This episode is presented by Good Ranchers, delivering 100% American meat from American farms and ranches straight to your door this month. Get a free four-pound angus ground beef bundle with your first order at GoodRanchers.com/nolls. Good Ranchers American Meat Delivered. While women across America defend child Slayer Lindsay Clancy, a Virginia mom is arrested for letting her child walk around their neighborhood. She's now being accused of child abuse. Then, Ellen Page complains that no one has cast her in any movies since the Odyssey. The head of the nation's pre-eminent libertarian think tank makes the most bonkers argument for open borders you've ever heard. I'm Michael Nolesus, Michael Nolesus show. Communist Gihadi and possible homosexual Abdul El Sayed, the Democrat Senate nominee in Michigan just did something really smart. He did. Sorry, I know we all want to knock on Abdul and make fun of him and call him Big Dummy. He just did something really, really smart. Game recognized game. What can I say? We'll get to that in a second. First, though, really troubling, really causing a lot of people to scratch their heads. There is a story out of Virginia. A mother has just been convicted of delinquency, contributing to the delinquency of a minor because she let her five-year-old son walk half a mile in their gated community. Gated community. What's the story? Story is that Carrie Ann Parkinson, who was eight months pregnant, who she was an eight-month pregnant woman with four children out of the womb, fifth on the way, went on a bike ride with her son Sam. First of all, right there, very good mother. Very good mother to be eight months pregnant going on a bike ride with your five-year-old son. They stopped at the community pond to collect some goose feathers. It's very nice. Then they get home and the five-year-old son says, "Hey, can I go back to the pond and get some more feathers?" Eight months pregnant mother of five says, "Okay, you can walk down the road in our gated community to that little pond we were just at and get some more goose feathers if you want." As the boy is walking to the pond, some passer by sees him and calls security. The security guards take the boy, bring him back to his house, call the police, bring two workers from child protective services, and then the police charge this woman for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Now, here's what we're getting from the reporting. CPS found the allegations substantiated and placed Parkinson on the state's child abuse and neglect registry. She will remain there for seven years as a child abuser because she let her little boy go get goose feathers at the community pond in a gated community while she is eight months pregnant with a bunch of other kids. They live in Williamsburg, Virginia. Now, a lot of people are drawing the connection here between this woman and Lindsey Clancy. Lindsey Clancy murders her three children in cold blood, methodically plans out the murders, sends the husband out of the house, strangles all of the kids, sort of tries to kill herself, but survives. That woman is deserving of our compassion. That woman isn't responsible for her actions. That woman, she's sort of a hero. In many ways, she speaks for women everywhere whose cries and whose pain are not heard by the society. Eight month pregnant mother of five lets her kid go get some goose feathers in their gated community. That woman is a hideous child abuser. She needs to be placed on a registry. Say, "Whoa, are we living in Bizarro world? Is this like one of those funhouse mirrors at the carnival?" But it actually, as far as I'm concerned, makes perfect sense because these cases are not similar. They're actually the opposite cases. For one, you know that this woman is going to attract the eye of the lunatics and the leftists because she's pregnant. She's pregnant and she's a mother of a bunch of kids. The demons and the people who have common cause with the demons, they recoil at that. They don't like it when you have a lot of kids. They don't like it when you're pregnant, certainly not when you don't kill your baby in the womb or out of the womb. So, automatically, all of this code's right wing. All of this code's conservative. This code's Christian. Have a bunch of kids open to the possibility of life. You spend time with your kids that this woman, she might have even been a homemaker for goodness sake. Why wasn't she at the office? When she was riding her bicycle and collecting goose feathers with her kid. So, so all of that in there. But there's an even deeper opposition between the Lindsey Clancy case and the pro-abortion women and all of these witches who are supporting Lindsey and this mother who let her kid take a walk down the street in their gated community. Namely, that this mother let her kid grow up. We don't know all the details. I guess it's possible that this is a very, very dangerous gated community. You know, it's a gated community in the middle of Detroit or something. And a bunch of criminals have the keys and it's really dangerous. I don't buy that though. I don't really think that's true. First of all, 30, 40 years ago, kids, even that young would just go like walking around the neighborhood and they weren't gated communities and they go ride their bikes and it was fine. No one really cared and they came back at sunset. Now, we don't really do that anymore in part because of public policy that has destroyed social solidarity, including mass migration and including going so often crime. But here, we have the safest possible scenario for a community. With a kid who is five years old, you know, this is a kid who would be in school. I'm not, you know, five year, they're still little kids. But nevertheless, barring any extenuating circumstances that we don't know about, this seems relatively safe, doesn't it? But what the mother is doing in this case is letting her kid grow up a little bit. You don't let the three year old go walk down the street to the pond on his own. You don't let the two year old do that. But when a kid is five, five or six, starting, you start to give them a little more freedom. Not going to send them on a bus trip across the country, but to walk down the street to go get some goose feathers, probably that's okay. But the left doesn't want to do that. The left never wants to let your kids grow up. They want it one. They want to snuff kids out in the womb. Then if they don't snuff the kid, they want to prevent the kids from being conceived in the first place through contraception, etc. Then they want to snuff the kids out in the room, the womb. Then if they don't snuff the kids out in the womb, they apparently support snuffing the kids out when they're outside of the womb. For example, the Lindsey Clancy case. But then even beyond that, even if we're not talking about literally killing the kids, they want to perpetually infantilize your children. They want to keep them in their schools forever at every younger age, starting pre-K at age two in New York. Keep them in school much, much longer. They want to say that your child's brain doesn't really develop until the age of 25. They want to constantly encourage all of the childish appetites that we have. They never want children to develop their higher rational will, the rational will, which mediates between the lower will and the divine will. They never want to ascribe responsibility to anyone, which is why when people in the inner city commit crimes, they would say, "Oh, it's not really their fault at society." And when a mother strangles her three kids, they say, "Oh, it's not really her fault at society." Because they never want to acknowledge the moral agency of these people, which means they never want them to grow up. Really, really outrageous, really sorry state of affairs. But a lot of people are looking at juxtaposing these two cases and saying, "Wow, isn't that crazy? That's so bonkers. What hypocrisy?" It's not hypocrisy. That actually makes a lot of sense. There's a through line between all of these cases. And it gets back to a really basic issue that we've seen coming from the left for 100 years now, which is the left's goal is to stigmatize normal good behavior and to incentivize bad anti-social behavior. That's what it's about. They want to reset all of the standards. They don't want to just obliterate standards. If you kill your kid, you're a hero. If you let your kid walk down the road to get some goose feathers in your gated community, you're a monster and you need to go to jail. Okay, speaking of the children, amazing video coming out of Wake County. This is a Wake County school board meeting where a fourth grader was speaking up for herself and decrying the trans agenda in the classroom. My name is Alana and I used to meet here. I am a fourth grader here in Wake County. If I had a teacher that was born as me, where's a dress and makeup that would make me feel here? Because it would also make other kids maybe dress up and be something they aren't. God made us only a girl or a boy or anything else is confusing. I want to learn to not be confused. I want to feel safe and man teach your dress as a woman and acts like a woman scares me. Please protect me and other kids. Thank you. Magnificent. I hate it when kids are involved in [BLANK_AUDIO]
politics. This might be the one exception, because we're talking about schools, schools which are about children. And it, I'll go even further on the exception, because I don't want kids to be mouthing off about total nonsense at schools and pushing radicalism. I remember when I was in middle school, there was a sit-in, there was like a drop out of class and sit-in in the cafeteria to protest the Iraq war, and you have a bunch of 11-year-olds doing that. I thought that was ridiculous. But in this case, this is a political subject that specifically pertains to little kids. And the adults, in charge, are abusing the little kids. They're abusing them, they're opening them up to a very tangible kind of abuse, but they're certainly intellectually and morally abusing them by scandalizing them, by presenting them with a bunch of transgender nonsense, including trans-identifying teachers. So this little kid walks up, obviously, can read very well, and is reading the statement, says, I don't want transgenderism in my school, because it's weird and it's scary, fact-check, 1,000 percent true. And listen to this. This is where this little kid's observation gets down to a really incisive point about human nature and memetic desire. The kid says, if the teacher comes in, the male teacher comes in and dresses like a woman. It's weird, it's scary, it makes me feel unsafe, but even beyond that, also because the trans-identifying people are much more likely to commit violence than other people, even beyond that, it might get other kids to try to act that way. This is such a great observation of human nature and memetic desire. The fact that we are creatures of imitation. And so we just, you know, when people say you're the average of the five people you spend the most time with, we adopt their patterns of speech, we adopt their habits of behavior, we adopt their desires, even. And so when Christ talks about milestones in the Bible and the Gospels, this is what he's talking about. He's talking about scandalizing innocent people, the little ones, children, specifically. And what this kid understands is, if you put a bunch of transgender nonsense in schools, more kids are going to identify as transgender, which is very dangerous because trans identity corresponds with a much higher rates of anxiety, depression, suicidality, all sorts of anti-social and self-destructive behaviors. So the kid comes in and says, I don't want that. That's totally bad. And please don't do it. Can you please protect us? Really insightful kid. Some are going to say, oh well, the kid was just put up to this. Maybe, I guess it's possible. Oh well, you know, the kid didn't really write this. I don't know. It sounds like a fourth grader. It's not, you know, this isn't some, you know, soliloquy out of Shakespeare or something. This is a pretty simple statement of basic observations. And out of the math of babes, often we get a fair bit of wisdom, especially when we're talking about really, really basic aspects of human nature. This is this moment, this school board meeting. We'll see. I'm not seeing it go super viral on social media, though, it should. This school board meeting might be the final emperor has no clothes episode of the transgender ideology. And it's a helpful reminder to us as we look ahead to the midterms in 2028 and woke one, which was so crazy. And now we're in woke two, which is way less crazy, even though we can't identify how it's a reminder that this is still a live issue being pushed by the left. And we need to stop it because it scandalizes innocent people. We need to stop it for all sorts of political reasons, but one of which is it scandalizes little people like this innocent kid who clearly has a better head on her shoulders than the entire administration of the school board. Okay. Speaking of trends, gender ideology, Ellen Page is very upset that she hasn't gotten any job offers since that big hit movie she is in the Odyssey. We'll get to that in a moment first, though. I want to tell you about good ranchers. There's a lot more to say first, though, good ranchers.com/noles. Canada view LES. Here's a number that doesn't sound real, 300,000 metric tons of foreign ground beef. Now, if you're like most Americans, you heard metric tons and immediately stopped understanding the sentence. So allow me to translate this into freedom units. 300,000 metric tons is roughly 661 million pounds of ground beef. How much beef is that? If you made quarter pound hamburgers out of it, you would have about 2.6 billion hamburgers, billion with a beat. That foreign beef is set to enter the American market without the normal tariff. When you see ground beef at the grocery store, you may have no idea whether it came from an American ranch or half-ray around the world. That is one of many reasons I trust good ranchers. Good ranchers partners with more than 100 American farms and ranches and delivers 100% American meat straight to your door. Very important, especially as we want to make our country great again, you got to support the American ranches. But even beyond that, the fact that the good ranchers beef isn't stuck full of crazy chemicals and it's the price is unbelievable, can't be beat. The most important thing is it tastes the best. It's just the best beef you're going to get. Period. Right now, this month, they make it very easy to stack the freezer. Good ranchers.com/noles get a free four-pound bundle of 100% American Angus ground beef with your first order. That's good ranchers.com/noles for four free pounds of American Angus ground beef. Good ranchers.com American meat delivered. So Ellen Page was in the Odyssey and it caused a big hull of balloon. In part, there were really three reasons. One, because she plays a man. But she is a woman. And she thinks that she's a man. So her buddy Christopher Nolan cast her to play a man in the movie, but she doesn't convincingly play a man because she's a woman. There's that. Two, because the character that she plays in the Odyssey is not actually in the Odyssey. The character she plays in the Odyssey comes out of a later Latin tradition that begins with Virgil extends all the way through Dante. It's kind of an interesting commentary on the Odyssey. I don't even object to including the character in there, though I do sort of object to using that character to be a replacement in the Hades scene from Book 11 of Achilles, who's the strongest warrior ever, and certainly does not look like Ellen Page. There's that aspect. But then we get to this point on the Odyssey movie, which is, look, this was a big hit movie. And all of the actors should be cast and everything from now on in Ellen Page ain't getting the phone call. Here's her lament. You know, I was seen in a certain way before and it's, it is different now. So I understood, you know, so maybe there, maybe there is something to like reaching, reaching out to people and trying to, yeah, create, you know, connections and projects that way. But you know, I think it's a little tricky for me to get cast right now. I think that's probably for obvious, pretty obvious reason the Canadian thing. Yeah, of course. Hollywood hates Canadians for some real reason. Those tariffs. Yeah. They're such awful mean people. But I'm grateful to, you know, grateful to Chris for having me be a part of this. And yeah, certainly, look, I've been so lucky. I've been so lucky in my career and gotten to play some really fantastic parts and be a part of some wonderful project. Okay. So it's sad. Every time this woman speaks, she feels sorry for her because she always says with her words that she's so happy now. She used to be really unhappy and now she's really unhappy. But if you look at pictures ever, back when she was a woman and understood that she was a woman, she was smiling a lot and looked healthy. And now she's never smiling and looks miserable. So which makes sense because she's living in a way that is totally contrary to reality. And that usually makes people unhappy. The third big controversy in her casting as Sinon in the Odyssey is that her acting wasn't very good. It was not believable. And this, in part, might have to do with her skill and her range as an actor. You know, some actors can play lots of different roles. They can play Hamlet one day. They can play King Lear the next day. They can play. I don't know. Othello the next day. But some things are beyond people's roles. Like if I wanted to go out and play Michael Corleone, I would probably have a pretty good shot at that. If I wanted to go out and play Jerry Seinfeld, maybe I would have a shot at that. If I wanted to go out and play Malcolm X, I would struggle in that role. I don't think I don't think I would have a persuasive performance. And so this woman is trying to do something that is certainly beyond her range as an actress. Even if she were Lawrence Olivier or Marlon Brando, depending on your preference in schools of acting, that's the problem. It was a bad performance. Also because people now know way too much about her personal life. The Philipsy Morehoffman, one of the truly greatest actress of his generation, he was asked about his personal views on some matter, whether it's politics or culture, whatever. And I remember his beautiful response in the interview. He said, "The less you know about me, the better." But the less you know about me, the better. Because if you don't know anything about Philipsy Morehoffman, the person, then you can believe him in any role that he's playing, some crazy creep, which he played a lot of creepy roles, or even like a kind of good-looking Swav guy or criminal, if you don't know who he really is in his true personality, then he can be anybody. And he was very good at that. Now we know too much about Ellen Page. But the big reason why this isn't going to work is she says it herself. She goes, "I was seen in a certain way before." That's true. Yeah, you're right. You were seen as a woman. And now you are seeing this very, very confused person who's engaged in all sorts of mutilations to her body. What she is doing?
Well, it takes us to the top of the show. People think that the woman who lets her kid go get goose feathers in the gated community and Lindsey Clancy are their similar kind of cases. They're not their opposite cases. Same thing here. Ellen Page now is the opposite of an actress. Acting, the most basic definition I've ever heard of acting, comes from Sanford Meisner, one of the great theorists of acting, who comes from the group theater, which emerged. It created the naturalistic school of acting in the United States and emerged out of the Moscow Art Theater, Constantine Stanislawski, which itself emerges out of Freud. This is where modern acting comes from, the real naturalistic style. Malam Brown though talking about his gun mobiles in his mouth, and this defines acting for film. And Sanford Meisner said that acting is living truthfully in imaginary circumstances. That's what good acting is. You live truthfully in imaginary circumstances. Ellen Page is doing the opposite. Ellen Page acts, lives falsely in real circumstances. It's totally the opposite of what acting is. That is why, that is a large reason why her acting is suffered. That is a large reason why she's seen differently now. That is a large reason why she's not being cast in movies. It's not, she's joking, but she says this is anti-Canadian discrimination. But what she's really talking about is, it's anti-transgender discrimination. But it's not even chiefly that a really good actor, a really good actor can pick up on all the little subtleties, all the things about human behavior that other people miss. This is why New York actors tend to be better than Los Angeles actors, because New York actors are always around people. LA actors are in their cars all the time, driving, just waiting in traffic on Santa Monica Boulevard. New York actors are on the subway. They're walking around. They're seeing people. They move the way that they tick so they can print and film. See more often. It's a good example of that. There's a real New York actor. So, they're so tuned into the reality of human nature that they are showing you something about human nature. Ultimately they're showing you something about yourself that rings true that you were not aware of before you saw the performance. That's what really, really good acting does. It's so truthful. It's so natural that you get another thing that Sandy Meissner writes about, which is Duza's blush. There's a Italian actress, Ellie Nora Duza, who didn't happen every night on stage, but some nights on stage when she was in this scene where she was supposed to be embarrassed, she blushed. She actually blushed, which means that the acting has to be so organic. It has to be so vital within you. Ellen Page is doing exactly the opposite. She is living in a false way all the time in reality, not even just on the stage. It's very, very sad. You really feel for the woman because she's destroyed her life and she had a very nice acting career and she had a lot of adulation and success and she's destroyed it for a complete delusion that has bled far beyond the stage and the camera. It's destroyed her whole rest of her life too. Okay. We turn away from Ellen Page, but we stick on this theme of people of dubious orientation and extreme performance. We turn to Abdul El-Sahed because Abdul El-Sahed is awful. He's like a communist jihadi who, when he wants to lose those allegations, he just makes himself seem super gay and campaign commercials. We can make fun of Abdul all day. He would be horrible in the Senate. Abdul El-Sahed just gave a great answer on Steven A. Smith's podcast. First though, I want to tell you about pre-born. There's a lot more to say. First, they're going to pre-born.com/nolts. Out of ULAS, there's a woman named Alba who had been told something pretty definitive. She could not have children. Her husband's diagnosis seemed to confirm it, so eventually as painful as that news must have been, they accepted it and then Alba got pregnant. So from the outside, that sounds miraculous, but Alba did not experience it that way at first. She had already reorganized her expectations around the idea that this could never happen. Suddenly she was pregnant, confused, frightened and facing a future she had never prepared for. Alba eventually walked into a pre-born network clinic. There she was met with compassion and given a free ultrasound. She saw her child. She heard the heartbeat suddenly. The situation looked very different. Alba chose life. Today, her daughter, Laura, is healthy and thriving. The child, Alba, had been told was impossible. The pregnancy that initially felt like a crisis is now her daughter. Right now another mother is walking into pre-born clinic, frightened and uncertain, and you can help give her that same opportunity to see her child. Just 28 bucks helps provide one life-saving ultrasound. 40 bucks helps rescue five babies. I personally support this organization. I encourage you to give what you can. It's the best ROI you're going to get. They fundraise separately for overhead, so every dollar you give goes towards saving babies. Please give today to Alba on 250, say keyword baby. That's pound 250 keyword baby. We're going to pre-born.com/noles, Canada VLAS. That's pre-born.com/noles. If you're a business owner, would you consider a larger donation to claim a write-off? A donation of 1,000, 2,000, 10,000, 15,000 will sponsor an ultrasound machine for a needy clinic, helping to save countless babies lives for years to come. All gifts are tax deductible and we'll reach eternity, get involved today. Abdul Al-Sahed has been getting struggled four days now. I called for this, even during my brief podcast from Europe, I was calling for this. I said, the struggling of Abdul Al-Sahed is working. Keep it up. Hassan Piker is squirming, Abdul Al-Sahed is squirming, AOC, Mamdani, Bernie Sanders. They're all squirming over their connection to this guy that they brought in. Hassan Piker, who calls for the murder of conservatives who said he wanted to kill Charlie Kirk. He was murdered by one of his fellow travelers. Abdul Al-Sahed asked once again, he's had horrible answers on the Hassan Piker thing. He tries to minimize him. Oh, he's a Twitch streamer in California. What are you talking about, buddy? You're the Hassan Piker thing comes, that says, "Hey, Abdul invited me out to campaign with him." What are you talking about? Hassan Piker is high-fiving, dabbing up, Mamdani, AOC. Well, all done. I'm not just some random Twitch streamer. I'm your guy. You're begging me to campaign with you. Now you're trying to distance yourself. Abdul Al-Sahed, days after this controversy started, has finally arrived at a great answer. There are three million people who listen to Hassan, and I want to offer them a pathway into an electoral movement where rather than sit outside of the electoral system, they see a pathway around the things that they agree with that he says that I agree with, and a pathway that disavows the things that I disagree with. Oh, this is good. This is good. It's not perfect, but this is good. Gotta give it to the guy, game-recognize game. It's a great answer. He can't come out and say, "I agree with Hassan Piker on everything," even though he probably does. He can't come out and say, "I totally disavow Hassan Piker," because then he just looks like a total coward and a weakling. This guy was five seconds ago. This guy was begging Hassan Piker to campaign for him, but now that he's got the nomination and Hassan Piker's inconvenient, he wants to pretend like he never met the guy. We look just weak. He looks slimy and traitorous, so he can't really do that, but likewise, he can't just minimize him as some random Twitch streamer in California. He's not. He's a major figure. He's the intellectual thought leader of the left, intellectual, but whatever, he's a thought leader of the left, and he's a major, major figure in the Democrat Party. So what does Abdullal Sayed do? He's totally shifted course. He says, "Look, the reason. The reason that I've brought Hassan Piker in is because so many people are listening to him, and this is very troublesome, very worrisome. So many people are listening to Hassan, and I just want to make sure that I channel their political angst in a good direction. They might follow a bad direction if they only listen to Hassan Piker. If we ignore this problem, simmering in the Democrat Party, so what I'm going to do, I'm a humanitarian that I am, Abdullal Sayed. I am going to de-radicalize these people. That's why it's been a mission of mercy. I'm so responsible. I'm reaching out to those dissolution to Hassan Piker listeners, and I'm bringing them into the mainstream of politics. It's good. It's pretty good. There's just one problem. There's the problem that Republicans need to hammer Abdullal Sayed on. When he says, you know, there are three million people who listened to Hassan Piker, he's one of them. That's the problem. When Abdullal Sayed says, look, no, there are all these people out there who follow Hassan Piker. He's trying to create a distance between him and the Hassan audience. They're the same audience. They're the same thing. This is the same thing as AOC saying, wow, woke one was crazy, right? Lady, you were the leader of woke one. You were the leader. You did woke one. Woke one, same law says AOC. So then the obvious follow-up to AOC is, okay, how was woke one crazy? In what ways was it crazy? She can't answer. The obvious follow-up to Abdullal Sayed is, oh, yeah, what do those three million Hassan listeners believe that you don't believe? Yeah, yeah. You, okay, yeah. You're doing, you're doing Yomans work here. You want to bring those three million radicalized leftists into the mainstream of politics. What do you disagree on? You said, you want to pull them in where you guys agree and then you want to disavow the things that you disagree on, okay, what do you disagree on? Do you disagree that America is a white supremacist country? Do you disagree that capitalism is oppressive? Do you disagree with Palestinian statehood? Abdull, I don't think so. disagree on abortion, murdering babies up until the moment of birth. Do you disagree on the transgender ideology that would castrate and mutilate little kids? Do you disagree on open borders? Do you disagree on socialist medicine and economics? Do you disagree on the justification for political violence, even? Please, okay, you, all right Abdul, you're taking this route? Great, good for you. You're gonna take this route now. You're so different. You're just trying to pull in the radical Hassan listeners into the mainstream politics. Cool. Where do you differ? Wow, Hassan Piker listeners are crazy. That's what he's saying. Woke one was crazy. Hassan Piker listeners are crazy. Oh yeah, how are they crazy? Please tell me how they're, tell me how the Hassan Piker's crazy. Can you, he's got a picture of 9/11 behind him. Do you remember, I remember the videos of people in Gaza dancing on September 11th, 2001. I remember, it was 11 years old. I remembered vividly. It was so crazy. Tell me where you differ. I'd love to see them. It's a good answer. It's a good answer. I'm giving him credit. It's the best answer he can come up with. Now answer my next question. Oh yeah, I know we're so different. Total fake news. Speaking of fake news, this is an amazing story. I love this one. Politico, do I have the political story here? No, it's not printed out. I'm gonna vlog my producers afterward. Politico has this big breaking story about Trump's coin. Trump has just minted a coin in which he's got his face on the front of it. It's great. I can't wait to get it. Liberty, July 4th in God we trust. 1776 to 2026 here. You know what, I have it. I actually have it on my Twitter. I was tweeting it earlier today. I love this so much. So Politico runs this story about Trump's supposed like Lamania and how much this breaks with political tradition. US mint begins circulation sale of Trump $1 coins and then the subheader. It is the first time US currency features a living person since the mid 1800s. Trump, another way in which he's upending American standards and norms. How could he do this? The first time that currency has featured a living person and a living president, we've never had anything like that. Actually, though, none of that's true. Back in what was the year? We pull up the Calvin Coolidge coin. Do we have it? Yeah. In the 1920s, 1926, not all that long ago, we have a coin featuring George Washington and the president, Calvin Coolidge. Very much a living person. And there was four very similar event. It was celebrating a milestone anniversary of the United States. Not only, in other words, has what president Trump is doing now with the coins been done before. Not only has it been done since the 19th century, but it was done by one of conservatives' favorite presidents and by a president that the left doesn't really take much issue with. The right loves him. The left doesn't care about him. It's Calvin Coolidge. Nobody objects to Calvin Coolidge. This is totally fine and normal. And Politico, just breathlessly reporting this story so confidently, reporting complete nonsense. Something that is just totally true. The problem for Politico right now is they can't even correct the story. Because the only correction to the story they could make is correction. We were totally wrong. Correction, we shouldn't have printed this story. Everything about the story's false. It's that old Reagan line. It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant. It's that they know so much that isn't so. It's the the blithe ignorance. It's the confidence. Okay, before we go, I know I got to get to the mailbag. There's one thing I got to get to though. We turn from the progressive liberals here to the libertarians. The head of the Kato Institute, which is the most prominent respected libertarian think tank in the country. It has just made a really curious argument in testimony on Capitol Hill about how we consider the immigration debate. Open borders, not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration. See if you can follow the libertarian logic. Our immigrant co-workers, neighbors, friends, and family want to contribute to this country legally. Let them fix legal immigration. Imagine if just 3% of gun sales were permitted. Many in this room, myself included, would call that gun prohibition. But that's how few immigrants seeking permanent legal status in the United States through the proper processes actually get approved in a year. For many, there's no legal way at all. If you make legal immigration impossible, don't complain about illegal immigration. You created it. You made it illegal. So yes, focus on justice for victims, but let peaceful people contribute to this country legally. I don't have a formal philosophical education. My training in formal logic clearly is insufficient. Because it seems that what he's arguing is, if you don't open up the borders through legal channels or, however, through law, through statute, if you don't permit huge masses of people to come into this country. By the way, we take a million legal immigrants a year. It's true that Biden added three million illegal immigrants per year. But we take a million legal immigrants per year. We have the most open immigration policy of any country in the history of the world. He says, if you don't open it up even more, then when people come here illegally, that's your fault. Because you've made it illegal. That is like saying, I think, check my logic here. It is like saying that if you don't unlock your door at night and allow people to come into your home and take your TV and rape your wives, if you don't allow them to come into your home, then don't you dare complain about burglars? Don't you dare complain about burglars and robbers? Because you locked the door. You forced them to become burglars and robbers. If you had just left the door open, even opened up the door, put a big sign on it, said, "Please come in here and steal my stuff and rape my wife." That's what we want you to do, okay? There are a lot of people who want to do that. Think about all the people who want to come into your home and take your stuff and rape your wife. And you're just going to close the door and say, "Don't do that," and you're going to lock it. Well, now you've made them burglars and marauders and rapists. Because you didn't just let them do whatever they wanted to do. What if I don't want people to do that? Is it, can we just not have people do that? It seems to me we should drastically reduce not just illegal immigration but even legal immigration. Because we have the highest foreign-born percentage of the population that we've ever had and we've had a massive frame of social solidarity as a result of that. And even if you're fine with some migration, clearly we haven't assimilated a lot of people and we need to reduce it. But you're telling me that if we, the people in a self-governing republic, such as we're supposed to have, if we express our political views and exercise our political rights, that that is somehow illegitimate. And therefore we have no one to blame for the crime committed against us but ourselves. This is libertarianism, folks. You know, look, I was, I don't want to seem sanctimonious here whole year than now. I'll make a confession publicly. I was a libertarian once. When I was a teenager, I was a libertarian. I was. Okay. So I get it. I was there. But this is, this is libertarianism. I thought libertarianism was supposed to be about the rights of individuals and was supposed to be about freedom and sovereignty and autonomy. And what this guy is saying is if you, in your republic, try to stop even one of the million, millions of people who come into this country every year. If you try to say, hey, like, let's, can we just have 999,999 legal immigrants instead of a million? If you try to stop even one of them, you deserve illegal immigration. You deserve people coming into your home and taking your stuff and raping your wife. That's what does that defend individual rights? Is that about autonomy and liberty and sovereignty? I don't think so. I think no, no knock on this poor guy. He is obviously confused. Libertarianism is a very, very confused political ideology. And it is just a species of liberalism. And that's, that's what's wrong with it. And that's why that's also why when you look at the voter quadrants of, you know, political preferences, you know, the upper left, the upper right, the lower left, the lower right, on the scale of authority to libertinism and socialism to capitalism. You know, they, you know, how they arranged that political compass. It's why when you actually look at voters, absolutely no one, no one is in the right wing libertarian box. There's, there is no constituency for that in part because it doesn't make any sense. Okay. We have to get to the mail back. We get to get to the mail back. First, so my favorite coming yesterday is from Joel Scott who says, Michael, I love you for 670. I'm always telling people to grow up and realize it's funny. It is. I love the 670 thing. I really like it. Of all that, look, every generation has slang. Every generation going back 100 years ago, back when Calvin Coolidge put his face on money. You had like 23s to do. And when I was a kid, you had like, oh, snap.
and like, I don't know, a bunch of other dumb phrases. And now they have 6.7. 6.7 is wholesome. Because it's kind of a nonsense, because it doesn't mean anything. If you added two numbers to 6.7, you'd get something that was a little bit evocative and appeals to the Perian interest, which other generations have had in their slang. 6.7 is kind of fun. It's kind of wholesome. I like it. It's good. It's like so ridiculous. When older generations complain about younger people slang, every generation has slang. That's what-- it's like how language works. You like that. You like that a lot. I know. I know that I'm running way over right now. I've actually run several minutes over, maybe 6.7 minutes over, in fact. Or mail back a sponsor by
[email protected]/nolesk and o-w-l-e-s. Take it away. Hi, Michael. It's Millie. I want to start off by saying that I really appreciate your show out of everyone that posts on the daily wire, you are my go-to. I just recently turned 18 and I immediately registered to vote. My problem is I am a conservative Christian living in a blue state, and it's really hard for me to know where to get reliable information. I was wondering if you had any advice on where I should be looking or how I should be approaching my research as I prepared to vote in my first election this November. Thank you. Really great question. Millie, first of all, you have excellent excellent taste in podcasts. You're clearly a woman with a very good judgment, a good head on her shoulders. I love that we are reaching the youths. Happy birthday. You've just turned 18. That's great. Everything. Love this. You're in a blue state. You want to figure out how to vote. Where do you get your information from? You say you listen to this podcast. I appreciate that, but obviously I don't cover every race, every local race, and every different state. I'm going to say something that is going to be so unpopular. The people are going to, they're going to recoil against. They're going to find it icky and shallow and yucky. Just vote straight Republican. You should just vote straight Republican. Put a little caveat here. You should begin thinking about how to vote with the assumption that you are going to vote straight Republican, because the parties really are different. There was a controversy among the American political scientists in the 1930s or thereabouts. One of the controversies was that the parties were not all that different. You had super liberal Republicans. You had very conservative Democrats and everything in between. The parties broke down more along geographic lines, and they didn't have a ton of ideological or philosophical coherence. And so they endeavored to change that. And over the ensuing decades, they did change that. And the Republicans became the conservative party and the Democrats became the leftist party. Liberal took two harder line leftist. Okay, so there's some clarity there. The clarity is really good, because the parties generally are coherent. You might disagree on some issue of foreign policy or some new ones of migration or some question of economic policy. But generally speaking, you got one party that wants to kill babies and you got one party that doesn't want to kill babies. You got one party that wants to chop off the genitals of the little kids. You got one party that doesn't want to do that. You got one party that wants to kick God at a public life. You got one party that generally is pretty okay with God, at least. You have pretty clear differences here. You got one party that hates the country and follows a guy who says he wipes his dairy air with the American flag named Asam Piker. And you got another party that is patriotic. Another party for which the major criticism is that there are two over the top in their patriotism. I want to be with those guys. So now you can get bad Apple Republican candidates. You can get rhinos, you can get squishes. You can get people who are ideologically deceptive and snakes. And so I'm not saying you just always have to vote for every single Republican. A few maybe you sit out or you change your vote. But we begin with prejudice. We begin with prescription, as Edmund Burke called it, and Russell Kirk called it. We begin recognizing that we don't need to create the world new every single day. It's not going to be the case that you vote straight Republican in 2026. But then in 2028, you vote 50-50. Because the candidates just changed that much. That's not how it's going to work. Maybe you change that much in the meantime. But assuming that you still support generally all the good stuff and you oppose all the bad stuff, you should probably just vote straight Republican. Probably. And in the primaries, then you got to figure out which kind of Republican you want to support. But that's it. I know it doesn't sound independent. It doesn't sound unbiased. It doesn't sound. Yeah, it sounds like politics to me. Okay, next one. Hey, Michael, it's Isaac. Hope you're doing well, man. I had a question for you. Is it okay for a Christian to practice astral projection? I lean towards no, but I want to get your thoughts. Thanks, man. Yeah, no, it's not okay. Astral projection is one of two things. It's either an occult ritual in which people imagine that they're like surfing on the surface of the sun or something like that. They're projecting themselves into some distant place through their mind, through their own will. It's either that and these people are just overgrown children and they're crazy. Or it is people who are engaging in occult ritual where they think that they're surfing on the surface of the sun or projecting themselves into some other place with the help of demons. Because demons are telling them what it looks like. It's either. If you believe in astral projection, that's what it is. And if you think it's a bunch of foe, it's the first one. Either of those are unacceptable, though. What's interesting, there is a paralleling Christianity. You sometimes hear stories of saints being able to by-locate a Padre Pio in the 20th century. It's very famous for this. That is to be physically in one place and to be in another respect in another place at the same time. It would be impossible for a single person to be in two places in the same respect simultaneously. But they could be in two places in different respect simultaneously. So you say, "Well, that kind of sounds like astral projection, doesn't it?" At a surface level, perhaps it does. But it's kind of like the difference between good and bad government. You can have a good monarch or you can have an evil tyrant. On the surface, they look like the same thing. The difference is that the good monarch is ruling for the common good. The evil tyrant is ruling for his own private interest. So on the surface, they have similar behaviors, but the orientation is totally different. And it's the same thing with astral projection. Astral projection, people get into it because they're kind of curious. And they want to accrue some new power to themselves. And they want to get a leg up over other people. And they want to just flex their own autonomy and their own individual will. That's bad. That's bad to transgress natural limits so that you can make yourself into a God, which is essentially what you're doing. However, when we hear these stories of the saints by locating, they're not really doing that for their own glory or of their own power. They realize that everything that we have comes to us from God. And so they are open to God's will and to helping to enact God's will and to cooperate with God's grace in the world. And the surface, those seem like similar things, but they actually have a rather different orientation. OK, I want to get to so much more. I really want to get to so much more. But it's fake headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member of Use Code Knowles Canada VVLS. And check out for two months free and all annual plans. [BLANK_AUDIO]
PodcastTranscript AI