Okay, fellas. Since Hollywood can't do anything right anymore, we did their job for them. The Daily Wire's newest movie is an ode to the great funny action films of the 80s and 90s, good guys win, bad guys lose. No one apologizes for it. Check out Run Hyde Fight Infidels now streaming only on the daily wire. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff America's favorite small business lender. There were 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at Cardiff.co/noles. After months of pressure, some Democrats are finally trying to distance themselves from left-wing thought leader Hassan Piker, sort of kind of. And not for the reasons you think. We will continue to struggle session the Piker Party then, the lone juror in the Lindsey Clancy case and even Patrick Clancy himself, break their silence and speak out in two new interviews, which are anthropologically and even theologically illuminating and Ed Sheeran fires Macklemore from his tour for blabbing about Israel and Palestine. And somehow AOC is getting involved in the controversy. I'm Michael Nolesus, the Michael Noles show. Welcome back to the show. Run Hyde Fight Infidels is out now. Go to dailywire.com/subscribe. It is taking over the internet. You have seen the memes. You have maybe participated in the memes. There's one going around where it's a jihadi kicking a homosexual off a rooftop. That's kind of the main meme that's going around. Just wait till you see what happens five seconds later. It's pretty crazy. Then turning from more over the top farcical comedy movies with real political reality to it toward beauty and documentaries. I am so excited to tell you about heaven and stone and glass. There's a lot more to say first. They'll go to heaven and stoneglass.com/group. Millions of people travel to Europe every year and do something rather interesting. They walk past plenty of perfectly functional modern buildings and they stand in line to enter an 800-year-old Catholic cathedral. Many of those people are not Catholics. Some are not religious at all. Yet they walk into Notre Dame or Charter. They look up. They lower their voices almost instinctively and they recognize this place is different. I just did that recently because I was working on a secret project in Europe. Well, that's also the subject of Bishop Robert Barren's new film, Heaven and Stone and Glass. Bishop Barren takes you through five of France's great Gothic cathedrals. Charter, Notre Dame, Ron, Amien, Amien. My French is kind of weak, Sandini, to reveal the theology that these buildings have been proclaiming for centuries. Because none of it is accidental. The soaring stone, the stained glass, the sacred images, the light. These buildings are making an argument about God without saying a word. It's a really great Bishop Barren also wrote a book about this. A really handsome guy narrated the audiobook. I strongly encourage you to check that out and definitely check out the movie, whether you're a believer or a skeptic if you've ever stood before something truly beautiful, felt it was pointy to something beyond itself. This film is for you. It's coming to more than 1,000 theaters nationwide. September 20th and 23rd tickets are on sale now. Heaven and Stone and Glass.com. Head on over. Heaven and Stone and Glass.com for parish and larger group tickets. Go to Heaven and Stone and Glass.com/group. Democrats are finally trying to distance themselves from Hassan Piker, kind of sort of. I have said for weeks now, maybe months at this point, I said, keep up the Hassan Piker pressure. The Hassan Piker pressure is great. It is forcing the Democrats into an impossible situation because Hassan Piker is ballot box poison on the one hand. He repels anyone who's even remotely normal, but he also perfectly represents the heart of the left wing coalition and the Democrat party. So they can't really disavow him, but they also can embrace him. He's a perfect wedge. I said, keep up the pressure on Hassan Piker. Everyone has been doing that. I'm certainly not the only person, I think, who's who's concluded that that's a great tactic. And the Democrats are finally after months of squirming. They're finally responding. They are doing their very best to wriggle out of their Piker problem. I said that America is the top dog in terrorism. Yes. Do you think America then is worse than Al Qaeda? Pound for pound as far as the number of deaths. Yes, we've caused tremendous terror all around the world. Hassan Piker told Axios that America is pound for pound worse than Al Qaeda. I mean, he's wrong. He's been on the camp. He's wrong. Senator Hassan Piker just told Axios that he thinks the United States is pound for pound worse than Al Qaeda. Do Democrats, especially, if you all say they'd need to do more to distance themselves? I don't know this guy, but obviously, that's a sense that makes no sense. How Turkish men speak with Forkid Tung? I'm interpreting Elizabeth Warren into her native language, of course. But you can see she laughs, she dismisses, ho ho ho ho. You know underneath that facade, there is a real anxiety there. It's the anxiety of the whole Democrat party, which is shoot. I cannot be seen to agree with this person. But I can't totally diss this person because this person represents a huge part of the Democrat base. He's the most popular left-wing streamer. He is the closest thing that the Democrats have to do with all leader right now. So what is Elizabeth Warren doing? She just kind of minimizes the system. Oh, I don't know that person. You don't know that person. Really? You don't know about Hassan Piker because he's all anybody's been asking you about for weeks now. Oh, but that sentence, that statement, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. What was the statement statement was, America's worse than Al Qaeda. America deserves 9/11. It's all the kind of violent anti-American rhetoric that you've been hearing from Piker in really explicit evocative terms. You've heard the same kind of anti-American rhetoric from every mainstream Democrat. Right down to Barack Obama saying, I want to fundamentally transform this country. When you say I want to fundamentally transform the country, your implication is the country is terrible. This is an awful country. That's why you got to change it. All these leftists who say America was founded in oppression, in slavery, in patriarchy, in white supremacy. There's structural racism. There's systemic oppression even to this day. They're all saying exactly the same thing as Hassan Piker. Hassan Piker, to his credit just has the honesty to go all the way and say, yeah, America deserves 9/11, we're worse than Al Qaeda. I wipe myself with the American flag and we should kill the Republicans. That is implied by all the mainstream Democrat politicians. When you actually get down to principle, there's no disagreement between them. It's just a difference in degree. It's a difference in the provocation of the rhetoric. A representative Debbie Dingell, what a name? From Michigan, Michigan, a real hotspot here because there's this highly contested Senate race with Abdul-El-Sahed versus Mike Rogers, one where Abdul-El-Sahed begged Hassan Piker to campaign with him before that became politically inconvenient. Debbie Dingell and Michigan saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. Can we please knock it off with the Piker questions? Okay. I want to say this at this point. I'm so sick of talking about Hassan Piker and I want Hassan Piker to go away. I don't know why he had to do that interview. Everything he said in that interview is, look, the bombing of the school in Iran was horrific. We shouldn't be in the war in Iran. We continued to vote for it. This election is about to adult-El-Sahed, not Hassan Piker. I want, when he is said, I think Israel's got a right to insist quite frankly, the things he has said about women are horrific. I don't understand. I keep telling people someone explained to me why he has so many followers. But he is not, if he wants to see Abdul-El-Sahed elected stock going on television. Abdul has got to make it clear that he does not agree with the things that he has said. Has he made that clear? I don't think so. Have you made that clear, either? I don't think so. So she gets this question and what does she say? She says, I'm so sick of talking about Hassan Piker. Stop asking me about Hassan Piker. Stop it. So she's saying, this is very inconvenient. For me, she's very defensive on this. Why is she so defensive? If someone came up to me and said, Michael, David Duke said such and such and such. How do you respond? I say, I don't care what David Duke says. David Duke doesn't represent me. What do I care what he says? I'm not going to get defensive. I'm not going to get my blood up. I'm not going to spike my cortisol. It's Mr. Klevekiller would observe. I say, oh, yeah. Well, I don't know. Whatever you say. I don't care. Go talk to him. The reason she's getting defensive is because she knows that Hassan Piker is the day facto leader of the Democrat party that Hassan Piker is the thought leader of the American left. And she admits it, by the way, in the same breath. She says the things, the things that Hassan Piker said are so horribly, if I mean, I guess he has a point on the bombing in Iran. She can't even get the sentence out. She says, oh, this is Hassan Piker. I want nothing to do with him. I don't agree with him about it. I mean, actually, I do kind of agree with him. You know, he actually makes a pretty good point. But hold on. Sorry. I didn't mean to say that. No, no, no, no. We need to. He needs to stop talking because why? Because this election is about Abdul Al-Sahid, not Hassan Piker. Oh, yeah. Well, five minutes ago, Abdul Al-Sahid begged Hassan Piker to come campaign with him. Hassan Piker has appeared with Abdul Al-Sahid multiple times. So if you say it's about Abdul-Sahid, okay, great. I have a question about Abdul-Sahid. Why is he begging Hassan Piker to campaign with him? It's not just Abdul-Sahid. It's Zoran Mamdani. It's AOC. It's Rashida to leave. It's Ilhan Omar. It's Rokana. Rokana, who is a very mainstream Democrat.
the list goes on and on and on and on and we're talking about dozens of prominent Democrat politicians. So you can't just say it's some fringe guy on the left. And then she realizes, shoot, I meant to attack his rhetoric, Hassan Pikers. And then I accidentally found myself agreeing with his rhetoric in the same breath on the same point. Hassan Pikers says, America's worse in al-Qaeda because America bombed a school in Iran. Now, America didn't target the school in Iran, America didn't target civilians. Terrorism is when you target civilians to achieve a political end, which is what al-Qaeda explicitly does. What America did in Iran and what every country does in every war is sometimes they accidentally kill civilians when they're targeting militants. It's very sad, but it's totally different from terrorism. Not according to Debbie Dingell, not according to the Democrats, she goes, no, no, that specific point that Hassan Pikers made, it's so offensive. I mean, he's kind of right, but I mean, it's a bad Abdul-Sahed who loves Hassan Pikers. I mean, and she realizes she has to criticize some of his actual rhetoric. So what does she do? She says, it's awful that he says he wipes himself with the American flag. Does she say? It's awful that he says we should murder Republican senators. It's awful that he personally fantasized about murdering Charlie Kirk before one of his fellow travelers actually did it. No. She doesn't say any of that. You know what she says? She goes, he's not feminist enough. Seriously? Seriously? That's your criticism? That's. Oh, the things he said about women, hold on. Yeah. Okay. He said bad things about women. He tortured his dog. I'm more interested in what he's said about America. And you seem to agree with what he's said about America. In this very interview, lady, oh yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, I think, yeah, Israel has a right to exist. In other words, her criticism of his rhetoric is he's a little bit too genocide-y, a little touch heavy on the genocide rhetoric, and he's not sufficiently feminist, but really I just wish he would go away because he's inconvenient. The Democrats opposition to Piker right now is purely tactical. How does she conclude this whole diatribe? She says, if he wants to see Abdul Al-Sahead elected to the Senate, he needs to shut his trap. Not ultimately, by the end of this interview, she's not really saying I disagree with the Sun Piker. She's not persuasively saying that. She's not really saying that he's wrong. She's not really saying that Abdul Al-Sahead disagrees with him. She's trying to say that, but it's not persuasive because we know that Abdul Al-Sahead does agree with the Sun Piker. He said it many times. What she says is he needs to shut his trap because otherwise voters are going to figure out what we really think and then Abdul is going to lose. It's purely a tactical frustration, which means the Republicans must, must keep up the struggling. Okay. Speaking of speaking out, the holdout juror in the Lindsey Clancy case is finally speaking out after weeks of reporting on his identity after he was docked, after his family has been harassed, after all sorts of attacks on his character. We'll get to that. Also, Lindsey Clancy's husband is speaking out to Patrick Clancy on the newly revamped 60 minutes with Ross Douthett. We'll get to all of that first, though. I want to tell you about Catholic Match. There's a lot more to say. First, they'll go to CatholicMatch.com. If you're a single Catholic, there's a particular moment that eventually occurs. You look around your parish and you think, "I know all of these people. Not necessarily well, but well enough to know that we're going to need to expand the search radius." That's basically the problem that Catholic Match solves. It's the largest Catholic dating platform in the world, built specifically for Catholics who are serious about their faith and serious about marriage. So instead of hoping the future misses or mister happens to appear in the Pew three rows ahead of you next Sunday, you can actually meet Catholics outside of your immediate circle. And you're starting with the important things already on the table. Faith, Mass, the sacraments, family, what you are actually looking for. Because your future spouse may not attend your parish, they may not live 10 minutes away, they may not already know your entire Catholic friend group, perhaps that's a good thing, depending on your friend group. Create a profile for free and get started at CatholicMatch.com as CatholicMatch.com. Go make the introduction. Catholic Match is free to download on the Apple App Store and Google Play. It is free to create a profile. Get moving. Dating is absolutely brutal these days. So use the tools that can help you do it the right way, CatholicMatch.com. Michael P. Desronville, 48 years old. He is the lone juror who told those crazy ladies that they couldn't let Lindsey Clancy off the hook. We've heard all sorts of things about him. He's a fan of he's a man. The women went nuts over that. Then they found that he is a black man that really irritated the libs, that anchor on CBS. She was shocked. She was horrified. She was puking and screaming when she found out she says, "Wait, hold on. You're telling me the hold that juror was a black man? Hold on. Wow. Wait. Wait. Then we find out he's apparently a devout Catholic. He's a Haitian immigrant. That's kind of funny. He did also confounds. The left and the right's reaction to this thing. Anyway, Michael Desronville is responding to specific accusations. One of them was that you saw this in some of the reporting coming from the female jurors that he's just a dumb idiot. He's just a stupid black man who didn't understand the instructions from the judge. That was the accusation that was made against him. The judge said that he had to believe that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He expressed to us that he had reasonable doubts about her guilt, but he voted guilty anyway. This dumb guy, this dumb man, black man with his religion, ignoring the law and the instructions. He just responded to that. He said, they're just making that up. He said in an interview with News Nation, I did not have any doubts as I tried to explain different possible theories during the liberation. I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present. I love his explanation. He goes, yeah, it's so weird. I was in this room filled with 10 crazy women, particularly insane women. As I try to speak, they kept cutting me off. Isn't that so strange? It's shocking, right? Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was proof enough that she, Lindsey Clancy, knew exactly what she was doing in planned. In other words, he followed the judges' instructions to a T. His female jurors, by the way, did not. His female jurors, when they were harranging him when they were trying to struggle session Michael D'Sronville, they were violating the judges' instructions. They were violating jury procedure. They were bringing in supposed evidence from nurses, for instance, who were on the jury that was not presented in the court. And not allowed to consider that when you're deliberating as a juror. So they were the ones who were breaking the judges' instructions. They were the ones who were violating the procedures. Not this guy, this lone guy who stood up against these lunatics in favor of justice. Really, really good stuff. In a world of Lindsey Clancy's, we all endeavor to be that Catholic Haitian white guy. We should all, that is something to aim for. Really good stuff. I'm almost ready to call for him to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Really good stuff. I'm glad he can clear the record as their people are really, really attacking his character. Now, speaking of the Clancy case, shocking stuff, Patrick Clancy, the husband of Lindsey Clancy, is speaking out now. This is a guy who is endured, basically, the worst thing you can possibly imagine. Maybe the single worst thing you can possibly even fathom. He is sitting down on 60 minutes with Rust out that the interview is not out yet. I guess it'll come out this Sunday, Ross, who was the conservative at the New York Times and a very thoughtful conservative columnist, Ross left the New York Times to take this gig at 60 minutes, and so this is the revamping, the big launch and the big launch is with Patrick Clancy. They've released little 10-second snippets of the interview. Here's the one that's going most viral. I talked to them. What do you say? Help me all the time. Who is them here? Them is his children. Ross is asking, you know, tell me about how you think about your kids now after they were brutally murdered by their mother, and he says, "I talk to them all the time." Now, this is a coping mechanism that a lot of people do when a loved one dies. Is they, they were talking to these people, and then when they're gone, whether you talk about your mother or your grandmother or especially your little kids, they're gone suddenly unexpectedly, and it's very natural to keep trying to talk to them. Says, "I talk to them all the time." What do you say? This is the part that is most illuminating. He says, "I ask them to help me." So there are two reactions to this online. One of them is this poor guy. The good reaction online is this poor guy. This guy has clearly been through about the worst trauma you can imagine. He clearly is showing signs of PTSD, and he's coping anyway he can. You know the other reaction online? The other reaction online is he's not reacting the way I want him to react. He's a sociopath. He maybe he did it. This is an argument that some of Lindsey Clancy's insane supporters have been promoting. Even though Lindsey Clancy herself does not promote that, even though Lindsey Clancy's lawyer does not promote that, Lindsey Clancy and Lindsey Clancy's lawyer both admit she murdered those children, but some of her insane supporters among the SSRI set of the lunatic ladies on the internet. They're saying, "No, no, Lindsey, no, no, no, you don't know. You don't understand what happened. It was actually the husband." So you were seeing a day looge of vicious attacks on Patrick Clancy. He's not grieving in the right way. He's not grieving the way that I would expect him to grieve. He's not grieving in a way that I approve of. This is the same sort of thing you see on the internet with Eric Kirk after the murder of her husband that you see with a lot of people that reveal something.
personal, some that give a lot of vulnerability and that is always exploited on the internet. One tactical point that I would make is in as much as it is possible, with big public events sometimes it's not possible. But in as much as it is not possible, I'm very much of the old school. We live in a very confessional age. We live in an age where everything that was once private is now being made public, mothers are filming, giving breakfast to their kids all the time, they're turning their private home life into some kind of reality TV show on Instagram. People, men are crying in public. People just reveal a lot about themselves. They make personal confessions to everybody. They do it in public. I think that's a bad idea. I'm of the old school. I am of the Tony soprano ilk, you know, whatever happened to guys like Gary Cooper. I think that you need to keep these, a lot of these things to yourself. In a case like Lindsey Clancy or Erica Kirk or any of these big public murder cases, your public figures. So you're kind of limited with what you can do. But for the people who are private, the reactions to these cases, to a grieving widow or to a grieving father in this case, the reactions of people online reveal one that the imagination man's heart is evil from his very youth as we, I'm not the first to observe it. But two, there's a great deal of power in playing things a little closer to the best. I think that's tactically just a better idea in as much as you can because people will tear apart anyone online, including a guy like Patrick Clancy, who is just one of the most victimized people you've ever seen in your life. But before we move on from him, I do want to get to the theological point because those are the two reactions. All this poor guy, he's coping, he's imagining himself talking to his kids. That's kind of, he's asking them for help, that's kind of weird. Or he's a vicious psychic sociopath and I'm team Lindsey and we need to free the woman who killed her children. There is a third observation here though, which is that what Patrick Clancy is saying specifically is perfectly in keeping with the Christian tradition. This is a profound theological insight. As far as I can tell from the reporting, Patrick Clancy's kids were baptized. This is the one consolation in the whole case. They were baptized and they were below the age of reason. So according to traditional Christian teaching, those kids are in heaven. We can know with certainty that they are in heaven because the stain of original sin was washed away in the waters of baptism and they were not yet old enough to incur personal sin. Because a three-year-old can't incur personal sin because a three-year-old does not have sufficiently developed faculties of reason and discipline. So the traditional Christian teaching, I know, you know, people's mileage may vary here with their own theological views. But the traditional teaching, the teaching that is still held by the Catholic Church and by the Eastern Orthodox Church and by the more traditional forms of Protestantism is that we're born with original sin, baptism washes that away. We can't know with certainty where adults go when they die, whether they are damned or whether they receive eternal glory. That's up to God, only God judges beyond, you know, we can know, I guess, in certain limited cases of the canonized saints and there's a period of pergation, which comes from the Paul's letter to the Corinthians and the fires of purgatory and whatever. We don't need to get into some deep theological conversation about all of those different disagreements. At the very basic level, however, Christians have agreed, basically unanimously for all of history, that little kids who die after baptism for the age of reason, they go straight up to heaven. And the other thing that Christians have agreed about for basically all of history and it's basically all of the Christians, is that we can pray to the saints and ask for their help. But in the book of the Apocalypse, in the book of Revelation, the saints are holding buckets and the buckets are filled with the prayers of the saints. But who are the saints praying for? They're not praying for the people in heaven, they're already in eternal glory. They're not praying for the damned in hell. The damned in hell have no hope of getting out. They're praying for us. And so, when Patrick Clancy comes out and he says, "I talk to my kids all the time," and I ask for their help. This is the Christian views this, not just as a coping mechanism, the Christian views this as a profound and accurate theological insight. That is exactly what he should do. He shouldn't even pray to help them. If he's a Christian, he believes that they're in heaven. They're not even in purgatory, they're in heaven. And as saints in heaven, we can call on the communion of saints to pray for us. What he's doing, it's a profound statement of faith, really beautiful stuff. Your heart just breaks for the guy. So we should all pray for Patrick Clancy. And I, at least, believing in the more traditional Christian view of these things, I certainly believe that we can pray to the kids as well and ask for their prayers for him and for all of us. Okay. Now, speaking of kids, the New Yorker has some real rage made out. They've made some big new discovery, turns out that pregnancy tests are misleading because there is no binary between the state of being pregnant and not being pregnant. They're saying there's some, there's Schrodinger's baby, according to the New Yorker. We'll get into this novel science first, though, speaking of the saints. I want to tell you about Hallow. There's a lot more to say first though, go to Hallow.com/Noles. Most people have a system for practically everything in their lives. The alarm goes off at a certain time, coffee happens at a certain time, workouts get scheduled, meetings go on the calendar. We even get reminders from our phones telling us when to stand up. Then prayer somehow is relegated to all find the time. It happens to me sometimes. I try to say my daily prayers, basically the same ones every single day. And then I'm, I'm diligent about it mostly because I know that my life goes off the rails when I don't say my daily prayers. And still, even I sometimes it's 10 o'clock at night on a Saturday, I say, "Oh, I haven't my prayers yet today." It's very frustrating. Don't let that be you. One thing I love about Hallow's 21 days of prayer challenge makes it very, very simple. For 21 days intentionally, make time for God. And every day you will pray alongside someone new. Coach Prime, Gwen Stefani, Gary Sinise, Coach Dan Hurley, Fernando Mendoza, people from all kinds, different walks of life, athletes, actors, priests, pastors, moms, nurses, police officers. They're all answering the same basic question. How do you pray? Do it right now. Go to Hallow.com/NolesDownloadHallow for three months free. Join the 21 days of prayer challenge. That is Hallow.com/Noles. I wake up today, as sometimes I joke with my wife, you know, five seconds before I go on air. I say, "Hey, so what should I do my show on?" "Hey, what should I, you know, even though I should have written my show already." I said, "What should I do my show on?" And today, sweet Lalisa, she preempts me. I wake up, she goes, "I got something for you. Read this New Yorker post." New Yorker, pregnancy tests draw a misleading somewhat arbitrary binary between the state of being pregnant and not being pregnant. You can be kind of pregnant, a little bit pregnant, or almost pregnant, or maybe pregnant, and still test positive for pregnancy. Pregnancy tests, particularly at home urine tests, capture a moment in time at which an embryo has implanted and is interfacing with the uterus in some way. You define how we understand the beginning of pregnancy based on the snapshot, but such a freeze frame contains limited information, a porva Tadapali writes, "Read more about the difficult task of determining when pregnancy actually begins. Click the link." And then you click the link and did immediately ask you to subscribe before you can read anything. Just before you, I know that your blood is getting up. I know that your cord is all the spiking to, once again, reference our friend, Clavicular. I know you think at all of that. That's bait. You know that's bait, right? We're talking at the top of the show about tactics. That is a tactic. What they wrote is total nonsense. You can be kind of pregnant. Of course you cannot. Pregnancy begins when the sperm meets the egg and a new biological creature is formed that is distinct from the sperm and the egg and distinct from the mother and the father, that is genetically and embryologically fully human, but is not synonymous with the humanity of the mother or the father. That's when it begins. There is no liminal space. There is no middle ground. In fact, if you looked at it under a very, very small microscope, you would see a flash of light when life begins. It's that distinct, it's that binary. There is no Schrodinger's baby. You cannot be kind of pregnant. She says, "You can be a little bit pregnant. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You're either pregnant or you're not." You can be almost pregnant. That is also not true. Even if you took a snapshot, one millisecond before the sperm meets the egg, you are not almost pregnant because the sperm might fail. Couples who deal with infertility know this all the time. There's no almost pregnant. You're pregnant or you're not. You could be maybe pregnant. I guess that's true. That's not a reflection on the nature of the pregnancy. That's a reflection on the nature of your intellect. You don't know whether or not you are pregnant, but you are or you are not. You can still test positive for pregnancy, yay, yay, yay, yay, yeah. Read about the difficult task of determining when pregnancy actually begins. That's just rage-based.
No one at the New Yorker is making a serious statement about pregnancy or about abortion or about the pro-life movement. No one here is making a good faith argument. None of that. This is simply a business tactic to get you angry and talking about it. It worked. I'm talking about it and to get you to give them $5.99 a month or whatever it costs to subscribe to the New Yorker. That's all that is. And I mentioned it, one, to clear the error because people are talking about it because the tactic work, but two, because you have only so many days on earth, you have things that you are called to do, you have responsibilities that you have to look after and you have people that you have to care for, and one day you will die, and you cannot allow yourself. I urge you not to allow yourself to be distracted by taking the bait every single day. As pure bait, we don't have to engage with it. You can in fact ignore the New Yorker. I know that I did not ignore the New Yorker, but I was doing it for a greater purpose to show you. We're talking all about tactics today. That's one of them. Okay. Speaking of rage, rage baiting and rage itself. Have you heard? I wasn't even going to cover it because I don't really care about it, but it's a big, big news story. Ed Sheeran, a very talented singer, songwriter, and a guy who married his high school sweetheart or at least a girl he was friends with in high school, it's a really sweet story, especially given the absolute decadence and debauchery of Hollywood in the music industry, Ed Sheeran invites this guy, Macklemore, onto his tour. I could not pick Macklemore out of a lineup. I could not tell you a single Macklemore song. I've heard the name before. He's some popular guy, I guess. Ed Sheeran invites Macklemore onto his tour. Ed Sheeran builds up this whole tour and he says, "Hey, if you want to come on the story, you can come on this tour." And what does Macklemore do? He immediately makes the tour all about his own political views. Ed Sheeran, assiduously, attempts to avoid talking about politics. He's just an entertainer like Michael Jordan, he says, "Republicans by sneakers too. I don't want to get involved in controversial political issues." Macklemore comes out, he goes, "Free Palestine, you know, down with Israel, free Palestine." And it's now become so political that some of the tour venues and managers, they called on Ed Sheeran to kick Macklemore off the tour, Ed Sheeran did kick Macklemore off the tour. Now, TMZ is asking AOC about it and AOC feels passionately about the Ed Sheeran Macklemore controversy. Hey, if Ed Sheeran comes on the radio while you're driving along, are you changing the channels? I am. You are? Yeah. Why is that? I think that what we've seen, especially, it's not just what has happened with the act and not just in removing Macklemore from the lineup, but when you see what Robert crafted to line up all of the stadiums to censor speech in that one specific way, it's become clear that this is not just about one music artist or two music artists, but this is about how just a handful of stadium owners and the elite can prevent an entire massive issue, in this case the genocide and Gaza, but it doesn't stop there. It could be speaking out about AI. It could be speaking out about any issue that you can now just get a handful of stadium owners to ensure that an entire person's career can be jeopardized if they speak out about any issue. The supporting acts have dropped out, but Ed Sheeran, I think, will still continue with the tour. What do you think his responsibility is in all of this? No, I don't know, but you know, I think that because you never see these contracts and I have no idea what the financial entanglements of all that is, but I do think that, you know, I think that the right thing to do is to speak out about it. Okay, all right. So you get her point. You got to speak out. I don't know all the story, but you got to speak out, and you know, this was really about the stadium owners and a small group of people shutting down political speech. Can I just say she's kind of right. She, oh, that she's not right, but she makes at least one good point. There was no popular uproar over Macklemore being on the tour. There was no popular blowback against Ed Sheeran from the audience, from the fans, because Macklemore is super pro-Palestine and anti-Israel or whatever. I think he is that. I haven't even looked into his views that closely, but that's what I gather from the reporting. There was no popular uproar. It was a very, very small group of powerful people in the music industry who shut down Macklemore. That's true. She's right about that. She's right. And she says, this is a grave, terrible threat. Either way, one way I know that there was no popular uproar is that since February of this year, for the first time ever in my lifetime, the pro-Palestine movement is more popular with the American public than the pro-Israel movement. This is, and it was, I think, Gallup polling in the Middle East situation, are you sympathizing with these more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians? For the first time ever, at least in recent memory, this poll goes all the way back to 2002, just in February of this year, America flips more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel, 41 to 36, rest of the people don't have an opinion or don't care. So she's right. It's not about a popular uproar. However, first of all, 41 to 36, that's pretty tight. Okay. So that means there are a lot of people who are quite pro-Israel, who are quite anti-Palestine. Even if more people are pro-Palestine, that's a controversial issue for a music venue. That's true. And even if it's true that a small number of people shut down this political speech, I don't seem to recall AOC having a trouble with that before. You remember going back, I don't know, at least 10 years now, really going back like 50 or 60 years? I remember when a very small group of people controlled the establishment media, TV news media, Hollywood, the new media, Facebook, YouTube, all that, and they shut down conservative speech all the time. I remember that, because I was part of that, because I was one of the people who was censored. Do you remember, you don't even have to go back that far. You remember during COVID when a very small group of people who controlled YouTube and Facebook and at one point, Twitter, when they censored conservatives for saying, hey, maybe this vaccine doesn't work that well. Hey, maybe putting a hanky on our face won't stop people from getting the flu. Hey, maybe we shouldn't shut down the entire world over a sniffle. Remember that and people lost their lives. Remember when people raised questions about all of the changes to the electoral system were in the 2020 election and they got all of their social media accounts nuked, not because of a popular uprising, but because of the powerful control of a small group of people. I don't remember AOC speaking up then. She's just irritated because she hates Israel and she loves Palestine or whatever. So now that this is her hobby, Horace political issue, now it's a big deal. And furthermore, beyond all of this, you say, just setting down political speech, good. I want political speech shut down at my concerts. Ed Sheeran, whose concert it is, wanted political speech shut down, not because he's super left wing or super right wing, but because he realizes that is not what concerts are for. Concerts are for entertainment. Johnny Carson was a huge lib. He was like a huge lib. But Johnny Carson realized that if he was pontificating about his politics every night, people would tune him out. So he kept his mouth shut on politics. And he's the most popular television late night host that's ever existed. Elvis Presley, he had political views. He was asked about them all the time. He said, I prefer to keep them to myself. I'm an entertainer. Dolly Parton said the same thing. Even the Beatles, who were obviously kind of lib, but even the Beatles on politics basically kept their mouth shut because they said, that's not what this is for. Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player ever. He said, Republicans were sneakers too. Michael Moore is entirely in the wrong here. AOC is entirely hypocritical here. Ed Sheeran is the victim. And this is what he gets for trying to help out a friend. Totally outrageous. AOC kind of has a point, but she never applies that point to her own side, to her own side's violations. And she totally misunderstands the purpose of entertainment. Okay, I have so much more to get to. I do all side admitting that if the affordability thing is a complete joke, CNN, great news on CNN about how nearly half of Michiganers say they won't elect a Muslim president, maybe because they saw a run-hide fight in FidelityWire.com. My favorite comment yesterday, there were three, there were three, I had to do three because they were all too good. Regarding that man, the white guy in New York who looked like Shaggy, who tried to do an ISIS attack, this from Overtoast, says, like a glory to Allah and like blessed be the prophet Muhammad. From the drummer's workshop, Norm's music, he was promised 72 Scooby Snacks in heaven. And from ex S. Halleer solid at 1194, this one doesn't relate to the Scooby Doo thing. This is more to the point on the difference between the left and the right. He sums up very well. He says, conservatives, we might hate each other, but we absolutely love our country. That's so true. You put it better than I could. That's true. The left, they all agree with each other. The only time they get frustrated with each other is when some of them are being too honest like a son-piker right now, but they all basically agree and they, to varying degrees, hate the country. They either think it's a terrible country with an original sin and with a lot of oppression that we need to fix and fundamentally transform, or they think like America deserves 9/11 and we're worse terrorists than al-Qaeda. But that's the left. Whereas on the right, all the people on the right hate each other and the paleos hate the neos and the libertarians hate the trads and on and on and on and on and all the individual pundits and politicians hate each other's guts. And it's just, it's really, they just, they're very divided.
They're united in one thing. They all love the country. And those are the differences. It's just, it's the heat map of affection. The left is just not patriotic and like actively contemptuous of the country and the right for all their disagreements, they love the country. Okay. It's time for my favorite time of the week. The voice and video mailbag brought to you by Pure Talk. We love our friends at
[email protected]/noles today. I, it occurred to us yesterday. Someone sent in a video. They said, hey, Michael, I know I'm supposed to do a voice mailbag, but I'm going to send in a video mailbag question. I, I, I decided, why don't we do video mailbag? So from now on, if you want to send a video mailbag question and get your face on the show, you may do that. That's open. I said to the, I said to the team, I said, why didn't you think of this? I didn't, I didn't say why didn't I think of this. I said, why didn't you think of this? Take it away. So I have been listening to your show for six years now. And I pretty much don't miss an episode. And I am the Catholic. When I first started listening to your show, I considered myself to be a libertarian. And you actually helped me realize that those things don't go hand in hand. So thank you for that. But I have a very important question for you. I saw Ben Shapiro at the RNC just last week. And I brought this up to him. And I'm hoping to bring it up to you to persuade both of you. I remember years ago, there was a bet between the Daily Wire hosts, where you all start a fantasy football league. And the loser of said league was supposed to wear a, what is a woman t-shirt on the sidelines of a WNBA game. Now, again, I don't miss an episode. And I feel like that bet quietly went away because I never heard anything about it ever again. So my request for you is to revive the bet, especially because of the media coverage that the WNBA is currently getting. I feel like it is a great time to collect on that and get one of you guys on the sidelines. So let me know. You are so right. I love everything about your question. The whole one that you've watched the show for six years, I'm very honored. Two, that you were a libertarian now. You've gone a little more trady, a little more conservative love that. The Catholic faith love that. But you're right. Mr. Matt Walsh owes us a seat at the WNBA. 'Cause he lost, I think, if memory serves, he lost that bet. Mr. Matt Walsh, I call him Matt Welch. If he is not going to have to go indoor at WNBA game. So I agree, he needs to go do it. I want to start a campaign. You get Walsh to go to that game. Wonderfully stated, okay, next question. - Morning, Michael. I also hope you could expound a little bit more on something you say all the time. Namely, the T-loss of sex is the generation and education of children and the mutual support of the spouses. Generation of children totally get it. Mutual support of the spouses makes perfect sense. Could you explain a little bit more about how sex educates the children? - Thanks. - Yeah, no, I'm not. I'm not suggesting we like bump ugglies in front of kids to like teach them all the sudden or something. I'm using education in its older sense, in its fuller sense, which is today, we narrowly think of education as learning, reading, writing, arithmetic in a classroom. But education at the fullest sense really means to raise a child. So there's a moral education. There's an aesthetic education. There's an education into manners and patriotism and civics. As along with the liberal arts and engineering and how to fix a sink, all of that is education, but it means to raise, to rear, to raise up a kid. So marriage is for that too. 'Cause you can produce a kid outside of marriage. And it's pretty much just as easy to produce a kid with a lady you met at a bar last night as it is to produce a kid with your wife. But it's much harder to educate the kid with the lady you met at the bar last night than it is to educate the kid with your wife. So the tea loss of marriage, the purpose of marriage, the thing that defines marriage in its nature is that it is a lifelong union between a man and a woman, ordered toward the procreation and raising, rearing education of children. And another good of marriage is the mutual support of the spouses, but that's not really the chief end of marriage. The thing that separates marriage from all sorts of other unions is that it is ordered toward the procreation and education of children. Okay, next question. - Hey, are you just like making up this child of yours that's coming, this little daughter allegedly? Because I feel like your wife's been pregnant for a while. And I'm just wondering like, when are we gonna have a little girl knows? You don't have to tell me exactly when. But if you took a day or two off, no one would be upset. You would be fine. We'd still subscribe and all that. So just wanted to let you know that. And I hope it all goes well. - That's very kind to thank. I appreciate the encouragement and the reassuring that you won't all just disappear if I take a day or two off. I probably won't take a day or two off anyway. The baby is real. Your right sweet little Lisa has been pregnant for a long time. She's about 58 months pregnant now, I think. The baby's coming very, very shortly. Someone has asked Michael, what is daily wires paternity leave policy? It's after I caught my breath from the wheezing laughter. I said, it's usually about 15 minutes. Usually you get it, but you're allowed to go to the hospital, at least to see the kid right when he or she comes out, but then we'll be back in the studio. So I'm gonna try. I'm gonna try not to miss a show. I love doing this show. I love being with you. So some people, they don't, some people, they don't wanna go to work, but I have a fake job. Like I don't have a real job. I work all the time, but I don't have a real job. So I love doing this show. I don't want to leave you an alert, especially right before the midterm. So I'll take some time. Maybe I'll just come in and do the show and then I'll go home and probably do some other work, but not actually help out that much with the kid anyway. But I'll spend time with my wife and my children and all that, but it is happening soon. So your prayers are greatly appreciated. I wanna do more mail back questions. Keep going. - Good morning Michael, this is Arun. So regarding this bow French guy, obviously as an Indian, I do not wish him success in his campaign, but I do want all of the other Texas Republicans to win. And I am worried that he's going to take down the entire Republican ticket in Texas with him. As you know, racist Republican candidates have done very poorly in primaries. I'm thinking specifically about James Fishback and Casey Putch. Now this guy bow only won his primary by 1% of the vote. And I suspect it's because a lot of his comments went under the radar. Most recently he's gotten in trouble for telling Indians that we're not real Americans. Before that, he said that Chinese aren't real Americans. And before that, he said that Native Americans should be deported. Now the electorate of Texas is only 46% white. And probably those guys don't like his comments either. Do you think that it's time to give him the Graham Platner treatment before he hands the Senate over to the Democrats? Thank you as always for your wisdom. Yeah, good, good question. We can't give him the Graham Platner treatment because the demos played Platner right. And I called it by the way, I totally, you know what? I hate to say I told you so. I called this on the show on Hannity Show when there were some questions back Graham Platner. I said the Dems are preparing to usher him off the stage. They're going to do it in just the right amount of time that they're not going to suffer or elect really for it. And it looked like it was too late, but I said it's not too late. And they're setting the stage in the New York Times and then with this hit and then with that hit, it's the same thing that they did to Eric Swalwell in California. They knew he couldn't win. So they were going to just nail him for other things that they previously ignored. And that's exactly what happened to Platner. The problem is we can't do that with both French because it's too late. You can't replace him with another candidate. He's running for Texas Agriculture Commissioner. So he made these comments that offended a lot of people where he was going after these Indian students at Texas A&M. And he was raising an interesting point about demographic change and mass migration, but the way in which he did it offended a lot of people. And so to your point, Arun, he's not going to. He's going to struggle electorally, I think. I don't think he's going to pull down the Republican ticket because I think they're bigger waves in this election. I think there are many bigger factors at the national level economically with regard to the Iran War. I don't think he's going to play a huge role if Taloriko wins, for instance, I don't think it's going to be both French's fault, but we can't. We can't platinum him because it's too late. The Democrats played the platinum thing really, really well. And we were just not as careful. We were just not as precise with our candidates. And I think you can wriggle out of it a little bit and say, "No, no, no, no, I'm not. " You know, if both French adjusts his rhetoric to say, "I'm not talking about all Indians or all Chinese or this or that, I'm just trying to call attention to the anxiety of mass migration and demographic displacement." I think he can kind of wriggle out of it. Whereas for platinum, you know, he was a Nazi rapist, so allegedly. So you can't. There's not like, "Oh, I didn't realize this. " Wait, hold on, this swastik on my face? That's a Nazi symbol? No, no, I'm an Indian. Both French hates me. No, that's not going to work. So I think the situation is less dire than the Grand Platinum one, but in any case, it's not nearly as easily fixed. Okay, I know we're running late. I know it's fake headline for it. I want to get to the last voice mailbag. Hey, Michael, Professor Jacob here. I have a question about GTA 6, and when you answer it.
I want you to put your personal bias aside about GTA 6. Let's say hypothetically I knew a guy who wanted to play GTA 6 He's a Gen Zier. He's been waiting 10 years to play it because he grew up playing GTA 5 But his girlfriend tells him no you cannot play GTA 6 On principle does the man listen to his girlfriend and not do this thing that he's really been wanting to do? Or does he say no and play it anyway? Well, what should the man do in that scenario? His girlfriend will probably be very angry if he plays it anyway. Thanks Oh, it's a brutal problem that your friend Finds himself in that your your Gen Z friend finds himself in because on the merits your friends girlfriend is right it GTA 6 is probably immoral to play you probably should because it's not just for the violence But apparently the new one is like pretty pornographic. So it's probably wrong to play it and it's generally as men get older it's It's a less appropriate for them to spend a lot of time playing video games, you know It's just not again. I'm not knocking it. I'm not yuking your yum. I kind of want to play GTA 6 so I get it but It's not it's not the sort of thing. It's the sort of thing that a teenager does It's not the sort of thing that a 45 year old band does for instance and I I don't know how old your friend is So on the merits your girlfriend is right, but this whole framing it, you know, the your girlfriend's not gonna let you is totally ridiculous and and so there I'm sympathetic to you Sorry to your friend where you say well, I have to do it just so that my wife doesn't leave me around by a dog collar And I say okay, yeah, I get that but that's also your fault because you've established sorry your friend has established this situation Where you're even accepting that framing or you're even accepting the idea that my girlfriend tells me what to do I ask permission of my girlfriend my girlfriend you wouldn't ask permission of your wife much less your girlfriend To do something the problem here is on the merits on the substance your your friend's girlfriend is right So what would I do? I would try to find a prudential via media here where to establish a proper Framing and relationship I would I would have to play it to some degree But I suggest that you play the Grand Theft Auto game for a very brief period of time in the most moral way you can you know doing the missions avoiding the worst of the pornographic or Rathful elements and then putting the game away so you've reset you've established the proper framework of your real-world Relationship, but you're not just becoming a rathful lusty overgrown teenage boy who will repel your girlfriend rightly so It's fake headline Friday the rest of the show continues to sorry your friends girlfriend the rest of the show continues now You do not want to miss it become a member use code no else can it w alias check it for two months free on all annual plans Every significant movement in history started with protesting for a total talk. This is our generation civil rights No idea what the protest is about bingo given the current climate should have figured as polarizing as place Saunders even be allowed on campus. Okay, you hear me. Okay. Saunders is a close personal friend of chance with Freeman This is a decision. I cannot fly Islam will conquer the West Are we paying attention? They've taken over the building the downstairs and they've blocked the doors I seek forgiveness from Allah the Almighty We cannot run and hide Muhammad is the messenger of God There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel beings into a fine red mist As we move one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leap-pronged You need a course in safe weapons handling
PodcastTranscript AI