Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all-day comfy grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue. Just plump, dewy, hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. "Maybe it's Mavily." This episode is brought to you by Cardiff America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion fundants since 2004, applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at cardiff.co/noles. President Trump accuses Democrat Senate candidate James Tallahfrico of beating and then eating meat. Vice President J.D. Vance wins the crowd with the first big speech of 2028. And Congressman Branding Gill emerges as the breakout star. Then Senate Majority Leader John Thun gets booed. A wild night at the RNC, we have the recap then. A new survey shows that college campuses are increasingly violent and homosexual. More gay than violent, extremely light in the loafers, but also notably violent. We'll get into the numbers. And women on Oprah react to the Lindsey Clancy case by demanding that black women have the right to murder their children too. I'm Michael Noles, this is the Michael Noles show. Welcome back to the show. While the Republicans had this historic midterm party convention, first time ever, the Democrats who were now dominated by the socialists, they had their own kind of sort of convention. It was the Socialism 2026 conference at which the socialists admitted to and called for burning down police stations. We'll get to all of that. First though, I want to tell you about Bologna branch. There's a lot more to say. First, they'll go to bologna branch.com/noles. Can it be LES use code Noles? There are a few things more annoying than waking up at two o'clock in the morning because you're too hot. Then you kick the covers off. Ten minutes later, you're freezing. So you pull them back up. Now you're fighting with your wife over the covers for like half the night. And then you're negotiating with a thermostat like it's a hostage situation. It's unbearable. No one has ever suffered like a married couple dealing with the sheets. Now, by the way, you don't have to deal with that because of Bologna branch. Bologna branch sheets will make that fighting a story of the past. They're made with 100% organic cotton woven specifically for airflow. So the cooling comes from the construction itself, not some weird synthetic cooling technology. It's great. This is sheets that multiple US presidents have slept on, that your favorite podcaster has slept on for many, many years of this, but coming up on 10 years, 94% of Bologna branch customers say the sheets get softer with every wash, upgrade your sleep with Bologna branch, get 15% off your first order, plus free shipping at Bologna branch.com/noles. Can it be LES with code Noles? That's Bologna branch B-O-L-L-L-A-N-D branch.com/noles. Codenoles to unlock 15% off exclusions apply. It also occurred to me on the drive in today that it's 9/11. It's the 25th anniversary of 9/11, kind of sneaks up on you. Quite a week, we had the anniversary of Charlie Kirk's murder yesterday. I was in Utah for the memorial, which is up on the TPSA page. TPSA did an amazing job. The speakers were, it was really moving. I was sitting backstage watching a bunch of them as very moving, really, the year anniversary really snuck up on me. I suspect it snuck up on a lot of you, and then right after that, you have the 25th anniversary of 9/11, and I am a New Yorker by birth and upbringing, so I was given some thoughts. I think I have a different reaction to the 25th anniversary of 9/11 than the most people I'm seeing. I will get into all that first of the RNC. President Trump comes out, clip of the convention in which he is talking about the Democrat Senate nominee in Texas. We got a new nickname dropped, the new nickname is for James Talleriko, who Trump is now calling James Talleriko, and he is accusing him of something very vivid. He was also somebody that hated eating meat, but he ran a campaign to beat meat. He called it "beat meat," I don't know what the hell he meant by that. These people are going to tell me, "What the hell does he want to beat meat?" But it was bad for his image, so he started eating meat, and he recently, it's getting worse, I'm getting myself in trouble, getting worse. JD Vance and Bobby Kennedy just absolutely rolling in the seats, well, Trump does this standup routine because he's the best working standup comedian, and it's not even close. He just gets up there, might as well spotlight on him, stool behind him, might as well be light in the cigarette, you hear about this, you hear about James Talleriko, he wanted to beat meat, it's what he said, I don't know what, why are you laughing, why do he wanted to beat meat, but he couldn't beat meat, so now he's going to eat meat, is that, oh, I don't, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, just great stuff, great stuff, and just a little note here, we'll get into some of the serious policy that came out of the convention, but little note here, for the people who say this is degraded, this is below the office of the president, this is undignified, first of all, the pun has kind of plausible deniability because James Talleriko was like a soy boy kind of vegetarian ish, I don't know if he's literally a vegetarian, but he just, he gives off the vibe, we need to reduce our consumption of meat in order to stop the climate change, and I realized you can't run that way in Texas and win a statewide race, so then he took that picture trying to choke down a rib at some barbecue restaurant, that wasn't believable. So he went from, he wanted to beat meat, now he wants to eat, what are you all laughing for, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, it's just for the people who say this is undignified. You know we live in a democracy, right? You know we live in a republic where the people vote, and there are many advantages to democratic republics, certainly in mixed regimes such as the framers gave us, but one of the disadvantages is sometimes you play to the crowd, okay, that's not, you can't blame Trump for that, that's just part of living in a government that is largely democratic, is you play to the crowd. The King of England probably is not making the beat-eat-meat jokes, but the president of the United States absolutely is, that's, that's just how it goes, and it's funny, and it's, the other reason that the joke works so well is it's so vivid. I mean, this is why the Trump nicknames work so well, what, whether we're talking about low energy jab or little Marco, he's always sweating, you remember this from 2016, now Trump is friends with most of these guys, but they just gave you images, and that's the same thing here. Now you just, it's so yucky, the kind of images that he's not imposing on Tallariko, but he's pulling from James Tallariko, even the nickname Tallariko, you think it's really simple, but it rings true because he is a freak, he calls God non-binary, he says that women are neighbors with uteruses, he, he uses the Blessed Virgin Mary as an example to promote abortion, he's a freak, man, he is a true freak, and so that plays into that, and you know, his girlfriend goes to another schooling candidate or something, and so he's ostensibly the straight Pete Buttigieg, I don't know about that, it just, it works because it rings true, that's part of the reason why the crowd was rolling, and right now with Tallariko up in that Senate race, I hope that sticks. Speaking of Texas, Brandon Gill, our buddy, Brandon Gill, freshman in Congress, rising star, president of the freshman class in Congress, gets a lot of good clips, he's gotten a lot of good buzz. The RNC was his breakout moment. I think of all of the politicians who were trying to raise their profile, who were trying to command a national platform, nobody at the RNC did it better more convincingly than Brandon Gill. It's only appropriate that we kick this convention off properly with a land acknowledgement. I'd like to acknowledge that we stand here today in the great state of Texas in the United States of America. The ancestral homeland of great American patriots, pioneers, and explorers who put down roots fought for freedom all over the globe, and blood and died to build the greatest civilization ever known to man. Okay, great stuff. It's pretty red meat, you know, I want to do a landing knowledge man. This land is the best, but it's more than just red meat because he's really saying something, he's really subverting the left wing genre of the land acknowledgement by saying, no, this land is our land. Now, as the left comes out, they say this land isn't our land.
It really belongs to the OGBWe nation that hasn't possessed it for like 200 years and that only actually possessed it for a small number of years before that. But it's anyone but ours. It belongs to anyone but us. And he comes out there and he says, no, this is our land, we inherit this land. He's a star. He's a star, Brandon. He just did great. Notice the other thing about his speech, he's getting a lot of plotts here. No one on the right can object to the things he's focusing on. It's not just that he's good at delivering the line. It's not just that he looks the part, he sounds the part, it's not just that. It's like the difference between a reporter and an editor. The reporter might be a good editor, sorry, the reporter might be good at selecting words in a story, but the editor is good at selecting stories and placing stories and choosing the headline. And it seems to have both of those skills. He knows what to talk about, he knows what to leave out. He's not focusing on the really divisive issues on the right. He's not talking about tariffs. He's not talking about the Iran war or Israel or any of these things that seem to be dividing the right. He's landing on these issues that really matter and that unify Republicans and he's doing it in a very persuasive way, excellent, excellent stuff. On this theme of inheritance, on this theme of the land that we possess, that we are possessed by to use the phrase of Robert Frost, a John F Kennedy's inauguration, JD Vance really builds on this. I thought he did a great job describing the country and what the country means to us in his speech, which is also getting very, very high marks. Now we live, of course, in an imperfect world of fallen men. We live in the city of man, not the city of God. But I believe that our founders built this nation on a promise that echoes our creator, that every American child is born and heir, is born with a birthright. Born with the right to inherit the blessings of the greatest country on earth, not because of who their parents are, not because of what they look like or where they come from, but because they are Americans and this is our country. Really good stuff. One of JD Vance's great political gifts is that he's super duper smart and super duper well educated, but he doesn't shove it in your face. He speaks in a very common and accessible kind of language, but that's an extremely complex and nuanced, even a little bit from his speech. Notice what he's getting in there. He's getting in an allusion to St. Augustine, so he's plumbing the depths of the Western tradition. And by saying, you know, this is your land, this is an inheritance, this is something that you get from your birthright that you have to pass on. He is also subverting the very popular view of America, reductive, I think liberal view that took hold at the end of the 20th century, and which persists still to this day, which is that America is just an idea, it's the purely credal conception of America. America's an idea. It's not a place. It's not a race. It's an idea. So anybody, you know, a guy in Timbuck too, he might be more American than a guy whose family has been in West Virginia for 200 years. That's the credal view of America. And then on the other side of that, there's this purely kind of racial blood and soil view of America, which is that, you know, if you're, if your skin is a little too dusky or something or if you've only arrived within the last 75 years instead of 175 years that you're less American or something like that, he also avoids that because he's speaking of the land not as a purely kind of biological construct, but also not as an ideological construct. He's speaking of the country as an inheritance. This is profoundly conservative in the very best Anglo-American tradition, guys like Edmund Burrick and Russell Kirk, but you don't know it. He's not quoting these guys. He's not citing these guys. He just infuses his rhetoric with St. Augustine and Burke and Kirk and all of this great stuff from the tradition. And he does it because he is in fact refocusing the right on what I think is a more defensible classical, traditional kind of conservatism than the ideological, alternately libertarian or neoconservative views that dominated at the end of the 20th century. Really good stuff. It does it in a way that a guy who's never opened a political philosophy book can easily immediately understand. It's very, very good. So it demonstrates an impressive political skill, but he's also turning conservatism in the right direction, in a more grounded direction in a way that speaks more purely to patriotism. I gave a speech at the Oxford Union a couple months ago. They just put it up on their YouTube channel. I think we put it up on our YouTube channel too, in which the resolution of the debate was this house believes that Trump has betrayed conservatism. And I was in the opposition on that, on that motion. And really the debate came down to defining what conservatism is. Some people say it's an idea. Some people say it's a set of policies. But neither of those definitions really holds up because all sorts of great conservative statesmen who we all agree are terrific, disagreed on policy. They disagreed dramatically on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy. They disagreed, it doesn't even come down to personal comportment because a lot of them had pretty disorderly behavior in their lives. It comes down to an affection, an inclination. It's more to quote Roger Scruton, it's more an attitude than it is an idea. It's a love of country. You see this clearly in this dichotomy we get, my country right or wrong, or my country only when right. The more ideological people say no, it's my country when right. In other words, patriotism is the conclusion to an analysis that I make of my country. The good side, the bad side. If the bad side of the ledger outweighs the good side, then it's not my country and I don't have to defend it. But that's not what patriotism is. Patriotism is more akin to the respect you give to your mother and father. Patriotism is an extension of filial piety. You don't love your mother as a consequence of analyzing all the things she's done for you and all the slights she's committed against you. You just love your mother. You just owe her a certain degree of reverence and affection because she's your mother. In other words, that affection is the lens through which you view your mother. Not the other way around. Same thing goes for patriotism, JD gets it really, really good speech. Then we'll get into the practicality because it does seem like the coalition is fraying a little bit. JD addresses that directly and then the Senate Majority Leader gets booed. We'll get to that in a second. First, they'll want to take back Cardiff. There's a lot more to say, first, they'll go to Cardiff.co/noleskinnawls, business owners have a disease. They look at almost anything and they think I could probably do that myself, accounting, marketing, repair, shipping, building the website. At some point, you're doing 17 jobs because hiring someone to do one of them costs money. So you say, "All right, look, my business is doing well. I want to grow. I can grow. But in order to grow, I need to spend money. But I want to spend money. I want to make money." So, that is where Cardiff comes in. If you want bank rates without the bank delays, Cardiff offers qualified businesses up to half a million dollars in same day funding. The application takes less than five minutes. There's no impact on personal credit. Approval can happen within minutes. Do it. If you have been in business for at least a year and you're bringing in at least $20,000 a month in revenue, apply at Cardiff.co/noleskinnawls. That is Cardiff.co/noleskinnawls. Do not let the banks shut down the growth of your business. Do it. Get real growth, get fast funding, Cardiff
[email protected]/noles. Vance gets into the fraying coalition. Don't give the country over to a bunch of crazy people because you happen to disagree with us on a policy issue here there. Look, I'm not asking anybody to agree with me on every single issue. I'm not asking anybody to agree on every single policy, the administration. What I am asking you to do is to recognize the contrast with the radicals and recognize the achievements of the last 18 months. We have done a lot, my friends, and we can do a lot more if we fight together. I like that practicality there is one way in which I think JD is doing a good job of trying to fill the role that Charlie Kirk held. JD and Charlie Kirk were very good friends, famously very close friends, and Charlie's chief political contribution, as we've all said many times over the last year, is that he maintained a coalition among people who didn't quite like each other who disagreed on all sorts of things. JD is saying here is, hey, don't leave the coalition just because you don't love the Iran War. Yeah, a lot of people don't like the Iran War. Yeah, a lot of people don't like this aspect of economic policy. Yeah, a lot of people wish that immigration policy weren't forced in a slightly different way. The Iran War is a big part of this, of course. He says, hey, guys, it's fine. I hear you. I hear you, but don't turn on this coalition that has accomplished a lot just because you disagree on one policy or another. Don't turn the country over to crazy people who want to kill your kids, mutilate the kids who get out of the womb, open up the borders, flood it with a net five million immigrants per year, take all your money, persecute you, spy on your churches, don't turn the country over to these guys because you disagree on one policy. You can't, that is not how political victories are won. I think he's absolutely right on this. Here's-
There's one. I don't think I pulled the clip for it, but we have to get to it. Maybe we'll add the clip in post production. President Trump made a promise at the RNC. He said that if Republicans hold the house and the Senate in the midterms, he will give every American adult $5,000. Now, the fiscal hawks react to this and they say, this is terrible. This would cost over a trillion dollars. This is going to blow up the national debt. This is so irresponsible. I would just say, yeah, sure. Okay. Yeah, yeah. No, you're right. It would cost a trillion dollars. That's a sane amount of money. Yeah. Oh, I know. That's really, I know. It's, yeah, it's kind of like it's sort of like bribing the electorate. It's not technically bribing the electorate, but it's sort of like that. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, but guys, first of all, this is lowercase D Democratic politics. That's how it works. The politicians bribe the voters. That's how it works. Tammany Hall used to do it directly by paying people like direct payments to go vote. But the way it works structurally is that the Democrats bribe the voters by offering them more welfare programs and the Republicans bribe the voters by offering them tax cuts. But the way money works, it's kind, it's kind of similar. You know, I know we can say, well, tax cuts are just allowing you to keep more of your hard earned money. And when the Democrats give you direct payments from the government, that, you know, that involves another step and it's less efficient. Yeah, it's true. It's a less efficient way to buy votes, but it does re down to the same kind of stuff. If you're not going to tie tax cuts to spending cuts, then it's much the same thing that the Democrats are doing. And that's just how government works. You can say that's bad. You can say that's irresponsible. Yeah. Okay. Sure. But it's, that is how the system works. That's how we end up with the $40 trillion national debt. Whether we have Democrat, Democrats in office or Republicans in office, that's how we get to that. Essentially no president has cut the size of government like ever with the exception of pulling back temporary spending after wars and crises. They, they don't really cut spending. That's, so your problem is not with Trump. Your problem is not even with AOC. Your problem in that case is with the form of regime we have, which is a mixed regime that's largely Democratic. But the other reason I would say chill out over this, the Calchi markets have Democrats at 85% chance of winning the House. It's a 50, 50 chance right now that the Democrats are going to take the Senate. So in other words, you can criticize the policy in the rhetoric and you, you can, that's all fair game and everything. But politics is the art of the practical and the possible. And the reality is it is highly, highly unlikely that the Republicans hold the House and the Senate. So the effect of this kind of promise is not going to be that we spend over a trillion dollars. What president Trump is clearly trying to do here. In my read, again, I haven't spoken to him or people close to him about this. But in my read, what is going on here is president Trump knows we are almost certainly going to get blown out of the water in the House. I mean, even though we picked up seven seats and redistricting, we are very likely, if the election were all today, we were going to get blown out of the water in the House. The fact that we were supposed to hold the Senate, now the Senate is in play is very worrisome. And so what president Trump is trying to do is, is he's trying to argue past the sale and he's saying, we got to win the House and the Senate and then I'll give everyone five thousand bucks, knowing that the House is gone. The House is almost certainly gone. And so now the fight is really just to hold the Senate. And this is a way to incentivize people to try to vote in these tighter Senate races to at least hold the Senate. But it will almost certainly not rundown to Republicans holding the full government. You can say, I don't like that. I wish, I wish you were being more blunt and direct about, yeah, okay, all right, welcome to politics. Speaking of, Brandy Gill getting great plotts, JD Vance, same thing, president Trump, same thing. One guy got booed and that would be the Senate Majority Leader, John Thun. Thun is here for the Senate. Where's John? Where's John? John, John is, John is working hard. He's got great opposition. He's got great opposition from the Democrat Schumer and these guys are terrible. Got great opposition. He's working very hard. He's going to, he's going to have, he's going to have great success. You watch, we are going to have great, great success with our Republican senators. And by the way, we have great, we have great Republican senators. David, thank you for being here. Okay. So here, this was not Trump as he sometimes does, throwing some guy into the bus and then they get the booze. Yeah, stupid, you know, ABC or New York Times or CNN. Yeah, boo, yeah, that's right. Boo them. He mentions the Senate Majority Leader who's a Republican and they start booing. He goes, no, don't pull him. He's working hard, but the, the people are furious and they're furious in part because the Senate doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything. And specifically, they're not getting the Save America Act passed, which would secure our elections because John Thun doesn't want to blow up the filibuster because it would lose minority rights if the Republicans do lose the Senate, though the Democrats might blow up the filibuster too. And because he just doesn't have the votes, forget about getting the Democrat votes, he doesn't even have a lot of the Republican votes. What's the big takeaway here? Trump is saying, no, no, Thun's, he's working hard. He's working hard. Don't boom. The big takeaway is something that I've called out for a long time. And I've been criticized for because people think I'm being too agilatory to Trump or something, but I'm not. I'm just observing the political landscape. The GOP is Trump. The party is similar, says Donald Trump. He is the party. He's the Republican that people like. People will also like the other Republicans that Trump likes, but the ones that Trump is kind of fighting with or the ones who seem to have distance from him, they don't like. That has been very effective for President Trump's campaigns, but looking ahead to a post Trump era, what that tells me is either the GOP coalition's going to fall apart or Donald Trump is going to be involved heavily involved in the post Trump era. I'm quite confident. I've got a lot of money. I bet my $5,000 dividend check from the midterms that Trump will be very involved afterward with this. This tells me a lot about 2028. What it tells me about 2028 is what I predicted from the beginning, which is that the real primary is just winning Trump's endorsement. That's the primary. It's not winning Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Florida and the real primary is winning Trump's endorsement. My bet is that whoever Trump picks is going to be the nominee. I don't even think it will be particularly close. That's just the mechanism of how the party works right now. I said something yesterday that I was kind of getting in trouble for on social media. I said in response to Trump's beat the meat bit on James Telefrica, I said Trump is our Napoleon. I will not elaborate, but I will elaborate. I'll elaborate now. He's our Napoleon. In as much as Trump is a child of the revolution and the undoing of the revolution. Trump did not grow up in a Petri dish in the conservative movement wearing tweet and bow ties. He did not feast on the works of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. and John Locke and Montesquieu for that matter. He didn't do that. Trump is a New York real estate guy. A guy who would go to clubs with supermodels. He is a product of the loose, fast, modern kind of 20th century. He was very popular in New York, left wing liberal society. He's one of them. He was the most popular guest on the view. He was the toast of Hollywood. He was in Hollywood movies. He was, he was a child of the liberal revolution. That changed mores and standards and the way we speak. He's vulgar. He's a reality TV star. He's all these things. He's a child of the revolution, like Napoleon. Napoleon could never have risen to where he did without the French revolution. And when he rose, he became the undoing of the revolution. Napoleon crowns himself emperor. If only Trump would crown himself emperor. I don't think he's going to do that. But Napoleon began to reinstitute after the revolution. As a consequence of the revolution, he reimposed a new kind of order on things. That's exactly what Trump is doing. He is the Napoleon. In some ways, another Napoleon comparison for Catholics would be John Paul II. John Paul II was a child of the revolution. He was a child of the Second Vatican Council. But he was also kind of the undoing of it. He was the more conservative version that emerged out of it. But still within the framework of the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that followed, same thing holds for Trump here. He is our Napoleon, which is why, by the way, that is why the Democrats realize they can't beat him at the ballot box. They can't beat him in ordinary ways. They have to ballot banish him to St Helena. They have to send him away. They have to put him on an island somewhere. He can't be contained. They have to kick him off the ballot. They have to try to assassinate him. They have to, they have to contain him differently. Is he's just a different kind of thing? And he's, he has an imperial control if not over the country. It's certainly at least over the Republican Party. Okay. Let's turn to the left for a second because the, the Republicans had their convention, the midterm RNC first time ever. The left had its own convention, which is the socialism in 2026 conference. And the socialists there admit to burning down police stations. So we'll get to that in a second. First, though, turning away from destruction toward building and growing things. I want to tell you about fast growing trees. First, they go to trees.com. Code Noles, Kenneth L. E. S. You have heard me talking about fast growing trees for a while. Well, now they are trees.com. What a great URL is that? The same trusted online nursery with a simpler name, trees.com also has plant experts available seven days a week by email, chat, or phone. They can help you plan your next landscaping project. Choose the right plans. And choose the right plans and the right plans, I should say. You can learn how to care for them with advice tailored to your yard, including personalized video consultations and apparently not
Having a yard is no longer an excuse because trees.com offers lemon avocado olive and fig trees that you can grow right inside your home. How sweet is that? How sweet is that? So I don't need to just keep giving my awesome fast growing trees to Mr. Davies. I can have them myself. All that stands between you and a fresh beautiful lemon is a sunny window and your ability to keep your neighbor away from the delivery. There are live and thrive guarantee promises that your plants arrive happy and healthy. No green thumb required. Just quality plants you can count on. Right now they have great deals on planting essentials up to half off on select plants. Listeners to our show get 20% off their purchase when using code Noles. Can it be well as a check out? That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at trees.com using code Noles. Check out trees.com code Noles. As the perfect time to plant let's grow together use Noles to save today. Offers valid for limited time terms and conditions may apply. Socialism 2026. The pictures from the conference are exactly what you would expect. They're still wearing their face masks. The face masks by the way have a dual significance. On the one hand it's this signify that they are weak because they idolize weakness on the left. They idolize vulnerability. They idolize aberrance and illness. Mental illness, physical illness. So they literally symbolize that. That's the literal interpretation of the mask. But there's also a threatening kind of signification which is that they wear the masks to hide themselves because they are much, much more violent than the right and they are much more likely to endorse political violence. They endorse political violence at this conference. So the dual signification of the mask is one, it's to protect me from you, from this imaginary violence of your bacteria because you're so toxic you other people. But also it's to protect me from the consequences of my threat to you. They wear the masks like the secular cafe in order to threaten people because they do commit violence. Here's one DSA speaker threatening violence and describing the way that they all burn down police stations. When you abolish the police you do burn down police stations, I imagine, indeed we have. But some people have allegedly feminism is never needed to know what a woman is in order to proceed and that's just how it is. And she says as freaks, as fagots and trannies, as records and miserable wrecks, as addicts and crazies, we need a junky communism. Now for over a decade I've been part of sort of transgender materialist and anti-work trans Marxist effort in revolutionary feminism in the West that theorizes social reproduction and trans social reproduction and the positive supercession of capitalist care in an abolitionist frame. Just it's MATlibs. These are literally MATlibs. They are MATlibs. But she's just words. It's like Hamlet says when he's fainting madness, his speech is not significant. It's just words, words, words. She's just the trans disabled Marxist materialist, it's just words jumbled together. We can all look at this and say, whoa, this kind of, not only does she sound crazy, but she's admitting to burning down police stations. She goes, we should burn down police stations. We have burned down police stations. She realizes she's admitting to a crime. She goes allegedly, we've burned down police stations, whatever. So we say, okay, these guys are total freaks, right? That's Talleriko. That's AOC. That's Mamdani. I'm not being hyperbolic. I'm not being needlessly provocative. What's the difference between a James Talleriko and a Mamdani and that lady? This is just their more open ideological conference to explain what their active politicians are doing. Ask James Talleriko, hey, do you disavow the Socialism 2026 conference? Ask AOC, ask Mamdani. They won't. It's like, hey, do you disavow woke one? They'll say, yeah, I disavow. You say, get specific. What do you disavow? They won't tell you. Oh, yeah, no, that conference. There were many provocative things that, okay, what do you disagree with? Do we not need to abolish the police? Do we not need to reduce the police? Let criminals out of prison? Do we not need? They won't tell you. The comparison, I want to be very precise here. The comparison is not between the Socialism 2026 event and the RNC necessarily. It's like the difference between Socialism 2026 and the Heritage Foundation or the Claremont Institute or any number of right-wing think tanks. Yeah, you speak a little differently at the think tank than you do at the RNC. You speak a little differently with policy wonks about ideas than you do to the public at a campaign speech. But they're directionally aligned. They're complimentary, the think tanks and the campaign conventions. Those are complimentary institutions. If you go to a Heritage Foundation conference or Claremont Institute conference, you'll basically figure out what I think or Trump thinks or JD Vance thinks or Marco Rubio thinks or you'll basically figure that out. They might use different language. It might be more in the weeds. It might be a little more provocative, but that's it. That's what we believe. Same thing here. You can't have a Democrat party that is completely dominated by Socialists where the Socialists are now more popular than the rank and file members of Congress and then say, well, we have nothing to do with the Socialism Conference. They're the same thing. Now, speaking of these people, she mentions the trannies and all sorts of nasty names for homosexuals. Colleges are super gay and super violent, like super duper so. You don't need to take my word for it. There's a new study app. Here we are. We have it. Over 20% of undergraduates at a representative sample of all colleges identify as LGBT. One in five. We used to joke because I went to a pretty homosexual university. My alma mater is sort of infamously light in the loafers. We used to joke that it was one and four maybe more, but that was obviously an extremely exaggerated number. Now, it's not. Now, that's almost the number of LGBT identifying people at all American universities. By the way, when you look at the 15 gayest universities, the numbers get insane. Harvey Mudd College 43% identify as LGBT. The Barnard College, it's almost 50%. Skidmore about 50%. Oberlin 62%. Smith College, which used to be one of the sister schools to something like the men would go to the Ivy League schools and the women would go to like Smith and Bass or Smith 76.6% not Holyoke 86.1%. That is statistically the most lesbian place on earth. I'm impressed my alma mater did not make it on to the gayest list. That's actually that's kind of a white pill, but this is pretty weird, right? This is a survey that was done by the foundation for individual rights and expression, which used to be called the foundation for individual rights and education. Fire does a lot of great work. They found that the colleges are super gay. Also, let's get to the violence part. 30% of students say that using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, which, again, we've all experienced this. Charlie experienced it the most extreme way. A lot of other conservatives have experienced that. 69% of students say shouting down a speaker on campus is acceptable. So what does this mean? The violence thing is representative of the young left and really the whole left broadly. But what does it mean about the LGBT stuff? Why are these colleges so gay? Well, it can mean as far as I can see one of three things. It can mean that there's something in the campus water. There's just something in the water in the water fountains that just turns you gay, or it can mean that sexual identity is malleable. That second one is related to the first one. It doesn't mean that there's literally like a physical environmental factor on the campus, but it could mean that LGBT identity and inclination is a social contagion. But it's not just you're born this way and you can't change it. Or the third thing is that the schools are only attracting people who are into weird sex stuff. So let's lump those first two together. The first two basically come down to, we were told sexual identity is immutable, but it's not. You can actually cheat you can actually be like a normal lady who goes to college and becomes a lesbian and we've probably all met people like that. There's that. Or it's that the colleges are only attracting people who are into radical sexual ideologies and identities. Either way, that's very bad for the LGBT movement. Either way, that's very bad for the argument of the left. If the colleges are only appealing to people who are into weird sex stuff, then clearly we need to reform the colleges, because the whole point of the college, the whole point of education, is to discipline your will, to train your intellect, but also discipline your will so that you are normal and you make sense of your freedom and you do things that are pro-social and in accord with right reason and natural law. So if the colleges are only attracting people who don't do that, something's going wrong with the college. But on the first point, if sexual identity is malleable, then the whole LGBTQ movement goes out the window, because the whole thing is predicated on the idea that you're born this way, and you can't change it, and that's why society needs to accommodate these things, up to and including letting men beat up girls in sports and go into the women's bathroom. Pretty, there's a devastating study for the LGBT movement. Now it doesn't really matter, because they don't engage in a debate. I think we've learned that over the last year. The left isn't all that interest in debate. This is why the LGBT identity does tend to
respond with an increase in support for violence and on the left broadly, which is in favor of both of those things, because they say, well, look, we, yeah, we don't have an argument for this. Our arguments don't make any sense, but shut up or we'll kill you, as what they're saying. That's what they said. There were people protesting Charlie's memorial last night at the campus where a leftist murdered him. There were people protesting. When I drove out of that venue, the driver, the security team said, hey, we're going to go a different way. We're going to do it this way because there are protesters. We want to keep everybody safe. Said they're protesting a memorial for the nice guy who was debating openly that their ilk murdered what? What? Okay. There's so much more I want to get to. We just don't have a ton of time for it. The one thing I do want to get to before the mailbag, though, is the women on Oprah, the women on Oprah, who are reacting to the Lindsey Clancy case. This is, maybe this is the apotheosis, this is the culmination of the hysteria among crazy women over the Lindsey Clancy trial. The women on the Oprah show are discussing the Lindsey Clancy trial and they're not really getting down to, is she guilty? Is she culpable? Is she not guilty because of temporary psychosis and what should the punishment be? Should there be mistrial? And they're not getting into that. The heart of the debate was, if white women get to murder their kids, shouldn't black women have that right, too? And the other thing that I would just be remiss to not say is, I hope this never happens again. We know statistically it really will. It will. I want us to have the same passion for people who don't look like Lindsey, who don't have her same access. Yeah. Who don't have her same access, an education, her melanin, her privilege, there are women of color sitting around this country in prisons for the same thing that we've never heard of. And I just want to remind us to have the pink shirts and the energy for them as well. I'm so pro woman, I'm so pro, I am the most pro woman man in politics. I am. I love the ladies. I love them. This is hard for me. This is making it hard. It's not, this is, this is impairing my general outlook on women. I'm going to try not to let that happen, but it's that your conclusion from the Lindsey Clancy case is that we need to make sure the next time a woman murders her kids in cold blood that if the woman is black, she also gets away with it. First of all, this is statistically ignorant because black women are more likely to murder their kids than white women in through abortion. This has been one of the focuses of the pro life movement that many of us have been involved in for a long time is specifically making sure that black women do not murder their kids because black women murder their kids at higher rates than other kinds of women. There's that famous statistic that the majority of pregnant black women in New York murder their kids at the most dangerous place for a black person in New York City is in his mother's womb. Okay, this is a big, big problem. It's a big problem for all women in all of society, but specifically for black people. And then this woman's conclusion is, yeah, but shouldn't we get to murder the kids outside the womb, just like Lindsey Clancy was this incineration that Lindsey Clancy was led off the hook because she's a white woman, which I don't really see, you know, I don't think white women, now okay, now in defense of white women, white women are one of the only groups in society that you are kind of encouraged to make fun of. The left hates white women because of the racial aspect because they don't like white people, but then the right feels comfortable attacking white women, calling them awfuls, you know, affluent white female liberals and, you know, poking fun at them all the time, calling them carons. The right feels emboldened to do that because then at least they can't be called racist. So white women actually do, they don't get as much black as the white men, but they do get a little bit of black. The idea that Lindsey Clancy, the courts went softer on her because she's a white woman I think is implausible to begin with, but my conclusion from the Lindsey Clancy case is not that we need to make sure that women of all races can murder their kids. My conclusion is, women need to not murder their kids and we need to punish them when they do. And you're changing feelings and a drug or two that you're on are not an excuse to get away with murdering your kid. They're calling for, the Oprah show is calling for affirmative action for child murder. That's where we're at. Not, okay, hey, you know, I know I'm running late on the mail back, I don't care. It's 9/11 and it's the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and I'm a New Yorker and I, you know, when I was a kid, I was in sixth grade when it happened. I had schoolmates who lost a parent in it, you know, when my classmates lost, lost her father in 9/11. My mother worked in the city. I grew up in the suburbs. She saw the tower fall, the first tower fall from a train platform in New York. So I remember very vividly and there's this meme that shows up. Maybe we'll add it in post. I didn't pull it. There's this meme that shows up and it's this picture, you know, kind of grainy analog camera footage of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan. That says the country you grew up in no longer exists. And it was a truly traumatic event. It, the '90s, everyone was pretty rich and it was super peaceful. We had the Cold War, peace dividend, we were on top of the world, we were told history was over. And then when 9/11 happened, it did change things. It changed how you go to the airports famously. But it destroyed the economy, a lot of people lost a lot in that. If you were in or around New York or Washington DC, you very likely knew, my mother lost a friend in 9/11, like you knew people who, and then, and then afterward there was the cleanup and thousands of people became sick because of the chemicals at the site. So then you also knew people who died just from the cleanup and it was extremely traumatic and it was the real threat, the first real threat to American imperial hegemony in a long time. So yes, in that way the world totally changed. But I was thinking about this yesterday coming back from Charlie's event. I think some of our nostalgia over the '90s, pre-9/11, I think some of that is precisely that. It's nostalgia, it's history after a few drinks. Because I think when we look at pictures of the twin towers and we think about what we miss, what we long for, yeah, people were richer and we felt safer and America was on top of the world. That all is true. But I think a lot of what you miss is that like back when the twin towers were standing, your grandma was alive, you know, back when the twin towers were standing, you were younger. And I think, I think what you're pining for was it to quote the eagles, it's not that, it's not that thing that you're longing for, it's just your long lost youth. Because when you think about the '90s, yes, America was materially prosperous and we had this big dot com bubble and it was, you know, once in a century and also divorce was it like record highs. Also we talk about the Lindsey Clancy trial. Also we let a guy off the hook for murdering his wife just because he was black and we had race riots. Also abortion was it at massive highs. Also we couldn't even conduct a presidential election in the year 2000 country was fraying over that. So we impeached the president and we also, there was a lot of bad stuff. I don't know, it wasn't all that great. And to just look back and say, I've only, you know, 9/11 hadn't happened, we could, we'd be living in paradise. It's just not true. You know, it's not true at any point in history. When you, when you look back and you say, if only we could unwind the clock, X number of years, there is no reason to believe that if you could do that and then set the clock going again, that we wouldn't end up in exactly the same place. It's important as, as we, we should mourn for the dead today and we should mourn for this era that in some ways was better than the era that we live in, but we shouldn't get nostalgic about it. We should, we should identify the real victims. We should identify the real enemies. We should be clear about America's geopolitical position. We should be clear about the hard work that needs to be done. But don't only look backward, you know, you've got to, you've got to look forward. Life in some ways has improved since the 1990s. Believe it or not, it actually has improved in some ways and in some ways it's gotten worse. And in any case, that was their fight. And, and that time no longer exists and there is no time machine. But that country does exist, bringing us all the way back to the top of the show and what we were hearing from JD Vance and other people at the RNC. You know, this is our country and it is the same country. And we move on. And we, we have to deal with the sufferings of this fallen world, violence and death and decay and we have to do our part in our time, which is not 1995 and it's not 2002. It's 2026. We have to do what we can in our time to win the fight. And we, we might even look back at some point in the future, hard to believe and say that these were the good old days. And we need to, to prevent the bad things that could occur and we need to try to build our country and make it better. It's part of our inheritance, which we, we didn't build ourselves. We received it as a gift and we owe it to our posterity to pass it on such that the country that we grew up in actually can endure for generations. Okay, imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new grippy setting mist from Maybelline, New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours with flexible all-day comfy grip. No tightness.
I was sticking as no residue. Just plummed, dewy, hydrated skin. That still feels like your skin. Try new groupie setting mist from Mavily, New York. - Maybe it's Mavilyin'. - Let's get to the mailbag if we have even 30 seconds left. My favorite comment, I didn't even pick it. The producer's picked it. It's from Overtoast. Says, "Imagine the one real Nigerian prince who actually did want to give out his money, but kept getting called a scammer. I know." And the poor people who missed it. Okay, our mailbag is sponsored by PureTruck at PureTruck.com/NolesKnowWLES. Today, take it away. - Hey, Michael. "Is it possible for a state to split into multiple states?" So, California's huge. Is it possible to split it up into three states, five states, something of that nature? How would it be done? Is it possible with love to know what you think? Sincerely, speechless controlling words, controlling minds. - Nice, nice. Technically, it could be done, but practically, it cannot be done. No. This time, we were having these debates over splitting up states and territories was in the lead up to the Cold War. Sorry, a lead up to the Civil War. So, only in times of great crisis would that happen. Otherwise, it will not happen 'cause the states don't want to give up their power and their tax bases. And the reason it would be split up is not just 'cause it's big territory. California's been big for a very long time. California came into the Union right and the lead up to the Civil War. The thing that would split it up would be politics, would be ideological disagreements, which split across geographic areas, and which would probably be met with much the same response as ideological disagreements in the Civil War, namely, they would be crushed by the people who are in power. So, no, it's not gonna happen. Next question. - Hello, Mr. Noles. This did not comply RN here. As my user name suggests, I only have a career because of the daily wire in their lawsuit, so thank you very much. I wanted to bring up a different perspective on the Lindsay Clancy case. You suggested that women who don't think that, she's guilty, thinks that the husband did it are somewhat flawed in their reasoning. I suggest completely the opposite. My wife has thought that perhaps the husband did it and is curious about that, but in talking to her, I think this is more due to her nature as a wife and mother. She just cannot fathom that a wife and mother of three children, as she also has three children, could do ever do this to her children. It's just something she cannot comprehend. And I think this is a way for many women to cope with the idea that no, a wife and mother could never do this so it must be the husband. And I think that's almost a healthy thing and a good thing that my wife believes that, because I don't want her to be able to fathom that a wife and mother could kill her three children. So, interested to hear your thoughts on that. - Yeah, well, I think you're putting a claim in my mouth is not totally there, which is that my criticism of the pro-Clancy ladies is focused on the ones who think that the husband did it. I mean, I think that's absurd. I don't think that's suggested by the evidence at all. So, there's no reason to believe the husband did it at all. So, I think they're just wrong or delusional and maybe they're delusional for the reasons that you're pointing out here. But my bigger issue is with the women who acknowledge that Lindsey Clancy killed her kids but want her to get off the hook. They say, well, it wasn't really her fault. She really, she wasn't, it's not the same person like the lawyer said. She, oh, she just, she had momentary psychosis. She, oh, she took a couple of drugs she shouldn't have taken or whatever, that's my issue with those women who seem to conclude that women just cannot be responsible for the things that they do because they are not rational creatures and they're purely emotional, which is like, that is the argument to exclude women from politics and public life. So, it's kind of ironic that it's the most feminist women who are making those claims right now when they're convenient for Lindsey Clancy. That's really my issue. Yeah, I think the, the women who say she didn't even do it. I mean, those women are delusional and coping and because, I mean, not even the Lindsey Clancy defense team are used at. That's like, that's just internet, conspiracy, podcast, true crime nonsense. It's more to the, to the women who say, yeah, okay, all right. Yeah, Lindsey Clancy did it, but she didn't really do it because she can't, and if she did do it, you know, when it was the line, one of these people said, women, they just, you know, heaven forbid that a mother makes a mistake that she just doesn't get it perfect. That women fail sometimes. Like, yeah, well, there's, there's like burning the roast and there's murdering all your kids. Those are different degrees of failure. And if you do the former, I'm not gonna throw it against the wall, but if you do the latter, you should probably be in prison or executed. Okay, on that happy conclusion. 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 Noles Canada VLAS. So check it for two months free on all annual plans. (triumphant music) Every significant movement in history started with protesting. - No, of course. Uncle Tom. - This is our generation civil rights. - I have no idea what the protest is about. - Bingo. - Given the current climate, should a figure as polarizing as place sounders even be allowed on campus. - Okay, you hear me, okay. - Daughters is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. - This is the decision I cannot find. - Islam will conquer the West. (triumphant music) - Some more than you can. (triumphant music) - Are we paying attention? (triumphant music) - They've taken over the building, they're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. (triumphant music) - I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. - We cannot run and hide. - Muhammad is the messenger of God. (triumphant music) - There is no God but Allah. - What do you say? - We turn those vessel bees into a fine red mist. (triumphant music) - As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. - They call that leapfrog. - Stretch them out when they listen. (triumphant music) - You need a course in safe weapons handling. (triumphant music) (triumphant music) - Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours with flexible all day comfy grip. Just plump, dewey hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new grippy setting mist from Maybelline, New York. - Maybe it's Maybelline.
PodcastTranscript AI