Ep. 2047 - The World Unites To Mourn Dolly Parton

This episode is brought to you by Good Ranchers, delivering 100% American beef chicken pork and seafood straight to your door from local farms and ranchers. This summer, support the American ranchers, keeping agriculture alive by visiting GoodRanchers.com/noles, Kenneth W. L.A.S. Build your own box, starting as low as $129. Plus, when you start a plan today, you will also get double the free meat with every order this month. Go to GoodRanchers.com/noles, Kenneth W. L.A.S., American Meat, delivered. Tributes continue to pour in for Dolly Parton from all the living presidents, cities around the country, even Buckingham Palace in the UK. The morning is so widespread that most people realize the grief over Dolly is about more than a country music singer. Some are saying it is about the loss of a mono culture. Dolly was the last person we all liked. Some say it's about the loss of civility and politeness. Dolly got along with everybody, regardless of political divides. I think it is even deeper than that. We will get to what her death means. Then, Lindsey Graham sister, Darlene Beats Ralph Norman in the South Carolina Senate primary, which gives us a ton of insight into the 2028 Republican presidential primary. And speaking of that primary, it looks like we are getting close to our first declared candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. And he does not work for the Trump administration. I'm Michael Nolesus, the Michael Noles Show. [Music] Welcome back to the show. There is a liberal congress lady who is now arguing that writing laws with words is too onerous. It's too confusing for people. She wants to write laws with pictures. We'll get to that. We'll get to the crayons that this member of congress is demanding to draft laws. First though, I want to tell you about good ranchers. We've got a good ranchers.com/noles. Can it have you LES back to school season means everyone gets thrown back into a routine. You're running out the door as I was this morning taking kids somewhere going from one thing to the next. Suddenly it's three o'clock. You realize you never actually ate lunch. This is where I'm very excited about this phone. You know, I'm a big, big good ranchers consumer. I'm not just an advertiser. I'm also a client all the time many, many days. Good ranchers is put out something that I've been waiting for for a long time. The good ranchers beef sticks. Very useful. Look at these delicious, delicious beef sticks. They're made with 100%. American grass fed and grass finished beef. That distinction matters because, here's something I didn't realize. More than 85% of the grass fed beef sold in the US grocery stores is imported. Grass fed does not necessarily mean American raised with good ranchers. You're getting both. They are freaking delicious, just like all the other meat that comes from good ranchers. Kids love them too. They're amazing. For a limited time, start playing at 50 bucks off plus double the free meat with every order, build your own box, starting as low as 129 bucks. Get the Michael Noles box, which I just put in another order for. Go to goodranchors.com/noles. Can it have you LES? 50 bucks off plus double the free meat with every order that is goodranchors.com/noles. Good ranchers. American meat delivered. Dolly. Dolly, we didn't get to Dolly on the show yesterday. We filmed a little bit early and so we missed the biggest international news. It's not the war in Iran. It's not the economy. It's not mass migration. It's the death of Dolly Parton. The great, great Dolly Parton. Everyone is mourning the loss of Dolly Parton. I was in Washington, DC two nights ago and I was at an event in DC and then an after party and a this and a that and all sorts of stuff going on. I wind up right before I go to bed. I wind up at that statue of my great, great, great, great, great, great grandpa Simon Noles that was put up in Washington, DC. It was really, really cool. I go there, I'm looking at it, looking all the other beautiful statues and freedom plaza. But then I noticed something strange. I saw that the flags were at half staff. I said, "Why are the flags at half staff?" And the person that I was with said, "That's for Dolly Parton." So, oh my goodness, even in the imperial capital, flags are at half staff for this country singer. But she's so much more than a country singer and she represents so much more than a country singer. Everyone is paying tribute. Obviously, the president, the sitting president, Trump paying tribute by lowering the Flagstaff staff, but all the other ones who are still alive, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Biden, all paying tribute. The Empire State Building was lit up to pay tribute to Dolly Parton, Sears Tower or whatever they're calling Sears Tower now. Buckingham Palace in the UK at the changing of the guards, they played nine to five. So it's all over the place, certainly all over the West. Why? What is it about Dolly Parton? The shallow read is it's just because she was such a great entertainer and she was. She was a consummate entertainer, no one better. Okay, that's that. Then people realized, all right, this is about something more than just a singer. Some people are saying, "Well, it's because of the loss of the mono culture." The last time we saw this kind of universal appering grief was when Alex Trebek died and people at that time said, "Alex Trebek, he was the last guy that we all liked." No, everyone else now is divided on lines that are political or racial or sexual or geographical, but everyone loved Alex Trebek and everybody loved Dolly Parton. He say, "Man, even 20, 30 years ago, we used to have this mono culture. We all saw the same movies, watched the same TV shows, heard the same news, and so that meant that we were all really plugged in together as a community. Now, we don't have that. We all just scroll on our perfectly individually tailored algorithms all the time, so you don't really share anything." Now, don't forget, when we had the mono culture, we conservatives in particular complained about that because the mono culture was run by the Libs in Hollywood and the news media at the universities. And so we said, "This is terrible. We got to crack up the mono culture." That was our argument then. The mono culture is super liberal. It's driving us off a cliff. We need independent media, independent news. We need to make our own conservative Hollywood. That was the argument. We largely succeeded at that. Now we realize that life is all about trade-offs. And so, yes, we've gained a voice in the culture, but we've lost that mono culture that gave us cohesion as a political community. But I don't even know that it's just about the loss of a mono culture. Part of the reason everyone loved Dolly is she was respectful of everyone. She had that Michael Jordan idea, which was that Republicans by sneakers too. So Michael Jordan probably slightly liberal in some of his politics. That's what he implies when he says Republicans by sneakers too. I think he's probably more conservative even than someone given credit for. Big cigar smoker, you know, fairly traditional type guy. With Dolly Parton, I think a lot of people suspected. She was a little more Republican, a little more conservative. She's a country woman, very traditional in her own personal life. But she was also a gay icon. You know, she nodded at that a little bit. So regardless, yes, she was very polite. Everybody loved her. She was very loving to everybody. I think it's deeper even than that than politeness and civility. I think what people are mourning in the loss of Dolly Parton is the loss of America. I'm not saying America is definitely totally sunk forever. There's no hope. But I think people recognize that Dolly Parton is an American original. Every so often you get these American originals. Elvis Presley is an American original. Donald Trump is an American original. You cannot imagine these people coming out of another country, coming out of another culture. And they represent, in myriad ways, some of which are difficult to articulate, something about the American character. With Dolly Parton, you get all that. One, it's the country music. Two, it's the bleach blonde hair. Three, it's the rhinestones. Four, it's this kind of optimism. A hopefulness, yes, but even an optimism. Things are going to be okay. You know, we're going to look on the bright side. That's very much a part of the American character. Trump is like that. Trump doesn't talk about bad news. Trump focuses on good news. And through the sheer power of his will, he wants to make good news. That Dolly Parton gave us a little insight into this. She gave a health update. This was back in May, I think, so not that long before she ended up dying. And she did not complain a lot about her health problems. She kept it kind of close to the vest. But she gave an update as to why she wasn't as out there as much and touring as much. Here's just a clip of her update. I have some good news and a little bad news. But the good news is I'm responding really well to meds and treatments. And I'm improving every day. Now, the bad news is it's going to take me a little while before I'm up to stage performance level because some of the meds and treatments make me a little bit swimmy-headed as my grandma used to say. And of course, I can't be easy carrying around bandages, get-tars, and such on five-inch heels. And you know that I'm going to be wearing them. Not to mention all those heavy rhinestone outfits, the big hair, my big personality. But I just want you to know also that a lot of you've been concerned about me in a carol and you were so great about that. But after going through a year first, I mean the holidays and especially our wedding anniversary and the day of his death, March 3rd, you know that was hard for me. But I will always love him and I'll always miss him. But you would be surprised at how much your love and concern meant to me during that time. Speaking of carol and my health, I remember back years ago, I was saying something, I'd drop it about something, heard, and heard this and that. And of course, I said, "No honey, you have to remember. You're not getting any younger." I said, "Well, honey, you've got to remember that as long as there are plastic surgeons in this world, I'm not getting any older." This is an amazing statement made all the more amazing given that she died shortly thereafter. But think about all these constituent parts here. She opens up, "I got a lot of good news. This is a woman who's dying who's talking to her doctors who are clearly quite worried about her health." She goes, "I got good news, a little bit of bad news, I'm honest with you, but I'm going to look on the bright side of things." This is a woman who is so over the top and she jokes about it. She's self-aware about that. Some years ago, not that long ago, Dolly Parton dressed up like a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, and on this show, I said, "Look, we talk a lot about how women should act their age. All people should act their age and women should act their age except for Dolly Parton. Dolly Parton is the exception to this rule and to basically every rule. Dolly gets to do whatever she wants, she's an American original, and it's true. There's something deeply American about that as well, the idea that you acknowledge that rules exist, but you're going to look on the bright side and break them." America was born out of a revolution. Countries that are born out of revolution fail. They're bad. They cut themselves off from the past. They're radical. They're progressive. Yet, with America going back to Edinburgh during the American Revolution, we find that America is a revolutionary country, but a conservative country. America is a country that is not a confessional state, that establishes freedom of religion, but is the most religious country in the West. America is a country that was founded by settling a brand new world, but America is one of the more traditional countries left in the world. America is extremely economic, focused on material prosperity. There's never been a country that is more materially prosperous, and yet we give so much to charity, and yet we focus so much on the spiritual things. So there are all these paradoxes to America, breaking the rules, but trying to also work in a cord with these kind of deeper rules, these eternal principles, I don't think I'm reading too deeply into this, though it is a little bit of a temptation. But America is this country of artifice, where the country of the great Gatsby, where the country of fake it till you make it. And yet, we're honest about that, Dali Parton. She's open about, yeah, as long as I can get some plastic surgery, I'm never getting any older. Donald Trump, he's so open about this. On the one hand, so much of his style is kind of opulent, garish in your face, and yet he expresses a humility about that. It was on me, you know, look, I'm a guy from Queens, you know, there's a, I've never had a drink. Imagine if I had a drink, I'd be the worst person ever, only good thing he could say about me is I never had a drink. There's this extreme pride, this extreme humility. And Dali represents that right down to the style of music. This is the most American kind of music. She's a country music singer. And I think what people are mourning with her at the deepest level is a sense that that America might just kind of be gone. She's a class act on the one hand, she's totally brash, rhinestones and big hair on the other. There's this sense that gosh, that, you know, the past is a foreign country and maybe nostalgia's history after a few drinks, but whatever that was, whatever that thing is about America that Dali Parton represents, I don't know that we're going to get another one of those. That might be gone. And I think that plays on all sorts of anxieties that we feel on the left. They feel the decay of the political institutions. Now, of course, they are the cause of most of that, but they feel that. They at least complain about that. On the right, we have anxieties about a massive demographic change, also brought about by the left because of mass migration, but nevertheless, if you replace all the people in a country with new people, you have a new country. All these fears that the thing that makes us us is slipping away, that it might actually be a little bit too late. That I think is what's at the heart of mourning Dali Parton. On top of the fact that she was just sui generis, she was just this unique person, this American original, so it's about her. It's not that she merely represents something. It's about her, but she did, in her person, represent something, something that we feel is slipping away. And when we say, there'll be never another one like that who represents the monoculture, whose universally beloved, you're having tributes pour in from across the political spectrum, across the country, across the world, that is what I think people are mourning, including people outside of America, because America's been very, very good for Americans and for everybody else. Okay. Now, speaking of the American political system, Lindsey Graham's sister, Darlene, just beat out Ralph Norman, Ralph Norman, who is a solid conservative, a lot of the conservative activists, people in the movement wanted him to win this race, Darlene Graham, who in a public debate admitted she didn't know anything about foreign policy, Darlene Graham won. We'll get into what that means for South Carolina and the race, but more important, we'll get into what that means about the 2028 presidential cycle. This tells us more about the 2028 Republican primary than anything we've seen to date. First, though, I want to tell you about word on fire, go to heavenandstonenglass.com. There are some arguments you have to spend years studying before you understand them, and then there are things you simply look at and think man was made for more than this world. It is where the great gothic cathedrals come in, and you do not need an architecture degree to walk into Notre Dame and understand that you are somewhere different. Bishop Robert Barron and word on fire have a new documentary, heavenandstonenglass, and it tells why. He travels through five magnificent French cathedrals and uncovers the theology built into the architecture itself. These buildings were not merely designed to be impressive, they were designed to reveal something about God. This is how Christendom was educated largely throughout the thousand years of the Middle Ages. It's just really amazing. This is exactly the kind of film that deserves to be seen on a theater stream. Heaven and Stone and Glass comes to theaters nationwide, September 20th and 23rd. You can also buy the book that Bishop Barron wrote of that name. You can also listen to the audio book that was read by yours truly. Find tickets at heavenandstonenglass.com for parish or group tickets. Go to heavenandstonenglass.com/group and support all the great stuff from word on fire. Darling Graham is the winner of that U.S. Senate primary. She's beaten Ralph Norman. It was a little bit close, but not too close, at four point race, 52 to 48. What really matters about this is the Trump endorsed Darling Graham. A lot of conserves, a lot of Trump supporters were upset with Trump for doing that. I think the reason that he did it is that he's loyal to Lindsey Graham. That's actually, I think, why he nominated her to fulfill the rest of his Senate term, which is a sure period of time, and why he went even further. A lot of people were okay with that, but he went even further. He said, "Well, look, I backed her for that. I was friends with Lindsey Graham. I'm going to back her for her own full Senate term." Now, this cuts against one of the criticisms of Trump. One of the criticisms of Trump is that he's not loyal, and I think this is preposterous. It's true. Senate Secretaries by Tweet sometimes, but for the people who are loyal to Trump, Trump is very loyal to them. You saw this in the Minnesota race when he endorsed Mike Lindell, the Mike Pillow guy. Mike Lindell did not have a chance in that race. Trump knew that by endorsing Mike Lindell, it would hurt his average of winning endorsements, but he did it anyway. He did it because Mike Lindell was very loyal to Trump and gave up a lot for Trump, sacrificed his company for Trump. I think reading the tea leaves, I think that he felt, he kind of owed it to him and that it was the right thing and the good thing to do. I think probably a similar factor was to play with Darlene Graham, even though Ralph Norman was almost certainly more conservative than Darlene Graham, certainly had way more experience. I mean, don't forget, there was a brutal moment of the debate when Darlene Graham admitted she didn't know anything about foreign policy. On the national security questions, well, Senator, our Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States. If so, why? I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States and if so, why or how? I'm just going to be honest here, I'm not on national security, I'm not that informed on national security, but I do support the military. Oh my goodness. A brutal moment, this should have destroyed her candidacy. So what does this tell us? Forget about the primary, it's over. Maybe you wanted Norman to win, maybe you think the Darlene Graham thing was a bad idea. She's going to be the Senator from South Carolina. So then the question is, alright, what could we learn from this? And what we can learn is a valuable insight looking ahead to 2028. Trump is the king of the Republican Party. All this chatter you hear from the podcast people of, oh, Trump's betrayed us, he's lost support among MAGA, it's not true, it's obviously not true. Darlene Graham's debate performance suggested that she is totally unqualified to be a Senator and Republican primary voters voted for her simply because Trump endorsed her. That's what that was about. But I just tell you, Trump is most likely, almost certainly going to pick the nominee in 2028. I was trying to think, is there any argument for Darlene Graham? You always want to steal man the other side. And there actually is kind of an argument and the argument for Darlene Graham is actually identical with the criticism of Darlene Graham as the Senator. The criticism is, this is a democracy and these Senate seats should not be inherited from one family member to another. You got to go earn it on your own individual merit. You have to represent, you have to show voters that you are competent and educated and informed and you know this should not just be passed down generation to generation. Interestingly though, of all the aspects of our government, the Senate was kind of intended to be the aristocratic part of the government. I know that now in our modern age we say that America is a democracy and then Republicans objected that to say we're not a democracy, we're a republic. But those do mean substantially the same thing. Democracy could mean a direct form of government and a republic is a sort of indirect democratic form of government. But regardless, we're not even totally that. The American government was intended to be a mixed regime that includes monarchical elements, aristocratic elements and democratic elements. John Adams wrote about this extensively. John Adams following the lead of Machiavelli. Machiavelli not just writing his sort of devilish advice in the Prince, but also writing about the structure of government in things like Florentine histories or in the discourses on Livy and other writings. John Adams has a letter to John Taylor in 1814. This might be the only place you're going to hear about the South Carolina Senate primary relating to a John Adams letter from the 19th century. But it's important to help us understand how the framers and the founders thought about the structure of government. He writes to John Taylor who said there's no aristocratic form of government in America. He says, "Dear sir, you are, quote, unable to discover in our form of government any resemblance of aristocracy as every branch of executive authority committed or entrusted exclusively to one resembles and is properly called a monarchical power and government in proportion as its powers legislative or executive are lodged in one resembles monarchy. So whatever authority or power of making or executing laws is exclusively bested in a few is properly called aristocratic and the government in proportion as it is constituted with such powers resembles aristocracy." He says, "Now sir, let me ask you whether you can discover no, quote, resemblance of aristocracy in our form of government are not great, very, great important and essential powers entrusted to a few, to a very few in the form of the Senate." Adams is saying, "Hey, slow your old buddy. It's not a democratic government. It's a monarchical government and an aristocratic government and a democratic government. It is a mixed regime that is intended to break loose from this pattern throughout history, which is the cycle of regimes that monarchy decays into tyranny and aristocracy can decay into oligarchy and democracy can decay into anarchy or a mob rule. And so you need all of these different forms of government to counteract each other and to balance each other so that you have a stable government in a defense of the constitutions of the United States, which is written about the state constitutions also by John Adams. He writes, "If there is then in society such a natural aristocracy formed partly by genius, partly by birth, and partly by riches, how should the legislators avail himself, how should the legislator avail himself of their influence for the equal benefit of the public?" So all of that to say, all of these 18th and 19th century writings to say, the Senate was conceived by the founding fathers and the framers as the aristocratic part of the government, which is formed partly by birth. I don't want to overstretch it because we have democratized our Senate certainly since the 17th Amendment, which stops the states from appointing the senators, destroys state power in the federal government, and if makes the government more clearly a democracy, no coincidence that since then we have seen more aristocracy, more capriciousness of the mob, more mob rule. But regardless, there actually is an argument. I guess what I'm saying ultimately is, there is an argument to pick someone whose family has been in politics for a long time. There is an argument to have a senator who is not super ideological, who doesn't have a PhD in political science or economics. There is an argument to this part of the government just coming from a kind of familial habit, probably better over many generations, but at the very least with some familiarity. It's kind of like in the UK, there's the efficient form of the government in the House of Commons, but there's also the dignified part of the government, which is in the royal family. You need both of those things in a state. Anyway, here it's a moot point at this point because Darlene Graham has gotten the nomination and she'll be a US senator now for a full term. The fact that Trump picked this person over the objections of the, you know, leveling egalitarian, individualist meritocratic democracy people over the objections of the hardcore conservative movement types who preferred Ralph Norman, what that tells you is Trump owns the GOP. And this is very important to who the primary winner is going to be for 2028 because we are now approaching, perhaps, our first declared presidential candidate for 2028. And it's not JD events and it's not Marco Rubio and it's not Pete Hague Seth. It would appear to be a friend of mine, named Ted Cruz. We'll get to that in a second. First, I want to tell you about PragerU. Go to PragerU.com/DailyWire. The decaying old gray lady might as well line your cat box. New York Times readership among young Americans is totally cratered. No one wants a scolding lecture pretending to be journalism. Here's the thing. While legacy media across the board, hemorrhage trust, PragerU is the rising generations last best hope. Millions of students log on every day for five minute videos on economics, history, faith, and freedom to teach the truth. Not what CNN and others want young people to believe. PragerU has no paywall, no smirking newscasters, no bias dressed up as objectivity. Just the facts presented in an age-appropriate wholesome all-American way. The PragerU runs on people like you, not the government, not advertisers who hate you. Give today and your donation is triple matched. You can check out all the great stuff over PragerU, including the book club at PragerU, which is hosted by yours truly and lots of five minute videos and all the rest of it. Go to PragerU.com/DailyWire today. Very easy. Pull out your phone, tablet, or laptop, type in PragerU.com/DailyWire today. Senator Cruz was just on Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's podcast. You know, I've been on a podcast or two with Senator Cruz and with Dan Patrick for that matter. And so he's on his podcast and he has asked about 2028. One has the GOP coalesced around JD Vance, who seems like the heir apparent. Is there even a need for a primary or has the GOP just settled on a candidate? And two, Senator, are you going to run for president? It's no secret that I want to be president. I ran for president. Are you going to run again? Time will tell. I will say this is a bug that history has proved is rarely ended. It is a permanent and often fatal bug. I think going forward, we're in the midst of a debate about who our party is and what we believe. And I think economically, we've got a debate. Are we a small government free market conservative party? Are we a big government nanny state party? Is this a party that has coalesced already behind JD Vance? Oh no. There's going to be a full discussion about who we are and what we believe. Listen. Are you going to be part of that? They'll be time to figure that out. I'll certainly be part of the discussion. Okay, so right off the bat here, I love it. It's very refreshing to see this honesty from a politician and no surprise that it's coming from Senator Cruz. But usually in these interviews they say, well, do you want to run for president? They say, oh, well, I don't want to run for president. No, it's the furthest thought from my mind. Why do you think that I, a senator, I a governor, I a member of the cabinet? Why would I want to run for president? No, no. I just want to go clear brush on my farm. And then five seconds later, they're running for president. And it's always such BS and it's ridiculous. So it's so refreshing that Senator Cruz comes out. He goes, oh yeah, I definitely want to be president. You remember that I ran, right? You remember that I was like the number two guy in 2016, you know, and I'm like still a senator and obviously I want to be president. So he says that, but it's not just about him. If he just said, this is just about my ambition, you know, I've had this bug for a long time. If it were just that kind of honesty, which is true of every politician who runs for president, but if it were just about that, you'd say, okay, well, I don't care about a race, it's just about you. But Senator Cruz is smarter than that and more principles. So he says, no, no, it's about what is our role? What is our relationship to economics? Are we going to be a little more libertarian, laissez-faire? Are we going to be a little more interventionist and developmentalist in our economics? It's about global leadership. Are we going to be a little more focused just on domestic policy? Or are we going to be a little more focused on managing and rebuilding the world? What is, that's a very legitimate debate. So he points out there is that fight in the GOP. Now, some of the activist types have been trying to project that onto JD Vance versus Marco Rubio. And I think that's kind of silly. One, Rubio is not going to run against Vance. I don't think I could be proven wrong. I just don't think that's true. Two, Vance and Rubio don't disagree that much. You know, some people say JD Vance is talking about the common good and therefore he's a socialist. Marco Rubio is the guy who coined the phrase common good capitalism. There's not a lot of daylight between Vance and Rubio on economics. Some people are saying Rubio is a Neocon, Vance is an isolationist. I don't think either of those things are really true. And also, let's not forget, Rubio is effectively multiple times now endorsed vans for the nomination. So I don't see those guys running against each other. In other words, the role that some Republican activists are trying and some donors and some factions of the party are trying to project under Rubio, I think is probably better held by Senator Cruz. So we have the Calci markets right here. The Calci are great sponsors, Calci, as is question, who will run for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination? Who will run? We've got JD Vance at 82 cents, yes, he's going to run, that's the clearest guy who's going to run, duh, he's the vice president, Trump picked him to be the VP in the second term. He obviously is going to run, I think. But who's the number two guy who's the obvious to run? It's not Rubio, it's not DeSantis, it's not Massie, it's Ted Cruz, who right now, as of this morning, is it 71%, I think it is, it keeps changing, you can buy it at 79%, DeSantis down there at 65%, Rubio down there, 62%, Massie at 48%, okay. I think Senator Cruz really has a lane here. Now he has an immense uphill battle, but the uphill battle, I don't think is really about ideology or winning some debate or some argument or this. The uphill battle is Trump's dominance of the party. If Trump, if Iran goes to pot, if the economy goes to pot, if everything falls apart and Trump loses his grip on the GOP, then Vance is going to have a very hard time, Rubio's going to have a very hard time, really anybody in the administration is going to have a hard time, all of a sudden there, guys like Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis are looking really good for the nomination. If everything falls apart with Trump's hold on the party, and actually things look better for Ted Cruz than they do for Ron DeSantis, because the pitch for DeSantis in 24 was, he's just like Trump, but a little better in various ways. That was the pitch. With Ted Cruz, that wasn't the pitch in 2016, with Ted Cruz, it was, this is an alternative vision for the Republican Party and for the country. If you like Trump vote for Trump, but if you don't like Trump vote for me, and so there, I think that the ideological lines make it a little clearer for Senator Cruz. I think he has a much better shot than Ron DeSantis. The issue for any non-administration campaign, for really anyone other than JD Vance right now is the Darlene Graham race shows you, as of today, in August of 2026, Trump owns the GOP. So the primary is not primarily about convincing rank-and-file voters. The primary is about convincing Donald Trump to back you, and Trump has signaled that he'll back Vance, and he keeps saying, I want it to be a Vance Rubio ticket. That's where the uphill battle is. For people who are discounting Senator Cruz, he makes a pretty good pitch here, which is I was the number two guy in 2016, and I represent a portion of the GOP that is a little uneasy with Trumpism, and even if they like Trump personally, with the future of Trumpism. So I think if there is to be a primary, if Trump dominates the GOP, there effectively won't be a primary, if Trump weakens in any way, then I think the primary really could come down to the Trump-picked candidate who's probably going to be JD Vance and Cruz. He has a lane. There is no question that he has a lane in the race. Okay. There is a lib Congress lady, a representative Marie Gluzincamp Perez, who is very upset that laws are written in words. She's a Democrat. You'll be shocked to hear. Rep MGP. They all keep doing the letter thing, AOC, RBG, even the kind of Republican ACB, Amy Coney Barrett. So now we got MGP Marie Gluzincamp Perez. She posts, "Have you ever thought that it's really weird that you can't add pictures to laws? I see so many laws that would be clearer and more logical. If we could just include a mapper of blueprint, Congress recently passed my initiative to bring legislation into the 21st century and explore, including images in the text of bills. This is a long overdue step in the legislative process." So this is a perfect encapsulation of the Democrat relationship to our political order because she's literally wrong. It's both like a stupid suggestion, but she's also just wrong about the facts. You can include images and laws. You've basically always been able to include images and laws. Here's part of the U.S. code, which includes an image of an American flag talking about the flag in the C.A.L.A.C. government and the states. There's a picture in there. So she says, "This is crazy that you can't include images and laws. She doesn't even think to Google. Can you include images and laws?" She's a legislator. Her job is to write laws. She didn't even Google. Can you include images and laws? Oh, yes, you can. Oh, you've been able to do that basically forever. Okay. Never mind. It's like the dems just start with wrong premises, and then they reach even crazier conclusions. But it's like, you know, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. If it's in butts or candy and that's what all of them are, Christmas. If you begin with the dubious premise, you're going to arrive at erroneous conclusions. You can't—this is all thing that have been erased with like a Google search. Anyway, let's get past the fact that you actually can include images and laws. What is she really asking for? Is she asking for, you know, very narrowly circumscribed ways in which you have to include images like if you're talking about the American flag? No. I think probably what she's talking about is more ambitious and broader than that. And what she's saying is I have trouble reading words, you know, the Democrat legislators on Capitol Hill are not famous for their literacy. Okay. They're a little bit weak, both in interpreting the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, but also just in terms of—they don't use words that well, like AOC. Some of them don't speak English that well, like the various immigrants and children of immigrants who the left has exalted. Regardless, this is ideocracy, right? This is the total dumbing down of our country. They want law by meme and the left can't meme, so that's a brutal situation. They want law by picture, by pictograph. We're going to go back to being the people in the caves in France drawing pictures on the walls of the cave. We're going to need—we're going to bring our laws into the 21st century. So they say, this is so progressive. Meanwhile, they didn't even realize this is something that has existed forever. So it's such a—the Libs think they invented sex. The Libs think they invent everything anew. They've built the world anew. They fail to recognize these perennial, eternal things that crop up in human nature, like we've never thought about this before. But they say, we're going to bring it into the 21st century by doing what we've actually always been allowed to do. But then furthermore, they just are going to dumb it down. We got to pass out crayons. This is the new Democrat legislative campaign, pass out crayons, because all that black ink is really boring. We need colors. We get some smiley faces. Not good. You know, the founders and the framers, they did a very good job. They probably should have constrained democracy even more than John Adams already did, even more than he did. Okay. Speaking of the decay of thought, there's a shocking new study that shows that transvestites are violent. Shocking. Pull over your car. Stop what you—I am sorry. I hope you didn't have a sip of water when I said that. I'm sure you spit it out. We'll get to that shocking new study first, though. My favorite coming is from Daniel, who says circumcision is surgery on a kid's dangling. Is a political quote for the history books. Yes, this was—I didn't mention it actually when we were talking about that interview between Abdul Al-Sahed and Jesse Waters on Fox yesterday. In that interview, he said, "Do you really think we should trans the kids and Abdul Al-Sahed says, 'Are you circumcised?'" and then they go on and on, you know, debating whether or not a little medical snip to reduce STDs is the same as, like, permanently castrating a child. So much of the discourse is the left pretending to understand things, thus making communication impossible. But the real crowning achievement of that interview was when Jesse provoked Abdul and said, "When do you think we should cut off a kid's dangling?" And then Abdul took the bait. And he said, "Sircomcision is cutting off part of a kid's dangling. If you're running for Senate, just some political advice. If you're running for Senate, don't use the word dangling. Definitely don't use the word dangling after the word "kids." You are not beating the allegations, neither the weird sex allegations nor the allegations that you're not a serious person who wants to draft laws in crayon. Don't—don't—if you're running for Senate, dangling should not be in your vocabulary. Good on Jesse for getting him to say that, okay? Speaking of—of danglings, there's a new study that's just come out of the Manhattan Institute that has come to the shocking conclusion that people who think they're the opposite sex might be a little violent. This is a trope that has existed in our culture forever. This is the premise of silence of the lambs and psycho, which is that trannies are—they're a little off. They're a little off-kilter, and sometimes they're a little violent. Certainly against themselves, because they chop off those aforementioned body parts, but against other people as well. So, what does the study show? from the study. These findings suggest that gender ideology is associated. with left-wing authoritarianism and willingness to justify political violence. The study is called "Where the clinic meets the movement does gender ideology arm left-wing authoritarian psychology?" Obviously, you're seeing this play into the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a guy allegedly will wait until the conviction, but allegedly a guy who was dating a trainee furry. You saw this in the Covenant School shooting where we have the diaries, the manifesto of the trans shooter who murdered little Christian kids, who talks about the relevance of the gender ideology to that massacre. On and on and on and on and on. It's not just in the movies, it's not just in the stories, it happens in real life all the time. Even the other political events when I was at the University of Pittsburgh and a couple antifa guys threw an explosive at the building, that was because we were debating transgenderism. I was attacked with a squirt gun filled with who knows what many years ago at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. It was during a speech on transgenderism by a guy who I think identified as trans. That's just my personal experience. So many more stories of that. So the Manhattan Institute concludes that experimental research is needed to determine causality. But also, gender ideology may function as an ideological accelerant, telling left-wing authoritarian psychology who the enemy is, why the situation is urgent and in those already disposed toward force that violence is legitimate. So this is a key part here. It's not saying that trans identity is the thing that necessarily causes you to become violent. There are people, I've met a number of people who deal with gender dysphoria, feelings that they're the wrong sex or whatever, who are not violent and who are even kind of conservative and they're just dealing with this problem. It's not necessarily experimental research is important here. But it's not necessarily that that is what causes the violence. What the researchers have concluded is that it's an accelerant. It's an ideological accelerant. So people who already have aspects of this left-wing authoritarian psychology, the trans ideology just turns everything up to 11. It tells you who your enemy is. It tells you that you're in a moment of crisis, the things are urgent. When I gave my speech at CPAC about how we need to eradicate the trans ideology, people accused me of genocide. The reason I had all sorts of threats and was docks and all that kind of stuff was because of this claim pushed by Rolling Stone, and I think it was the Huffington Post, one of some of the liberal media outlets, who accused me of calling for genocide. Now obviously I did nothing of this sort, but the trans ideology, which is just an extreme form of delusion, convinces you that everything is a crisis, everything is existential. And it tells people who are already predisposed to violence, that violence would be legitimate. Last bit from the study they say, we also assessed catastrophizing beliefs, such as the perceived likelihood that he'd genocide of individuals, that identifies transgender as currently underway and associate extremist responses, such as belief in the need to censor and punish those who oppose transgender dogmas and ignore Supreme Court rulings on gender ideology issues. Yeah, duh. The next report to come out will say that the sun shines. The breaking, shocking study, the sun shines. Breaking, water, rainwater gets you wet. A lot of people are going to say, why do we need this study? Of course the trans ideology inclines toward violence. Yeah, duh. But it is important, it's very good that the Manhattan Institute put this study out. Not because it tells us anything new, doesn't tell us anything new at all. We conservatives who are kind of skeptical of a lot of these social science studies. But because it deals in the culture, that studies are the language of the culture. I've said for many years, I think statistics are basically fake, but I cite them when they serve my purposes. And a little bit of political honesty here. I cite the studies not because I think they're necessarily dispositive, but because we live in this materialist, scientistic age, in which people only believe studies. So I can make arguments from the natural law, from teleology, from history, from philosophy. But that's not going to reach a certain segment of people. Those people are only reached by pure review to papers that come out of universities and think tanks. That's why it's statistics. So fine, I'll be all things to all people. I'm happy to cite that as well. We have to speak the language of the culture. Because one, I think a lot of people suspect in recent years that the weird sex ideologies do have an association with violence. And two, because the ideology isn't going away. Because I've to a lost side running for senate, doubles down on chopping off a kid's dinging in his words. So because of that, that does remain an urgent political problem. That actually is something we have to address. We're not just beating a dead horse, the left won't let it die. Okay, speaking of psychos, here's a story, I'll just tease it. I won't be able to get to all tease it. But good news, some crazy vanity fair writer was just fired. And she was fired because she goes to the Lindsey Clancy trial. I guess she knew Lindsey Clancy growing up. And as the cameras are panning over to her, she looks crazier than Lindsey Clancy. She's smiling, she's winking, she looks happy as a clam. This is the best day of her life, listening to Lindsey Clancy. All while we get new news in the Lindsey Clancy trial, that a lot of the defenses of Lindsey Clancy, from all these crazy women who were showing up with their kids outside the courthouse, that a lot of those defenses are totally bunk, the postpartum depression, the acute psychosis, would appear to be bunk. Okay, we'll get to all of that, but I'm a tease. We'll get to that tomorrow. Today is theology Thursday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member of Use Code Noles, Canada VLAS. So check out for two months free on all annual plans. [MUSIC]