11.000
school in the country. And he doesn't even understand the context of one of the most basic
00:13:19.760
slogans from one of the most basic cases of free speech. These people don't know anything. And it's
00:13:27.740
not just AOC. It's very easy to make fun of AOC because she's infamously ignorant. It's all these
00:13:35.100
guys. It's not just AOC. People make fun of her. They say, oh, she's a bartender. I know plenty of
00:13:39.800
bartenders who are a lot smarter and wiser than graduates of Stanford Law School. Okay, what's the
00:13:45.220
excuse of the people from Stanford Law School? It doesn't make you feel very confident about the
00:13:51.340
future of our political order and our economy and our supply chain, for that matter, which is why you
00:13:56.540
got to check out Jace Medical. Right now, go to jacemedical.com, promo code Knowles. I'm going to give
00:14:01.660
you a scenario, okay? Imagine this. It's not very difficult to imagine. China invades Taiwan.
00:14:07.180
There goes your supply chain, and America is extraordinarily reliant on that supply chain
00:14:14.280
and on China. It's not just China, though. It could be any major event pops off in the world,
00:14:18.900
pandemic, natural disaster. In that case, even the basics can be hard to come by. You got to be
00:14:23.960
prepared for anything. Jace Medical is here to help. Jace Medical helps you get a long-term supply of
00:14:29.980
prescription medication. Their mission is to empower you to be better medically prepared.
00:14:34.480
A great way to start preparing is with the Jace case, a pack of five different courses of
00:14:39.440
antibiotics that you can use to treat a whole host of bacterial illnesses, including UTIs,
00:14:45.200
respiratory infections, sinusitis, skin infections, and more. All you've got to do is fill out a simple
00:14:50.480
online form and, in some cases, jump on a quick call with one of their board-certified physicians.
00:14:55.560
From there, you can ask your physician treatment-related questions on an ongoing basis.
00:14:59.680
Be like the Knowleses, okay? Be prepared for anything. Go to jacemedical.com. Enter code
00:15:05.860
Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S at checkout for a discount on your order. That's jacemedical.com. Promo code
00:15:11.900
Knowles. Do it today. The experts are not so expert, which brings me to a story a little bit close to
00:15:19.220
home. I was the subject of a hit piece yesterday. That's right. Yours truly, your beloved podcast
00:15:28.880
host. This is from the Brookings Institution, probably the most prominent liberal think tank
00:15:35.240
out there. Brookings has this very, very lengthy report. Apparently, according to the author,
00:15:41.980
it took years to put this report together. And it opens with me and Ted Cruz. It opens,
00:15:46.860
it's called Audible Reckoning, How Top Political Podcasters Spread Unsubstantiated and False
00:15:52.820
Claims. In February 2021, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his co-host Michael Knowles, a Daily Wire
00:15:58.340
commentator, recorded a live episode of the Verdict podcast in conversation about his former Senate
00:16:04.620
opponent, Beto O'Rourke. Senator Cruz described his rival support base as primarily reporters who act
00:16:11.640
like, quote, groupies at a Rolling Stones concert throwing their underwear. Offhandedly,
00:16:15.640
he added, if they wore underwear. With a smirk, he leaned into the mic and asked Knowles, too edgy.
00:16:21.760
Knowles replied, quote, it's a podcast. You can say whatever you want. And then that's the intro.
00:16:28.740
And they say, yep, that's it. Since the advent of the medium, podcasts have generally offered a space
00:16:33.620
where in the words of Knowles, you can say wherever you want. And now all these people get their news from
00:16:40.100
podcasts and do in large part to the say whatever you want perceptions of the medium. Podcasting offers a
00:16:44.800
critical avenue through which unsubstantiated and false claims proliferate. There it is. That Knowles,
00:16:52.140
that Knowles, he gave up the whole game. He admitted that these podcasters, they just spread
00:16:58.560
recklessly, carelessly spread lies and false claims. And although the author here tries to make it sound
00:17:05.800
like she's being really balanced, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that she is accusing conservatives
00:17:10.800
of spreading much, much more false information than the liberals. At one point, I think she says
00:17:17.120
that conservatives spread something like 11 times the false information that liberals do.
00:17:24.820
And that because the conservatives produce more podcasts than the liberals do, this is really,
00:17:30.140
really dangerous. It leads to lots of unsubstantiated and false claims in podcasting.
00:17:36.660
Okay. So I'm reading through this. A friend of mine had texted it to me earlier. I'm reading
00:17:41.680
through this. And I noticed something a little bit weird. I noticed there is a graph in the pod and
00:17:48.320
says top conservative podcasts by the number of podcasts that have been produced. And this is a,
00:17:57.220
this is a print ready copy. So it doesn't have the graphics in here, but among the top political
00:18:03.540
podcasts, I'm, I'm honored to say I was listed among them, a number of the Daily Wire shows,
00:18:08.400
Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Matt Walsh, I'm looking at all these shows. And it was, it ranked us not by
00:18:13.860
the ratings, not by daily downloads, just by the number of shows produced. And it said X, there are X
00:18:20.460
number of shows that have produced more than a thousand episodes. And I looked at it and I said,
00:18:23.300
wait a second, Drew and Matt are, are both ranked higher than me in terms of episodes produced.
00:18:31.060
But I know as of today, that isn't true. I have produced more episodes than they have. This is
00:18:37.100
not a hard statistic to look up. You just go to the Daily Wire website or your podcast app,
00:18:40.840
you look episode number X, whatever. And I have produced more episodes. So then I looked and I said,
00:18:47.280
okay, well, this seems like a really just a basic statistic that was totally wrong.
00:18:53.640
The reporter responded and said, no, no, Michael, you idiot. I stopped collecting data on January 22nd,
00:19:00.080
2022. And so you, you just don't understand all my really transparent and high-end methodology.
00:19:05.000
So I said, okay, well, I'll just, I have, I have always produced more episodes than Matt Walsh.
00:19:10.420
My show started before Matt's show. So that, so I look back at January 22nd, 2022, and there it is.
00:19:16.460
It's the data, the really basic data in this long Brookings report that allegedly took years and
00:19:23.580
years to produce about how the conservatives are recklessly, carelessly spreading false
00:19:28.440
information on the internet. The data on just one point, just one that I happened to see in a graph,
00:19:34.900
the basic data are completely wrong, which is ironic. I guess it's not ironic in that I never
00:19:43.440
expect these people to have their data correct because I just don't believe a word that they
00:19:47.600
say. And I don't think they're particularly careful and meticulous in what they do. I think they're
00:19:52.280
just trying to smear conservatives. And it turns out that was the case. And the author of the piece
00:19:56.640
is so upset about it. She keeps trying to justify her really, really basic error. The same kind of
00:20:03.260
basic error that AOC makes when she gives a whole impassioned speech about how Congress has no right to
00:20:07.880
control DC. And then you say, lady, look at article one of the constitution. It says Congress has the
00:20:12.120
right to control DC and to pass the laws there. It's really, really basic stuff. There's not much
00:20:18.480
arguing with it. January 1st, 2022, the Michael Knowles show had 927 episodes out. The Matt Walsh
00:20:24.820
show had 878 episodes out. Take Drew out of it for a second because his show had had different,
00:20:29.540
it was daily at one point, then it turned to weekly. But even just those two,
00:20:32.940
the fact that this author at the Brookings Institution could get just that really basic
00:20:43.000
element of data wrong makes you realize, oh, I can't trust a word in this report.
00:20:49.820
Drew actually makes this point about the newspapers. He says,
00:20:52.920
people are very funny in that they'll open the newspaper and they'll read an article about Syria.
00:20:59.860
Syria. They'll say, well, I don't know anything about Syria, so I'll trust what the author has to
00:21:04.100
say. And then they open and they see a piece about the oil industry. They say, I don't know anything
00:21:09.000
about the oil industry, so I'll trust what the author has to say. Then they'll open it to a piece
00:21:12.900
about the New York Yankees. And they'll say, oh, I do know about the New York Yankees. They'll read
00:21:16.200
the piece. They'll say, oh, the author's completely wrong about the New York Yankees.
00:21:20.180
Then what happens? You turn the page to an article about banana prices. And you say, well,
00:21:25.600
I don't know about banana prices. I guess I'll believe the author. It's,
00:21:27.860
if you can just, if you can point out, you say, well, I know for a fact, the one thing that I know
00:21:35.120
about in what these people are talking about, I know that that person is wrong.
00:21:40.720
Why would you believe anything else that they have to say? Now, the ignorance, I won't ascribe
00:21:50.020
to malice that which is explained by incompetence and ignorance. The ignorance that you see in this
00:21:54.360
kind of piece is relatively trivial. I know that it's being used as a justification to censor all
00:22:01.240
of our podcasts, I guess mine in particular. But there are more consequential sorts of lies and
00:22:08.440
deceit and expressions of ignorance. A clear one would be the CDC telling you that the Fauci
00:22:15.740
ouchies were completely effective and completely safe. Remember, the CDC and Dr. Fauci and Joe Biden
00:22:22.920
said, if you get, I'm just going to put them all together in Fauci's voice. If you get the shot,
00:22:28.960
you won't get COVID. You won't transmit COVID. And then that turned out not to be true.
00:22:34.820
People saying that the shots, you have nothing to worry about. It totally tested. Very, very,
00:22:40.700
very safe. And then, and then it turns out actually some young people are getting myocarditis.
00:22:46.580
Women are getting blood clots, dying of blood clots. There would seem to be some nerve damage that comes
00:22:52.220
along with these shots sometimes. And now we have the CDC director of the immunization safety office
00:22:59.760
just a couple of weeks ago, acknowledging openly, finally, the health problems that have been
00:23:09.160
attributed and associated with these vaccines. We take vaccine safety very seriously.
00:23:16.880
With respect to reports of people experiencing debilitating illnesses. I mean, we are aware of
00:23:31.520
these reports of people experiencing long lasting health problems following COVID vaccination.
00:23:40.180
In some cases, the clinical presentation of people suffering these health problems is variable
00:23:45.020
and no specific medical cause for the symptoms have been found. We understand that illness is
00:23:52.440
disruptive and stressful, especially under those circumstances. And we acknowledge these health
00:23:59.220
problems have substantially impacted the quality of life for people and have also affected those around
00:24:04.640
them. And we hope for improvement and recovery. And we will continue to monitor the safety of these
00:24:10.640
vaccines and work with partners to try to better understand these types of adverse events.
00:24:16.700
Now, the fact checkers out there are already trying to push articles saying that you did not hear what you
00:24:25.100
just heard from the man who just said it. The man who is Tom Shimabukuro, the CDC director of the
00:24:36.180
Immunization Safety Office, you just heard what he said. I'm not even going to add commentary to what he
00:24:42.100
said. Lest the fact checkers have any opening to lie. All I did, all I just did was play his words.
00:24:54.060
Words that had you or I said those words. Had you or I said those words today, we would be called fact
00:25:01.640
checkers spreading misinformation, murderers probably kicked off social media. Certainly, had we said
00:25:06.700
those words two years ago as they were rolling out those vaccines, oh my goodness, you might have
00:25:12.960
been arrested. You would have been thrown in Guantanamo Bay. This is a danger to the public
00:25:17.240
health. How dare you? Now you're hearing that from the director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
00:25:23.420
That's a pretty big error then, it would seem, to hear that the vaccine's totally effective,
00:25:29.240
totally safe. That's a pretty big error, pretty consequential error when you hear him talking about
00:25:36.520
people who are living with persistent health problems as a result of deceit, as a result of
00:25:44.000
lies, as a result at the very least of ignorance. Don't do it. Don't allow yourself to be a victim.
00:25:49.880
Don't allow yourself to be a victim of a bad economy. Diversify. You got to check out Birch Gold.
00:25:54.500
Right now, text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898. The US blew through the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling
00:26:03.740
last month, and still, the White House refuses to reduce spending. If you're worried about the
00:26:09.400
future of this nation's economy, you've got to consider diversifying into gold with Birch Gold.
00:26:14.520
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals. Text Knowles,
00:26:20.120
K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold, and then talk to one of their precious
00:26:26.760
metals specialists. With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers,
00:26:31.560
and countless five-star reviews, you can trust Birch Gold to help protect your savings. Right
00:26:36.600
now, text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898. Protect yourself with gold today. I have really enjoyed
00:26:44.420
investing in precious metals. I am of Italian extraction, so you know we particularly love gold.
00:26:49.280
There's a reason that conservatives generally like to diversify into gold. Text Knowles,
00:26:54.980
K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898 today. Many prominent people who had previously pushed the vaccine are
00:27:02.500
now regretting it. One example would be Nancy Mace. I mentioned her yesterday. Nancy Mace is a liberal
00:27:07.840
Republican who came out. She said, I regret getting the vaccine. I feel I was lied to. I now have vaccine
00:27:14.620
injuries that I've got to deal with as a result of this. And I was impressed because Nancy Mace is a
00:27:20.080
liberal Republican. She's not a conservative Republican. And she had previously pushed the
00:27:24.240
vaccine. She had peddled the vaccine on CNN. She was opposed to the mandates, as far as I can tell.
00:27:30.760
But she still encouraged people to get it. Now she is regretting it. I said, okay, at least good on Nancy
00:27:36.780
Mace for admitting she was wrong. But she still continues to double down on her opposition to the
00:27:42.000
conservative Republicans. She still spends most of her time attacking the more controversial people
00:27:48.260
in her own party. And she spends a lot of her time sucking up to the liberals. She did this yesterday
00:27:52.840
at the National Press Club. Nancy Mace was invited to go there and tell some jokes. It was supposed to
00:27:59.380
be a roast, kind of funny, telling jokes at the press club. Here's the performance.
00:28:05.840
I know George Santos hoped to deliver tonight's keynote, but organizers,
00:28:09.620
our lovely, beautiful organizers, wanted someone who could tell a joke, but not actually be one.
00:28:18.460
Come on, George, you've given Republicans a bad name, and that's Lauren Boebert's job.
00:28:27.680
I mean, really, like, who lies about being a, about playing college volleyball? Like, who does
00:28:39.040
that? If you're gonna lie, at least make it about something big. Like, you actually won the 2020
00:28:48.400
presidential election. I was one of the first Republicans, I know there's some New Yorkers
00:28:53.040
in here too, Republicans, who asked, who said Santos should resign. Santos should step down to
00:28:58.620
show people you can't lie, cheat, and steal to win an election. Unless, of course, if you're
00:29:04.360
Donald Trump or Joe Biden. I said this so this can air on Fox News and CNN. I go both ways. I mean,
00:29:14.400
it's like watching a bad imitation of Mean Girls. Republican Congress lady Nancy Mace, she says,
00:29:30.980
hey, I'm not a regular Republican. I'm a cool Republican. Hey, press, come on. I'm not like
00:29:41.320
those bad Republicans. I'm cool. I'm a cool mom. Yeah, okay, right. Are you? Are you? That's never
00:29:48.900
cool, unfortunately. Even making fun of George Santos, that's fine. It's funny. I've made plenty
00:29:55.720
of jokes about George Santos. But it sort of depends on the spirit in which one makes the joke
00:30:01.700
and the type of person who makes the joke. In that, I can make fun of my brother. You can't make
00:30:08.200
fun of my brother. If I make fun of my brother, I don't even have a brother. I have a stepbrother.
00:30:12.640
If I make fun of my stepbrother, that's fine. That's okay. But if you make fun of my stepbrother,
00:30:16.780
that's offensive. So the question is, what is the perspective Nancy Mace is coming from?
00:30:21.500
Nancy Mace is coming from the perspective of a liberal Republican who, at every chance she gets,
00:30:27.060
attacks conservative Republicans and tries to curry favor with the liberals. You could say, well,
00:30:33.440
this was a roast. People are telling jokes. It's fine. Get a sense of humor. I'm all for that.
00:30:37.300
I think that's a great idea. But Nancy Mace never once told any self-effacing jokes. She never made
00:30:42.280
a joke about her own side. Because her side is not Republican. She opposes conservative Republicans.
00:30:49.060
Her side are the liberal squishy Republicans. And she didn't make any jokes about them.
00:30:56.480
That's really pathetic. And I play that to remind you, there are still a number of those types out
00:31:01.900
there. We think that the conservative party, the Republican party, now is being run by the
00:31:08.760
conservatives, not by the squishes, not by the moderates. But there are still a lot of centrists
00:31:14.960
out there. Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, is floating the idea of a presidential campaign.
00:31:23.420
I know. It's very silly. Most people have never even heard of Chris Sununu.
00:31:26.680
It's probably not going to happen. But he certainly wants to run for president in 2024.
00:31:32.740
And the way that he is positioning himself is specifically as a centrist.
00:31:38.680
A lot of the folks that you mentioned and a lot of folks that we all know who are likely to run for
00:31:43.640
president on the Republican side are more conservative. You're more moderate.
00:31:50.180
I'm ranked the most fiscally conservative governor in the country. I'm number one in personal freedoms.
00:31:54.780
Right. I'm sorry, Ron. You're number two. Sorry, Florida.
00:31:59.280
I would challenge anyone on Second Amendment rights. We're far and away the best, you know,
00:32:03.440
because we believe in those individual freedoms. Regulatory reform. I'll challenge any state on it.
00:32:09.060
So am I more moderate on the social issues? Yeah, maybe. But that's not what I got in this game for
00:32:14.100
management. I'm a manager. I'm a CEO. I like to manage and redesign systems. But I would tell you on those
00:32:18.880
social issues, we get better results than almost anywhere else. There it is. Got to give the guy
00:32:24.220
credit for honesty. He says, I want to be a manager. Mike Bloomberg, this was his pitch to run for
00:32:30.580
president in 2020 as a Democrat. He said, look, I'm a manager. I just want to manage things.
00:32:36.080
That is the exact opposite of what we need in this country. I do not want to manage the decline.
00:32:45.560
I think our country's in decline. I don't want to just manage the decline. I don't want my president,
00:32:51.160
my Republican conservative president to manage the decline. I want him to fix things.
00:32:57.540
You might not think that, well, you probably do think the country's in decline. But some liberals
00:33:00.760
out there, they might say, no, the country's not in decline, even if it's not in decline. I don't
00:33:03.680
want you just to manage the liberal establishment. I want a conservative to go in there and advocate for
00:33:09.600
good things and pursue good things and oppose evil things. Pursue truth and avoid falsehood. Pursue
00:33:17.580
beauty and avoid ugliness. That's what I want. He says, look, I'm very conservative. I mean,
00:33:21.920
maybe not on those cultural issues. But what is that even, what, I don't even know what that means.
00:33:31.180
It's like saying, I love coffee. I hate caffeine. You're pretending that you support a thing,
00:33:37.640
but then you oppose the essence of that thing. Oh yeah, I'm just not conservative on the cultural
00:33:43.840
issues. Well, that's the whole story. Okay, you can cut taxes. I'm very conservative. I can conserve
00:33:49.940
tax cuts, maybe. I'm even questioning whether that certain conservatives can do that. No,
00:33:56.980
no managers, no managers, no squishes. There is too much at stake. Our government is being run by
00:34:05.000
people who don't know the first thing about the constitution or our political order or the law or
00:34:09.160
anything. And it's not just the infamously ignorant people. It's even the ones with the
00:34:13.600
fancy degrees from the fancy law schools and the fancy think tanks. They don't know anything.
00:34:17.500
They're so ignorant. Our genius experts, whose job it is to be genius expert nerds,
00:34:23.160
get the most basic aspects of their jobs wrong and make us all take experimental drugs that often
00:34:29.780
don't turn out very well. We're in a really tough spot. I do not want someone to just manage the
00:34:37.180
status quo. The status quo is very sick and we need to fix it. Governor Sununu, you're not going to be
00:34:46.960
the president. You're certainly not going to get my vote if you want to manage this desiccated,
00:34:52.920
degraded status quo. To celebrate President's Day this year, Daily Wire is launching our Presidents
00:34:57.980
for Sale Sale with 40% off new annual memberships. The big guy got 10%. We're giving you 40%.
00:35:03.860
Get access to the world of Daily Wire Plus with fearless documentaries, gripping movies,
00:35:08.120
Dennis Prager's master's program, the entire library of Dr. Jordan Peterson's work,
00:35:12.960
including new productions. Exodus, Logos and Literacy, On Marriage, all available to watch
00:35:18.420
right now, coming down the pipeline to a TV or a laptop near you. New episodes of Ben Shapiro's The
00:35:24.300
Search, Exodus Part 2, our much-anticipated DW Kids content, and Pendragon later this year.
00:35:30.580
To sweeten the deal, we're also giving you up to 40% off select items in the Daily Wire shop.
00:35:35.200
Take advantage of our Presidents for Sale sale today. You know that he would. Just go to
00:35:40.700
dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today. That's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
00:35:45.120
We're going to be getting to the member block, obviously, after the mailbag. But just want to
00:35:50.760
let everyone know, a lot of people are talking about how James O'Keefe appears to be out at
00:35:57.960
Project Veritas. There seems to be a coup taking place within Project Veritas to put James O'Keefe,
00:36:03.320
who, to my mind, is Project Veritas. I think the two are synonymous. They're going to put him on
00:36:08.120
leave, I guess, right after this amazing expose on Pfizer. He's getting a lot of heat for that.
00:36:13.840
So anyway, we have a former Project Veritas undercover journalist who is going to give
00:36:19.960
us the behind-the-scenes scoop, because James has not been making a public statement about it.
00:36:24.280
So we'll get the inside story. That will be on the member block. First, though, the mailbag
00:36:29.120
sponsored by Pure Talk. Go to puretalk.com, select a plan, enter code NOLLS,
00:36:33.340
K-N-W-L-E-S, to get 50% off your first month. Let's take it away with the first question.
00:36:38.380
Hey, Michael. I'm Kate, a happy little introvert who works from home, and as such,
00:36:43.440
I look forward to watching your show every morning. So thank you for everything that you
00:36:47.940
do. I have two questions for you today. For some context, when my husband and I first met,
00:36:54.940
it was deemed improbable at best and dangerous at worst to pursue having children. Therefore,
00:37:00.280
my husband married me, knowing that our family would grow and evolve into something a bit different.
00:37:05.500
Through the years, we've developed a huge passion, not for kids, but for young adults,
00:37:09.740
specifically in that 18 to 25-year Peter Pan phase of destructively extended adolescence.
00:37:16.840
Right now, we have a 19-year-old living with us. He is the eighth young adult to spend a
00:37:22.240
transitionary and equipping season in our home, many of whom who have never learned how to perform
00:37:28.100
basic functions or had ever witnessed healthy dialogue and familial relationships. Now that the
00:37:33.960
doctors say, I could start trying for children, we found that this would create a conflict
00:37:38.540
with our desire to foster these young adults into true adulthood. For how could we responsibly
00:37:44.220
house potentially wayward men in a home with little vulnerable children? So my first question
00:37:50.380
is this, given that you believe having children is a command from God, do you allow for the notion
00:37:55.760
for his church to target and meet a multitude of needs in a broken world? This might have to take
00:38:01.980
on different forms. Because in many ways, my husband and I do have children. Many, in fact,
00:38:08.060
they are just big, lovable knuckleheads traipsing in and out of our home at any given time.
00:38:14.780
Here's my second question, and one you might enjoy. In that same vein, we are involved in a couple
00:38:20.600
different organizations, hosting events all the time, from deep theological study nights to informal
00:38:26.700
community fellowship. Every weekend, we now have roughly 12 to 30 young adults at the house,
00:38:32.860
often staying close to midnight, discussing topics of all kinds. So if given the same opportunity,
00:38:39.220
what would you want to impress most upon the elder Gen Zers? Thank you so much. Can't wait to hear
00:38:46.360
your answer. Bye. That's a lot. I'll try to keep it pithy. What you're doing for those young men
00:38:51.580
is unbelievably charitable. I'm not sure that I could muster that. I barely like talking to the
00:38:59.820
19-year-old men that I am related to or relatives of my friends. That's a tough period. So to invite
00:39:07.580
them into your home, that is incredibly charitable. And you're right. If you have young children,
00:39:12.720
you can't just invite these strange men of fighting age into your home. That would be irresponsible.
00:39:19.440
I don't know your specific medical situation or what the doctors have said. If the doctors previously
00:39:24.960
said, you'll die if you have kids, that raises certainly all sorts of dilemmas for you. And if
00:39:33.440
the doctors are now saying you can have kids, no big deal, go ahead and have children, then I would
00:39:38.220
do that. You've done your good charitable work. Having children is a wonderful thing. And you're called
00:39:44.400
to do it. You were called to do it within the context of marriage. So you're married, you can have
00:39:48.540
kids, do it. I've got two kids. I want to have a hundred more kids. I think it's a great thing.
00:39:53.020
So go for it. That's what I would recommend. And if it doesn't work out, plenty of couples struggle
00:39:57.720
with infertility. Who knows? No one has the right to a baby. If it doesn't work out, you can go right
00:40:02.020
back to the charitable work you're doing. And that sounds great. As for the youth groups that are
00:40:07.940
coming through your home, hanging out until midnight, what would you want to talk about?
00:40:12.520
I would flip it. I would allow them to propose the topics of discussion. And the reason for this is
00:40:22.960
an important part of education is desire. And we often don't think about this when we talk about
00:40:29.540
education because we think of education as sit down, do what you're told, copy the things that
00:40:34.160
we want you to copy, and learn the facts that we want you to learn, and then go out and go to the next
00:40:40.020
grade. But a key part of education is desire. A soul that does not wish to be educated cannot
00:40:47.780
really be educated. This is a point that Plato makes in book seven of The Republic. So see what
00:40:56.680
they bring up. And then whatever they do bring up, you should pursue that train of thought all the way
00:41:03.200
through its various levels. Through its literal meaning, through its allegorical meanings,
00:41:09.580
political implications, cultural implications, and then ultimately up to the highest level of
00:41:13.760
knowledge, which would be theology. And then you can go down a really great journey. But I would
00:41:20.220
allow the desire of the people in the conversation to guide that. And I wouldn't make an organized
00:41:25.080
lesson plan. Okay, next question. Hey, Michael, I have a couple of friends who are agnostic and
00:41:30.700
or atheist. I want to show them the truth of the Bible. And I believe the events of the Bible are
00:41:36.280
true. But I feel like if I were to cite the Bible to prove my point, it would be like an evolutionist
00:41:41.420
pointing to different parts of a textbook and claiming fact. We wouldn't have an agreed upon
00:41:46.520
piece of evidence that we could further debate. I'm really curious to know if I should use the Bible
00:41:52.080
to prove itself. And if so, what passages should I cite or use another book or historical record
00:41:58.180
that proves Christianity or at least makes it more believable? Thanks.
00:42:03.440
Well, the Bible is inerrant and it is the word of God in a textual sense. Christ himself is the word
00:42:11.180
of God, the divine logic of the universe in that larger sense. But the scripture is a great place
00:42:16.540
to convince people and persuade people because you're using the very words of God.
00:42:23.080
But I think you're starting a little down the line here. And this is a common mistake,
00:42:30.340
I think, in our modern age, especially an age that has divorced the Bible from all sense of
00:42:36.460
history and authority. But the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, don't forget. The Bible was
00:42:43.240
compiled. The Bible was compiled and agreed upon in a canon by an ecumenical council of the church.
00:42:50.040
So the church predates the Bible. And what is the church? The church is the body of Christ,
00:42:55.880
instituted by Christ here on earth. And who is Christ? Christ is the incarnate second person of
00:43:00.860
the Trinity. And what is the Trinity? Who is the Trinity? The Trinity is God, three persons in one
00:43:07.100
divine unity. And who is God and does God really exist? I think you've probably got to start there.
00:43:12.360
And the existence of God can be known with certainty by the light of human reason within the context of
00:43:22.300
the natural world. You don't need the Bible to prove that God exists. The Bible illuminates
00:43:29.420
aspects of God. But it is not a requirement to know that God exists. So I would probably start
00:43:39.160
there. That's where you would have to start. If you were proposing a science textbook, let's say that
00:43:44.780
you wanted to persuade your friend of something Charles Darwin said. Not that I'm encouraging that
00:43:48.980
necessarily. But you wouldn't just begin with from the origin of species. You would begin with who is
00:43:54.720
Charles Darwin. What observations did he make? What experiments did he undertake? What was the
00:44:01.600
historical context in which Charles Darwin came about? What was he reacting against? That's probably
00:44:06.080
what you would do. If you were to show a science work on, say, the Big Bang, you would say, who is
00:44:13.200
George Lemaître? And you would find out that George Lemaître is actually a Catholic priest, the man who
00:44:16.900
discovered the Big Bang. And the term was actually a term of derision by atheists who wanted to make fun of
00:44:23.180
the idea that this priest had discovered something about the origin of the universe that seemed to
00:44:28.000
accord perfectly with the Genesis account. So anyway, that's where you would begin. I would begin
00:44:32.860
there. Does God exist? If God exists, who is God? What is God like? What does the incarnation mean
00:44:43.400
in the light of who God is? And then what do we know about the incarnation? And at that point, I think
00:44:51.940
you get to the Bible. Next question. Hi, Michael. I am wondering why you prefer the Latin Mass over
00:45:00.040
the English Mass, but criticize the Spanish response to the State of the Union. As you've said once or
00:45:05.680
twice, culture is downstream of politics, and our Catholic identity is part of our culture. So I'm
00:45:12.020
curious to see what you think about this. I thought this question would be extra relevant this week,
00:45:17.340
because in case you haven't heard, there is a football team representing the cradle of liberty
00:45:21.560
playing in a big game this weekend that you may want to catch. Go Eagles. Have a nice weekend, Michael.
00:45:27.780
I actually hadn't heard that. Like, I knew the Super Bowl was happening, but I am so tuned out of
00:45:33.520
football, especially since all the BLM stuff, that I didn't even know that the Eagles were playing.
00:45:39.040
That's cool. All right. That's good on the Eagles. As for the question of the Spanish State of the
00:45:45.240
Union versus the Latin Mass, one, if the State of the Union response were in Latin, that'd be a
00:45:50.600
completely different story, because at least then you're speaking in the language that once united all
00:45:55.060
of Western Christendom. But we don't have that anymore. We don't have a unified Christian empire or
00:46:01.440
anything even resembling that. We have nations, and here we have the American nation, and the purpose of
00:46:07.360
the State of the Union is to describe the state of our nation, one nation, under God, indivisible,
00:46:13.160
a pluribus unum, out of many one. And so it is contrary to the very idea of the State of the
00:46:21.400
Union address to give it in multiple languages, because those multiple languages suggest a division.
00:46:28.700
And specifically, the insertion of Spanish into the State of the Union is an acknowledgement of mass
00:46:36.660
migration and the failure of assimilation, specifically from a handful of Latin American
00:46:40.400
countries. And so the medium can become the message. A lot of people are saying, well, why can't we just
00:46:46.280
get the conservative message out to Spanish people? I think that's a great idea. I have nothing against
00:46:50.260
Hispanic people. I have nothing against the Spanish language. I speak romance languages. I look fairly
00:46:57.340
Hispanic myself, so I've got nothing against any of that. But I'm recognizing here that if you give a
00:47:04.840
deeply conservative message in a medium that is not very conservative, that is radical, that goes along
00:47:12.780
with the premises of the liberals, then you're not really presenting a conservative message at all.
00:47:18.460
That's a bad idea. The question is, what is it for? I find Latin is better suited to the mass.
00:47:24.640
One, the traditional Latin mass is a little bit confusing because it's not just about the language.
00:47:30.920
It's a different mass. The liturgy is different. The orientation of it is different. I find it to be
00:47:35.900
much more reverent. It's obviously much more traditional. And I think it's more conducive to worship.
00:47:42.320
But the Latin, the language, is also better suited for the mass because it shows a unity, a universality,
00:47:51.440
a Catholicity. It's Catholic in the sense that until the last 50 years or so, you could go anywhere
00:47:58.740
on earth. You could walk into the mass. They would be speaking the same language. It shows you something
00:48:04.520
about the universal church. If you look at the state of the union, the purpose of it is to express the
00:48:12.200
state of our American nation. And so it should be conducted in the language of the American nation,
00:48:17.740
which is English. Next question. Hi, Michael. You were talking, I think it was yesterday or the
00:48:24.040
day before, about embryos and having them frozen and how that was wrong. So I have an older sister
00:48:30.700
and she had some infertility issues and her and her husband just were not able to get pregnant. But
00:48:37.500
thankfully through IVF, they've been able to get pregnant. And they have several embryos frozen
00:48:44.300
for their future plans for future family. And anyway, I was asking her what they're going to do
00:48:51.920
because they have more than they want children wise. And anyway, I was curious what your thoughts
00:48:59.040
were on what to do with those frozen embryos. I know you don't like the embryos, but I just the fact
00:49:06.740
of you have them. And I was just curious what your thoughts were on what you would do in that
00:49:13.680
situation. My husband and I just, we could not figure out what to do. And yeah, do you destroy
00:49:18.900
these people, these babies, or do you let someone else have your, essentially your child and have that
00:49:28.480
child never know you? And yeah, I just thought that was a very thought-provoking question that I knew
00:49:35.980
you would have a very good answer for. So anyway, love the show. Thanks.
00:49:40.160
Thank you very much. I hope I have a good answer for it. Just one slight correction there. You said,
00:49:44.900
Michael, I know you don't like the embryos. I like the embryos very much. In fact, that is why I don't
00:49:50.200
support these forms of artificial contraception. The question you bring up of embryo adoption is a
00:49:57.760
difficult one and I think remains an open one. It is such a modern phenomenon. It's such a recent
00:50:02.760
phenomenon that bioethicists are still debating this. The church has not rendered any judgment one
00:50:10.140
way or the other. It would, it is tempting to say, well, people should just adopt these embryos. I don't
00:50:17.720
think we should destroy them. I think that would be wrong. But we also need to recognize that
00:50:24.620
procreation is to take place in the context of a marriage within the conjugal union of husband and
00:50:31.380
wife. And children have a right to their natural mother and father bound together in marriage,
00:50:37.300
which is for the good of the spouses and the sake of the generation and education of children. So
00:50:42.760
there is a temptation to say, okay, well, we are where we are. This is a bad scenario.
00:50:48.200
So we're not going to kill the embryos, but we were, maybe we'll take them and implant them in other
00:50:53.260
people. I don't know that that's quite the right idea. That it exacerbates another problem, which is
00:51:03.240
the establishment of the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of human life. That is
00:51:08.380
not acceptable at all. It separates procreation from the conjugal act. That is not acceptable.
00:51:14.280
So what does one do? I think what one does is not rush to judgment. There is an impulse,
00:51:22.780
especially in the modern world, to the moment that some new technology comes out and becomes popular,
00:51:27.320
we have to render a for all and eternity sort of bioethical judgment on it. And this can lead to
00:51:34.460
really bad consequences. I think of Lambeth, you know, the notion where Protestant churches came out
00:51:40.320
and endorsed aspects of the sexual revolution, endorsed artificial contraception and the like.
00:51:45.480
That, I think a lot of that came out of a sense of urgency along with other mistakes, but it led to
00:51:51.940
so many more problems down the road. Whereas what I would do in this case is I would allow the
00:51:57.700
bioethicists, the real bioethicists, you know, the people who are trained in this regard to debate this
00:52:04.520
for some period of time. And what I would do in the meantime is proceed with caution and follow the
00:52:13.660
first advice of the Hippocratic Oath. First, do no harm. All right, we've got the real scoop on
00:52:21.240
Project Veritas coming up. We've also got a Super Bowl watch party this weekend. Crane and company will
00:52:26.360
be hosting a live Super Bowl watch party this Sunday for Super Bowl 57. Who's playing? I don't know.
00:52:30.800
But join the live, apparently the Eagles, right? That's what the guy just said. So join the live
00:52:34.520
stream at 6 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Central on YouTube and Daily Wire Plus. Here we go. We've got
00:52:39.540
Cassandra Spencer, former Project Veritas employee and whistleblower over there at Facebook. The rest
00:52:46.100
of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles at dailywire.com
00:52:50.560
slash Knowles for two months free on all annual plans. We will see you with the scoop on Project Veritas.
00:53:00.800
like the goges, get visit us at the bottom. We'll see you with the怎 byifie Hong Kong podcast.
00:53:09.660
You can see you with the's, we'll see you with the sweet moment. You want to miss it. Like
00:53:17.740
Diana? Freedity, what? Let's see you, haha. We go. Let's see you. Instagram is