Ep. 2066 - Gays Threaten To "Firebomb" Lesbian Bar For Dropping Mask Mandate

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, Hide, Fight Infidels, now streaming only on The Daily Wire. Ever hit a wall in the middle of the day and a third coffee just doesn't do it anymore? Here's what's actually happening. Coffee only briefly blocks adenosine, the chemical that tires you out. When it stops working, your system is flooded and you crash. Modafinil is a prescription treatment that works in a completely different way. Modafinil works by stimulating multiple receptors in the brain associated with wakefulness, including dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, histamine, glutamate, and orexin. It's a more complete solution that gives you 10 to 12 hours of steady focus and energy. Go to mod.com. That's M-O-D dot com. For a free consultation and use code Daily Wire to get 10% off your first order plus free shipping. That's code Daily Wire at mod.com to get free shipping and 10% off your first order. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at cardiff.co slash Knowles. A lesbian bar in Greenfield, Massachusetts has decided to relax. It's mandatory. 95 mask policy, six and a half years after COVID. And now its patrons are calling for the owners, their bar, and their white they them tears to be firebombed, literally firebombed. We will explore why the libs be like that sometimes, all the time, and what Aristotle has to say about crazy lesbians. Then the most radically left-wing slate of candidates in American history is now favored to win the Senate. By a lot. But former neocon kingpin turned Democrat Bill Kristol is calling on America to get out of the Middle East, which means this might all be a moot point because we are clearly approaching the apocalypse. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. Do you know what you need to watch before the apocalypse? Run, hide, fight infidels streaming now exclusively on the Daily Wire. That is dailywire.com/subscribe. See the movie that everyone is talking about. There are, we're going to be talking about lesbians. Lesbians kind of play a role at least in run, hide, fight infidels. See how go check out the movie right now. This story is just magnificent. It's an. Amazing. It's my favorite story in weeks. I gotta thank the Boston Globe for this. A Western Massachusetts lesbian bar required K and 95 masks. COVID started in December of 2019. We are in September of 2026. COVID has been over for a long time. This lesbian bar was still requiring the masks right away. You see an, a connection between apparently different. Things weird sex stuff and COVID. You say what those things don't have anything to do with each other. Weird sex stuff and monkeypox might, but weird sex stuff and COVID, those have nothing to do with each other, except they have a lot to do with each other because we know the people who are the biggest freaks about COVID also tend to be the most pro LGBT LMNOP politically avant-garde leftist people. We know there's an overlap even between distinct things, and we'll get into that in a moment when we talk about political coalitions and what that means for 2026, but right off the bat, we say, okay. Lesbian bar relaxes its masking policy six years after COVID when it changed the rules, all hell broke loose. This is the last ditch bar in Greenfield. I actually have, I have the announcement here. I mean, I'm just going to pull it up because the way people are talking about this, it's like the lesbians, you know, all endorsed Trump overnight and they changed the uniform to Hugo boss and they, you know, started shipping everyone out off on boxcars, the owners of this bar. I mean, I'm just going to pull it up because the way people are talking about this, it's like the lesbians, you know, all endorsed Trump overnight and they, you know, started shipping everyone out off on boxcars, the owners of this bar. I mean, I'm just going to pull it up because the way people are talking about this, it's like the lesbians, you know, started shipping everyone out off on boxcars, the owners of this bar. are still insanely left wing. wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good themselves. Those who wish well to their friends for their sake are most truly friends. It's not just friendships of convenience, friendships of transaction, trying to get something from one another. You're going to be friends because you both have some weird sexual predilection and you want to, I don't know, you want to please yourself with another person because you both have some common resentment. You hate the capitalist class, the bourgeoisie. No, true friendship is those who wish well to their friends for their sake. For they do this by reason of their own nature and not incidentally. Therefore, their friendship lasts as long as they are good and goodness is an enduring thing. For their own sake, clearly only good men can be friends. For bad men do not delight in each other unless some advantage comes of the relation. So the minute that anyone, even these people whose whole job it is to cater to the anxieties and baselines. These desires of these weirdo patrons, the minute that they in any way cross them, they say, hey, one day a week, maybe you don't have to wear the secular keffiyeh, you know, the magical hanky that's supposed to keep you all eternally living. The minute they say that in love, please, just one day a week, maybe they go and the fangs come out. It's very sad because the complaint from the patrons is that, hey, we want to be social. We want to have fun. We want to spend time with our friends and our community. And you're ruining that by changing the rules on Saturdays. But the saddest fact is these people can't be happy in their current state. These people can't have true friendship in their current state. You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with. And if you spend time with violent communists, with weird sex hangups, you're not going to have a good life. The problem is not that you're not going to have a good life. You're not going to have a good life. The problem is not with the bar owners. Well, they have problems too. The problem is not with the rules of the bar. The problems are with the patrons. Any bar these guys go to, these guys could go to McSwirly's in New York. Any bar they go to is going to become this bar. It's like we sometimes talk in mass migration. We say, you know, the problem with Somali immigration isn't the land of Somalia versus the land of Minnesota. The problems, Somalia is actually could be a problem in the Somalis. They need to figure out their problems first. If you bring all the Somalis to Minnesota, you're not going to make the Somali's life better. You're just going to make Minnesota look like Somalia. Well, that's at an even larger scale. That is true here. Okay. Speaking of crazy women, one more crazy women story before, you know, I love women. That's why I want them to thrive. We will get one more crazy women story before we get to absolutely brutal political news. First though, on this theme of restoring balance, media, prudence, moderation, I want to tell you about Balance of Nature. Go to balanceofnature.com, use code NOLS, K-N-W-L-E-S. Here's a surprisingly useful test for food. Would your grandmother recognize the ingredients? Not the branding, not the marketing claims, the actual ingredients, cinnamon, ginger, cloves, apple, flaxseed. Yes, we're doing pretty well. That's one reason Balance of Nature's fiber and spice supplement appeals to so many people. It combines ingredients from four real whole food fibers with 12 spices. Including cinnamon, turmeric, ginger, and cardamom. Great source of fiber, eight grams per serving. There is something charmingly simple about it. Two scoops in your drink, stir, carry on with your life. You can put it into your oatmeal, your yogurt. It's great. I'm a very simple man. When the words get kind of long and complicated, I don't really do it. I don't want all the crazy interventions. I want the stuff that's been working for thousands of years. And especially because I'm not so precious about it. Something I adore about Balance of Nature makes it very, very easy to know that I'm getting everything I need. If you would like to make Balance of Nature part of your own routine, go to balanceofnature.com, subscribe to the whole health system. Use promo code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S for 35% off your first subscription order. 35% off balanceofnature.com with code Knowles. Sydney Sweeney and Lindsay Clancy have both dominated the headlines for weeks. I think we've finally reached the end of the discourse. I think the discourse is moving on from the infanticidal mother and the good-looking albeit sometimes a little bit immodest Hollywood starlet. However, I got to give a hat tip here to Adam Francisco on X. He goes around, a little man on the street style, and he's asking women, who is worse for women? Who's better? Who's worse? We've had all these, we've seen this major defense from women of Lindsay Clancy, this unrepentant child murderer. And then we've seen these harangues, all this invective against Sydney Sweeney, who, you know, in the grand scheme of things, I don't know, she seems pretty nice. So who do the women think is better or worse for women? Lindsay Clancy or Sydney Sweeney? We're asking people who hurts women more, in your opinion? This one. What's her name? Sydney Sweeney. Sydney Sweeney. Why does she hurt women more than her? Because she's putting a sexual image on women and for a sports ad, when there's women that have worked really hard in sports and they could honestly, be more representative in a sports ad. And what did she do? I think she, I actually don't know what the case ended up being, if she did. It was a mistrial. But the case was about if she was mentally insane while killing her own kids. Right, but then she was, wasn't it? It was a mistrial. They were deciding if she actually did or if the husband did. No, that the trial was about she did it, but was she criminally responsible for doing it? The trial was never about did she do it or did she not? It was just, what was her mental state? I don't think she hurts women though as much. Like she hurts her own image and like mothers in general, like it affects like the mental state, but then she hurts like the reputation of women as a whole. Okay, so the girl, by the way, she, this girl does not have purple hair. She doesn't have 50 million piercings. She doesn't go to that bar in Massachusetts. She appears to have a boyfriend. So she, she looks about as normal as they come. And she says, oh yeah, Sydney Sweeney is way worse for women than, than Lindsay Clancy. And then right off the bat, she reveals she doesn't know anything about the Lindsay Clancy case, which is true of most people who are opining on it. She says, oh no, it didn't, it wasn't the question of whether or not she did it or maybe her husband did it. They said, no, no, no, no one disputes that. Lindsay Clancy doesn't dispute that. The attorney doesn't dispute that. She killed her kids for sure. The only question is, is she criminally liable because she claims to have been temporarily insane? And she says, oh, okay. All right. I understand that now. Yes. Sydney Sweeney is still worse. Why? Because she's portraying women in a sexual way. Ah, yes. Before Sydney Sweeney, no one ever, no one ever made the connection between women and sexual attraction. You know, no, it took Sydney Sweeney. She says, and she was in a sports ad. It was actually a gambling ad, which is kind of bad in its own right. But she says, no, no, no, no. That's really bad. Sydney Sweeney setting women back. But Lindsay Clancy, no, no, no. That's bad for her, but it doesn't reflect on women. Oh, man. Society is cooked. And that gives us a little bit of an insight into why we're headed the way that we're headed in the midterm elections. But just to wrap up the point on Aristotle, Aristotle would say that there can be no true friendship among the kinds of people who would support Lindsay Clancy, for instance. The kind of people who are not grown in virtue, who do not possess the requisite orientation toward the good. And the true and the beautiful toward the kind of people who do not possess requisite knowledge toward the kind of people who even physically aren't healthy. You know, some would say that Aristotle was the original looks maxer. I heard a lecturer on the Thomistic Institute making that point. He would say that true friendship is only possible among people who have their affairs in order, who perceive the world in the right way and who relate to the world in the right way. And the Lindsay Clancy supporters don't. Weirdos at that bar in Massachusetts don't. And the people who are wearing their N95 masks because they're afraid of the Wuhan flu six years later, they don't. And the kind of people who march in the streets and tear down statues and castrate little kids and want to flood the country with foreigners. And on and on and on, you begin to realize, hold on, this problem of antisocial behavior, this problem of incapacity for friendship doesn't just affect some weirdo little bar or some wacky. This appears to be a society-wide problem. Because when you add up all the people who are going to the bars and when you add up all the people who are posting on social media, you get society, you get a country. And if the country does not have people of requisite virtue to have friendship of any kind, then you can't have a political community that is thriving. Because a political community is just, it's a group of people who live around each other, who are all engaged in the same project ordered toward the common good. But in order to do that, you have to have friendship. Indeed, this just goes back to what John Adams said, that the Constitution is built for a moral and religious people. What people focus on that is if John Adams were some kind of Bible thumper or something, you can make it even simpler than that. You can even reduce it to the level of just pure virtue. If you have a country full of vicious people who are constantly engaged in all manner of vice and sin, you're going to have a bad country. And it doesn't matter how pristine your copy of the Constitution is. It doesn't matter the kinds of suits that your politicians wear and the nice words that they say. they use on TV. If your country is full of those kinds of people, you're not going to have a good country. Reminds me of the H.L. Mencken line that democracy is a theory that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. So in that context, we now turn to the political problem. We are weeks away from the midterm elections. For most of this year, the Republicans were heavily, heavily favored to keep the Senate. We were probably going to lose the House, but we were heavily favored to keep the Senate. That started to turn. It started to turn right around the Iran war kicking off, but it was still very tight. Republicans pulled ahead again during the summer. Now the Republicans are collapsing. According to our friends over at Calshi, they give the Democrats a 62% chance of taking the Senate. The Republicans have a 38% chance of keeping the Senate. The Democrats, I don't even have the Calshi numbers on taking the House. Probably it's somewhere around 150% right now. This is really bad. It's not just the prediction markets. Some people don't really buy the prediction markets. They say, oh, no, that's overweighted. It's being manipulated by people throwing money in. Well, let's just look at how the campaigns are acting. A major GOP super PAC has just pulled $6.5 million in ad reservations from that North Carolina Senate race. So you have this North Carolina Senate race with Michael Whatley, the former head of the RNC, and Democrat Governor Roy Cooper. And for a while, people really thought there was a good chance that the Republican would have it. Now they're pulling. And you can't even say that the GOP establishment or whatever hates Michael Whatley. He was the head of the RNC. And they're pulling their money out of North Carolina. It's not even just that one PAC. There are others who are pulling their money out as well. You've got the Old North Action super PAC. You've got the Senate Leadership Fund, which is the main GOP Senate super PAC. They're moving money around. They pulled almost a million dollars in broadcast buys. They added $400,000 in digital, but they pulled the broadcast. So it's looking bad. And then you have another Republican senator, a sitting Republican senator, who's breaking ranks now. He's going after the Trump family. He's calling for an investigation into Don Jr. because of allegations that some foreign guy put some money into Don Jr.'s wedding party or whatever. It's all kind of a cloudy accusation. But the Don Jr. of it all doesn't really matter. What matters is the turn of the GOP politicians. Because there's a line right now. The GOP, we're so good at cope. We're so good at cope. So when bad things happen, we say, no, but secretly, this will be good. You heard this from the Never Trumpers in 2016. They said, no, you know what's got to happen? Hillary has to win. Because if Hillary wins, things are going to get really, really bad. And then next time, we're going to win in a landslide. That was it. Thank goodness they were defeated and Trump won. And we got a lot of good stuff out of Trump winning. And had Hillary won, it would have been really, really bad, as we saw when Joe Biden won and opened the country up to 3 million illegals a year and kicked off the potentially World War III in Ukraine. Anyway, I go on. There is this cope that we have. After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, what did you hear? Oh, you know what? We're going to come back bigger, stronger than ever. They can't keep us down. And what happened? No, the assassination of Charlie Kirk was just uniformly bad for the GOP. It was uniformly bad for the conservative movement. Not to mention for Charlie's family and friends. But even for just the political movement, it was bad. And we try to cope. So the new cope here is, well, look, we're going to get clobbered in 2020. We're going to get clobbered in 2020. But that'll secretly, that'll actually be good for J.D. Vance or whoever the GOP nominee is in 2028. It'll actually be good because why? I totally disagree with this conventional wisdom. We'll get to that in a second. First, I want to tell you about Leaf Filter. Go to leaffilter.com slash Knowles. Fall foliage is one of nature's great bait and switches. In October, people drive for hours to admire the leaves. Two weeks later, those same leaves are rotting in the gutters and suddenly no one finds them charming. Put off the gutter issue. Okay. I bought my first home and I said, I don't know. I want to deal with that. I want to get up on the ladder. Well, guess what? When those leaves get in there and they clog your gutters, a heavy rain can send the water spilling over the sides, pool around your foundation. Then your house collapses and you're left in rubble. Leaf Filter will help protect your home before that happens. There are local pros. Inspect your gutters, clean them out and repair or replace them if necessary before installing Leaf Filter. It is surgical grade stainless steel micro mesh, keeps common debris out while channeling water away from your foundation where it belongs. Every installation comes with a no-clog guarantee, lifetime transferable warranty. This is the real deal. Help protect your family with Leaf Filter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection today at leaffilter.com slash Knowles for a quote that is good for one full year. Right now, you can get up to 35% off Leaf Filter at leaffilter.com slash Knowles. Minimum purchase required. Restrictions apply. See representative for warranty and permission. Motion details. This is the new, this is the new line. Okay. The line six months ago was the GOP. We're going to win in the midterm elections. We're definitely going to hold the Senate. We might hold the house. Who knows with redistricting, maybe we'll pick up seats in the house. We're going to win. And then the polls start to get worse. They say, ah, nah, you know what? Polls look bad in the summer for Republicans, but don't worry. The polls are going to tighten as we get closer to the race. Polls haven't, I actually thought the polls would tighten at least a little bit. Polls haven't tightened. Polls are getting worse. Okay. Well, now the new line is, all right, we're not going to win, but we're going to lose and we're probably going to get clobbered. But you know what? It's good. It's secretly good because we're going to win in 2028. The Democrats are going to get in. They're going to be totally nuts. People are going to freak out with Senator Abdul El-Sayed and all the rest, Senator Tallarico. And then they're going to shift back to Republicans in 2028. I don't think so. That can happen. All things being equal, it can happen that you get one big shift and then people freak out and they shift back and the pendulum swings back in the other direction. That's not going to happen here because what the Democrats are going to do if they win in 26, they're not going to pass any policy. They can't because Trump is going to stop them. So he's going to veto that. So you're not going to get Democrats passing a lot of unpopular legislation that causes a public backlash. You're going to get Democrats grandstanding. You're going to get them promising you the world. You're going to get the free candy and puppies bill of 2027. You're going to get the and then Trump is going to shoot it down and then they're going to hammer Trump for that. So at the level of laws and politics, they're going to win because they don't have to do anything because they can't do anything. Where they're really going to get you though is they're going to subpoena every Republican in this country, every prominent Republican, every prominent conservative. They're going to be a billion investigations, all sorts of subpoenas, all sorts of house committees. They're going to go in and they're going to dig up any dirt that they can. And seeing Republicans start to go along with this, like that Republican senator says, yeah, maybe we should investigate Don Jr. Because they're going to look at the president's approval rating, which is going to be relatively low just because of historical trends and because of the Iran war and because of the media and because the Democrats are going to get a major microphone. That's going to be rough. The weasel Republican senators are going to jump ship. The rats are going to flee the ship and they're going to paint the administration in a brutal light. And they're probably not going to find anything illegal. They're probably not going to find any actual crimes. They're probably not going to find any true corruption, but they're just going to throw all this muck, all this muck at the wall. And they're going to muddy the waters. I'm mixing my men. I'm an idiot muddying the waters by mixing my metaphors, but they're going to muddy all the waters on everything. And it's going to make it much harder for the GOP nominee in 28. Most likely the GOP nominee in 28, I think we would all admit is J.D. Vance. I love J.D. Vance, but some people hate J.D. Vance. I think he's the front runner, but let's say it's not J.D. Vance. Let's say it's Marco Rubio who shows no intention of running and who has endorsed J.D. Vance. Let's say it's Rubio. Rubio is part of that administration. Let's say it's Pete, Pete Hegseth. There was a headline that Pete was going to run for president. Let's say it's Pete. Pete's part of the administration. Let's say it's Ron DeSantis. He's not even in the administration, but he would be running as the bigger, better, more efficient Trump. Well, hold on. If you muddy up all of Trump's reputation and you try to paint him as some corrupt, autocrat and the Democrats hammer that and the Republicans jump ship and they join teams and maybe there's another impeachment, on and on and on, that's going to make it much worse for any GOP nominee in 28. Another nominee who I, or another potential candidate who has signaled that he's going to run is Senator Ted Cruz. Now, he's in a better position if all this happens relative to the people in the administration or even Ron DeSantis, but nevertheless, Senator Cruz has worked very well with Donald Trump over the last 10 years. And so it's just going to be the blast radius of the attacks if the Democrats win the House and the Senate on all Republicans is going to be absolutely brutal. And for the Republicans coping by pretending that we're going to win by losing, oh no, it's actually secretly, secretly we want to lose actually, because then it'll, then it'll, then it'll show the voters how crazy the leftists really are. And then we'll win in 28. That's not how it's going to work. It's not how it's going to work. You do not win by winning. You do not win by losing. I mentioned that approval rating. The approval rating right now is tough. Right now, the approval rating for President Trump is about 32%. One, one poll has it at 29%. I don't really buy that, but 32% is what Reuters, Ipsos has. 32% is rough. It's the worst approval rating the president has ever had. And it's a little weird because all things considered, Trump is doing very well. I know there's a caveat here because people are very upset about the Iran war. But if you put the Iran war aside, President Trump is doing very well. he's doing very well on the deportations. Without the Iran war, he's doing very well on the economy, doing very well on international relations, doing very well on all manner of domestic policy. It's the Iran war. It's not just the Iran war. There are three problems that are causing Trump's low approval rating right now. The first one is just structural. It's the first midterm after the GOP had won the whole government. Your approval is always going to be down there. You're almost always going to lose that midterm. So that's the structural problem. The second one is political polarization. Because of mass migration, in no small part, and because of the radicalism that the left has injected into the curricula and the media, we're not going to get Reagan 84 ever again. The idea that a president of one party or another is going to win 49 states, that's over. 49 state victories, only work in relatively homogenous populations. The reason being that you have less factionalism. The scope of political discourse is just smaller. The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats was smaller then. Now it's very different. The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the 1980s was that the Democrats wanted to give amnesty to a fair number of illegals. And Reagan was willing to give amnesty to a relatively smaller number of illegals. The Democrats wanted a little tiny bit more legal abortion. The Republicans wanted a little tiny bit less legal abortion. But they were much closer. Today, the difference is the Democrats want to castrate your children, fling open the borders of the country to millions and millions of foreigners per year, and topple and burn the statues of all your children. And that's the difference. The Democrats want to destroy all the American heroes, on the one hand, and murder all the babies, some of whom are outside the womb. And then on the other hand, you have the Republicans who say we shouldn't do that. Republicans actually haven't moved all that much. But they've certainly moved less to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left. In any case, there's a lot of polarization. So already, your approval is going to hit a ceiling. And then the third one is the Iran war. And the Republicans need to come to terms with that. Because there's a lot of nice, happy talk about the Iran war. But the Iran war is much more significant, at least in the minds of voters. And I think even in geopolitics. But at least in the minds of voters, it's much more significant than the promoters of that war had previously thought. I was very skeptical of the Iran war before it happened, as it was beginning, and throughout the whole course. I said, if I were on the National Security Council, no one invited me, I would have made the arguments against it. Not because of any problem with it in principle, necessarily. But just, I didn't think it was going to play out well, strategically or politically. That's where we're at. And the proof of this, I don't exactly have a solution. You know, at a certain point, Aliyah Yaqtas, the die is cast, and you're just sort of in the war. But the proof that the Iran war is much more significant, it's not just a little digression, it's not the sort of thing that can end at the will of any man. The proof is that. Bill Kristol, the man who never met a war in the Middle East he didn't like. Bill Kristol, the kingpin of the neocons. One of the true intellectual leaders of the American right, for a couple of decades there. Project for a new American century, go invade Iraq, on and on and on. Bill Kristol is now saying that the Democrats should run on getting us out of the Middle East. It's been a minute since I read the Apocalypse of Saint John. I forget all the signs. I think, it must be one of the signs that we are approaching the Apocalypse. What is Bill Kristol doing? What is the principled conservative doing? What is the neocon extraordinaire doing, saying he wants to pull out of the Middle East? I think I have an idea. First, though, speaking of the Apocalypse of Saint John and all manner of religion, I want to tell you about Heaven in Stone and Glass. Go to heaveninstoningglass.com/group. Millions of people travel to Europe every year. They 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 these people are not Catholic. Some are not religious at all. And yet, they walk into Notre Dame or Chartres, look up, lower their voices almost instinctively, and they recognize this place is different. That is the subject of my friend Bishop Robert Barron's new film, Heaven in Stone and Glass. Bishop Barron takes you through five of France's great Gothic cathedrals: Chartres, Notre Dame, Rome, Amiens. Am I saying, is that Amiens? Am I pronouncing that correct? I don't know. My French is no good. I'm Italian. Saint-Denis. They reveal the things that are in the cathedral. theology that these buildings have been proclaiming for centuries, because none of this is accidental. The soaring stone, the stained glass, the sacred images, the light, it's really wonderful. What Bishop Barron has done here is great. It's based on a book he wrote. I happened to narrate the audiobook, which you can also get. The movie is just magnificent. Whether you're a believer or a skeptic, if you've ever stood before something truly beautiful and felt that it was pointing beyond itself, this film is for you. See Heaven in Stone and Glass in theaters nationwide on September 20th and 23rd. Today is the 23rd. So, you know, you missed the first one. Make sure you go. Go get tickets at heaveninstoneandglass.com. And for parish or larger group tickets, go to heaveninstoneandglass.com slash group. When it stops working, your system is flooded, and you crash. Go to mod.com. That's mod.com for a free consultation. And use code dailywater. to get 10% off your first order plus free shipping. That's code dailywire at mod.com to get free shipping and 10% off your first order. My favorite comment yesterday is from Overtoast. It says, kids nowadays have to survive abortion, postpartum depression, assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and euthanasia, and boomers call them soft. True. This is the toughest generation since World War II. Tougher, maybe. Those guys, they make the World War II guys look a little bit, I don't know, a little bit weak or something. You got to be surviving from the moment of your conception. Okay. What is Bill Kristol doing here? One, what is the principle at play? Guys like Bill Kristol or George Will, to a lesser degree. We're talking about George Will yesterday, the famed Washington Post columnist, pundit, helped Reagan prep for his debates, Mr. Bowtie, Mr. Conservative. He's now endorsing Democrats because he doesn't like Lindsey Graham's sister in South Carolina. He left the GOP. He's now a libertarian. Even that, in fact, he's a libertarian. This is a true conservative. He was not a libertarian. George Will wrote a book called Statecraft as Soulcraft. Okay. That is not libertarian. That's Aristotelian. That's classically conservative, traditionally conservative. That guy becomes a libertarian. And then as a libertarian, he starts endorsing members of a party that is now dominated by socialists. Does that make any sense to you? I thought they were supposed to be the principled guys. Bill Kristol, he's Mr. Principled Republican. I think he runs a group called the Republican Principles Project or something like that. He's now, not only has he turned on all of the issues that he supposedly used to believe in, pro-life, I don't know, immigration, restraint, marriage. I remember seeing Bill Kristol in person when I was in college and all of the libertarian-ish college conservatives were making the argument that we should have gay marriage because it'll civilize. The homosexuals. And he kind of laughed at us. He said, no, that's ridiculous. You can't redefine marriage. It's totally crazy. Now he's defending gay marriage, all this other stuff. But the one principle that you thought Bill Kristol was going to hold onto was invading the Middle East. It was clearly the thing he most cared about. And he's turning on that. Now he's just quoting an article from his website, The Bulwark, which says, here's what Democrats should offer. Stop the data centers, make AI safe, protect your healthcare, fix the Supreme Court, get us out of the Middle East. Renew our friendship with Canada, blah, blah, blah. The reason that he's saying this is not that Bill Kristol, I don't think, who knows, maybe he just went totally nuts. But I think that it will be a chilly day in hell when Bill Kristol actually wants America to stop being involved in the Middle East. The fact that he's posting this column with the quote, so he's saying, this isn't exactly my opinion, but he is promoting the idea. And then he's not even saying, here's what I want. He's saying, here's what I want. And then he's saying, here's what I want. And then he's saying, here's what Democrats should offer. Because he wants Democrats to win because he hates Trump. Because he views Trump as a threat to his political program and his influence and power. Bill Kristol is a smart guy. Okay. He is. He's a smart guy. He's like wrong about a lot of things now and even earlier, but he's a, he's a smart guy. He recognizes even one of the people most fanatically obsessed with American intervention in the Middle East. Even he realizes the Iran war is a big problem. It's just a big problem. It is politically much more significant. It is not that Trump didn't have a justification to go in there. It's not that we want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It's not that the mullahs have a right to exist as a regime. It's not any of that. It's just a practical question. This is becoming a big, big problem for us. And Republicans need an answer for that. It's probably too late for the midterms. But we're going to need an answer for that. We're going to need some kind of off-ramp. And the problem is, there's not going to be any off-ramp before the midterms. Trump knows that. He said that the other day. He's said that repeatedly. Because the Iranian regime knows when our elections are just as well as we do. We don't have a secret calendar. They know when the elections are. They're going to try to maximize the pain for the Trump administration, to maximize the Democrat majority in the House and potentially the Senate, to try to destroy this administration and prevent Republicans from winning in 2028. Meanwhile, the Democrats are saying, we just want to give you health care. We're focused on affordability. We want, those are the two issues. Those are the two issues you're hearing about in this midterm from the Democrats. We need to address the affordability crisis and we want to give you free health care. It's all BS. Here, how we know this is one of the most, probably the most prominent Democrat Senate candidate here, Abdul El-Sayed, describing in an earlier interview what he actually wants to do with your money and your health care. It's not that we're asking everybody to move to England, right? What we are doing, and in the U.S. is saying, we're actually just going to give other people access, right, to what you have and make yours more expensive. We're not asking you to lose access. We're just making yours more expensive. And not that much so, in fact. We're making it marginally more expensive. And so we're not actually taking away, we're not changing the health care system entirely, right? We're giving, I mean, in a very general sense, we're giving people the same access that they always had. We're giving people the same access that they always had. And we're just asking them to pay a little bit more so that everybody else can have that access, too. Okay, so right off the bat, they say, Democrats, we're promising you affordability. We want things to be less expensive for you. But when you scratch them a little bit, when you get below the surface, what do they say? They say, actually, we're going to make things more expensive. The thing we're going to make more expensive specifically is the thing that we are promising to make more affordable. And how does Abdul El-Sayed defend it? He says, well, no, we're just going to give it to more people. We're going to make it more expensive. We're going to give it to more people. What does that even mean? You're saying that there are these people who don't have health care, and you're going to give it to them because they're too poor. Okay. We already have programs for that. We have Medicaid. We have lots of state-run programs all around the country that give health insurance to people who are too poor to afford it. The rest of the people pay for health insurance. They pay for health insurance either through their employers, or they pay for health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges. But that's how it works. And Abdul El-Sayed is saying, well, no, no, in order to give health care to some people, we're going to make all of you who are paying for health care pay more. Hold on. The people who don't pay anything are already getting it for free. And the people whose costs are about to go up are already getting health care. So what is this really about? The one thing the Democrats are telling you their campaigns are about is affordability specifically with regard to health care. We just want to give you all health care. And yet the one thing we know that they're not going to deliver, and when you find the commentary from them from years past, we know that they're not going to deliver that. They're going to make health care more expensive, which is exactly what happened the last time that they ran on this in the Obama administration. They said, we're not going to take away your doctors. We're going to make health care cheaper. You're not going to pay a penny more for your health care. Then Obamacare passes. Everyone's health care costs go up. They take away their doctors. And what does Obama say? He says, well, you didn't think you were going to get all that good stuff for free, did you? Yeah, we did, because you didn't think you were going to get We would. That's what they're giving you. They're giving you that, plus they're going to trans the kids, plus they're going to take away your stuff, plus they're going to flood the country with foreigners. And at this point, unless Republicans can really rally, get out there in these tight races, spend a little bit of money, go out, hit the polls, get your friends to vote, turn around public opinion, it seems like a fait accompli. Now, before we go, maybe just a little bit of reporting that nearly half of people in Michigan say they would not elect a Muslim president. To have respondents from this poll, 45 percent say they would not consider voting for a Muslim. First of all, it's just gross. Right, right. And what was the Jewish factor? I mean, the Jewish number was. It's 20 percent. I mean, it's it's it's gross, but that is what he's contending with. And let's also. I would say that a lot of what Mike Rogers is campaigning on, yes, is the economy, but he's also not so subtly talking about issues that Hassan Piker talked about, about 9-11 and so forth. OK, so this is a little bit of a white pill. No offense to our Muslim friends. I know. I know we have some Muslim viewers and listeners out there. But this is kind of a white pill when you're talking about Abdul Al-Sayed, right? In Michigan, because this guy looks like he's going to win the race right now. And Abdul Al-Sayed's campaign, it's always been a little schizophobic. On the one hand, he's running as a jihadi to go win the votes in Dearborn, Michigan. On the other hand, he's running as a homosexual. He's, you know, he's singing, oh, I want to dance with somebody. He's appealing to his real base, the base being college educated liberal white women. And you don't know how to attack him because he's playing to both. Forty five percent of Michigan says they won't vote for a Muslim for president. Why would they vote for a Muslim for Senate? I guess the presidency is a bigger job than senator. But that's something good. That's something that we can exploit. And CNN is aghast to say this is so disgusting, so horrifying. Why? Why is that? I would not vote for someone who supports abortion. I would not vote for someone who wants to trans the kids. I would not vote for someone who wants to flood the country with foreigners. In other words, I choose who I'm going to vote for based on their beliefs. So why would I vote for someone who supports abortion? Why would I not extend that, or at least in principle, to their religious beliefs? Why would I limit that only to their economic beliefs or to their social beliefs or to their beliefs about education or raising children or whatever? I'll tell you why. The reason why CNN is aghast and can't believe this is because of a fact that St. John Henry Newman observed in the idea of a university, which is that we don't treat religion as an actual area of knowledge. We don't treat religion as an actual area of knowledge. We don't treat religion as an ideology, for instance, as a serious field of study. We don't treat God as a real person or as a real being. We treat religion as preference. We treat matters of economics, politics, sociology, and so on. We treat that as opinion. We treat that as facts seen in different ways from different perspectives. But religion, I take it seriously, but you probably take it seriously. But CNN does not take it seriously. They can't even imagine that anyone would take it seriously. They can't take it seriously. They don't view it as an objective discipline. They view it as subjective preference. So they say, to CNN, to the liberals, saying that you wouldn't vote for a Muslim for president is like saying you wouldn't vote for someone who prefers vanilla ice cream to chocolate. Why would that? It doesn't matter. That's totally trivial. It's just a preference. But if you believe, as I do, that religion is making truth claims, it says this is true and this is false and some religion is truer than other religion. If you believe, as I do, that all politics has recourse to morality because all politics comes down to arguing for a good thing against a bad thing, arguing the goodness of one bill versus the badness of another bill, and all morality has recourse to religion, then religion really does matter here. There's nothing wrong with saying you wouldn't vote for a Muslim for president. There's nothing really bigoted about that. There's nothing. I mean, if the Muslim were like a fake Muslim, if the Muslim didn't take his religion seriously, if it were, okay, maybe. But in as much as someone takes the belief seriously, voters have to take that seriously, too. That's one thing that Republicans could play up. You hear CNN, they say, can you believe Mike Rogers? They're being very vague about it. He's hinting at Islamophobia. Yeah, okay. If CNN's freaking out about that, to me, that says that is exactly what Rogers needs to lean into. It's what the GOP should lean into. They shouldn't be ashamed of it. And if you like Islamophobia, you need to check out Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels on dailywire.com slash subscribe. We have a new segment. This Wednesday, because we were supposed to do work from home Wednesday for the last six months, and we never do it. So Mr. Davies has a new one. The rest of the show continues. Now, you do not want to miss it. Remember, use code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S to check out for two months free on all annual plans. Every significant movement in history has started with protesting. Not a traitor. It's Uncle Tom. This is our generation's civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should a figure as polarizing as Clay Saunders even be allowed on campus? Can you hear me okay? Saunders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. This is a decision I cannot fight. Islam will conquer the West. As-salamu alaykum. Are we paying attention? They've taken over the building. They're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah the Almighty. We cannot Run and hide. Mohammed is the messenger. Messenger of God, there is no God but Allah. What do you say we turn those SOBs into a fond red mist? As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leap project. Stretch them out and listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling.