Ep. 2068 - Obama Claims Women Could Fix The World In "2 Years"

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 presented by Good Ranchers, delivering a hundred percent American meat from American Farms Aranches straight to your door. This month get a free four pound angus ground beef bundle with your first order at GoodRanchers.com/Noles. Good Ranchers, American Meat, delivered. More bad news for Republicans as socialism reaches record highs in public polling all while young men surge to the Democrats in the pre-midterm polls. Then Ukraine weighs legalizing pornography in order to fund its now decade-long war after Russia's invasion. Does not seem like the best way to get got on your side for a war. We'll see how it plays out and a new candidate emerges in the 2028 presidential primary. A show we say big political figure, a well-rounded statesman. And now we're all wondering with Mr. Christy entering the race. Is the Christy Sons upon us? I'm Michael Noles. It's the Michael Noles show. We're going back to the show. If you've not yet seen Run-Hide Fight Infidels, you need to go see it now. What are you doing? What are you missing? Go to dailywire.com/subscribe, go see the movie everyone's talking about. Run-Hide Fight Infidels. You think that Run-Hide Fight Infidels presents a gloomy outlook on America. I got something that'll top it. It is this new Gallup poll, which shows that socialism is more popular in America than ever, than ever. Socialism has been around for a long time. Socialism has been around since at least the 19th century, and it's spiked. Marx hits the scene. You see the beginning of socialist revolutions start brewing in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Then socialism has this long run in the 20th century. Communism has this long run in the 20th century. Yikes, but terrible regimes, lots of death. But there was a moment in America when it really could have boiled over in the 1920s and 30s. Then it's back. It's more popular than ever. 40% approval of socialism in the United States. Republicans obviously is still pretty low at 14%, and then among independents, it's at 45%, 65% of Democrats say that they have a positive view of socialism. So it's really, really high, and it's still growing. Now, why is this happening? It is happening in part because of the bad education system. That's real. Concert is what we always say. You know, it's these schools that are in indoctrinating kids into socialism. That's true. How did we get there? We got there because Republicans have not been tough enough about excluding socialism from the classroom. It's mostly the Democrats fault. It's mostly the left's fault, but it's the right's fault for letting it happen. And the way that the right let it happen is that we weren't tough enough. The conservative movement was founded. I think most people probably date the post-war conservative movement to William F. Buckley, Jr., the founding of a place called National Review, and the publication of a book called God and Man at Yale. God and Man at Yale, which said that we need to stop academic freedom, academic freedom is fake. It's a superstition. We need to fire the socialists who are teaching at our universities. Many modern conservatives, including people who feel that they're in the Buckley ite trend, the national review, the movement conservative, line of thinking. They today, if you said that we need to go into the schools and fire all the socialists based on their viewpoints, they would tell you you're an authoritarian, you're a fascist, you're a Franco, we can't do that. It's not just the, I'm happy to blame the left, but it's a lot of the mainstream conservatives too who refuse to fight back. So because of that, because we feel that the calls of William F. Buckley, Jr., were akin to fascism, we have allowed this to happen. And to this day, there are many squishes on the right who refuse to do much of anything about it, to fire the socialist teachers, to use the heavy hand of the state, and certainly the trustees and the funding and the elements of civil society to discriminate against certain viewpoints, to prefer some viewpoints to others, and to do what needs to be done to exclude the socialist from society. No wonder they've indoctrinated the students. That's part of it. The other reason that socialism is surging is that much of what passes for modern conservatism is essentially just giving corporations whatever they want. And it's a crony form of capitalism and it's sometimes we dress it up in the guise of meritocracy. So it sounds like it's really principled. It sounds like it's something that the founding fathers would have supported. And we say, "Hey, corporations should have every right to just import foreign labor and undercut the wages of American workers." And that's actually meritocracy. They deserve it. But the term meritocracy does not represent some eternal kind of political principle. The term meritocracy is a term of propaganda. The term meritocracy is a euphemism. It's a slogan. What is it really mean? What you're supposed to think that it means is that people get what they deserve. What you're supposed to think that meritocracy means is just a kind of synonym for justice, justice, which is this consistent habit of virtue to give to people what they deserve. But is that really what it means? What does it mean to merit something? Does the random person living in India or China or anywhere, Timbuktu? Does that person merit an American job? Does that person deserve by right an American job or a place at an American university or a green card to live in America or American citizenship? Do they really deserve that? They might get good scores on standardized tests. But does that really mean that they deserve this place in the American political community? Not necessarily. I think the descendant of the guy who fought in the American Revolution or who fought in the American Civil War, I think that guy can make a claim to deserve something in the American political system. Maybe his SAT score is in his high. Maybe, I don't know, maybe he didn't do as many extra curriculars as the guy in the foreign country. But this term of propaganda, this term meritocracy is assuming a very, very narrow, highly ideological view of merit, of what people deserve in a political community. And this is one of the arguments made by the more classical and traditional conservatives contra to the libertarians and the neo-conservatives on the right in recent years. We say, hey, guys, there's more to a country than just GDP. There's more to a country than just standardized test scores. That a political community involves a lot more than that. It involves traditions. It involves being here for a long time. It involves sacrifices that you've made for the country. It involves language. It involves religion. It involves culture. It involves a lot more than that. That's what you're seeing. So there are many people who otherwise might be on the right who realize that what passes for the conservative view of society, the traditional view, capitalism even, is really just a kind of form of cronyism that is being abused by bad actors who are not oriented toward the public good, but are only oriented toward their selfish interest. The vice president just posted today that the White House is, well, I'll just read it. I actually just retweeted it even before the show began. Let me see, I'll pull it up here on my Twitter. You have it from JD Vance. Where is it? Okay. Hold on. Wait. Nope. I've lost it. I don't know. I've lost it. Here we go. JD Vance, our message to corporate America is simple. We're not going to let you lay off American workers so you can replace them with cheap foreign labor. That's pretty simple. That kind of message, I think, will help turn people away from socialism. But he's being pilloried by the more establishment figures on the right for promoting socialism. If you don't allow your country to be flooded by a bunch of foreign workers who have nothing in common with your culture, then you're a socialist. That's the argument. Now, guess what? If that's the message that you give to voters, you're going to see support for socialism hit record highs because you're going to have all of the leftists who believe in socialism, true socialism ideologically. And you're going to turn off all of the ordinary Americans, though working Americans whose wages have been undercut, whose way of life have been upended, whose communities have been flooded by foreigners. You're going to turn them off. You're going to say, hey, if you oppose our program, then you're a socialist. A lot of them are going to say, you know what? I guess I'm a socialist. I guess you're right. Or at least I'm an independent or at least I ain't voting for you. So you're seeing this swing play out electrically, really worrisome fall from signum comes out, says that young men are flocking to the Democrats. And that's not quite the whole story. That headline is a little sensational too, but there's a big underlying problem. Here's the problem. In 2024, President Trump carried young men. It was narrow, but he carried young men. Charlie Kirk had a lot to do with that. In fact, the White House Chief of Step Susie Wilde said at Charlie's funeral that Charlie made the winning difference specifically with young men. So why are the young men flocking to the Democrats right now? In part, it has to do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In part, it has to do with the fact that we didn't really clamp down on the left after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The left took a victory lap. We saw that just a couple of weeks ago. But the poll doesn't actually show that all those young men who voted Republican are now going to vote Democrat in the midterms. According to the signal poll, the Democrats generic ballot lead among men ages 18 to 30, who say they're most determined to vote, is 57 to 40. So you look at that, you say, "Yikes, that's a big swing." We went from 52 to 48, 51 to 49, whatever, to 57 to 40 in favor of the Democrats, yikes. But hold on, this is the lead among young men, ages 18 to 30, who say they are most determined to vote. Okay, I don't think this really represents a ton of right-wing men who are now going to go out and vote for the Democrats. I think this represents a kind of disillusionment, a pulling back of those young men that we had pulled into the right-wing coalition and got animated to vote. It's a pulling back of those men. They're just not not going to go vote. And so there are still some men who vote for Democrats. You know, they're a little bit, they're a little bit light in the loafers, they're a little bit, I don't know, they're not, they're not the manliest men, but there are men who vote for Democrats. Those guys are animated. Some people who are on the fringes, maybe you're switching over, but it just shows the Democrats are really, really excited about this election, the Republicans are feeling disillusioned. And unfortunately, the Republican messaging has been a little weak here, and unfortunately, some of the underlying problems, not the least of which is the Iran war. That is really shaping, that's really motivating voters as we head into the midterms. Meanwhile, this is, I don't want to say it's just bad news. I'm certainly not a doomer, but I want to give you the truth. Okay, I'm not going to flatter you. I'm not going to pander. I'm not going to give you pure Republican propaganda. The Democrats are playing this Iran war issue beautifully, even the most eccentric controversial candidates, guys like Abdul El-Sayed, for whom the Iran war should be actually a tougher issue. He was just asked a question about this at an on-campus event. He did a great, great job. We will get to his town hall answer in a second. First, I want to tell you about Pure Talk. There's a lot more to say, first though, you know something I love doing on my phone. It's watching cat videos. And you too can watch those cat videos at puretalk.com/knowledge. You can't watch it at puretalk.com. You got to go and get the phone. Think about what you're paying for wireless every month. Now, ask yourself whether that number is anywhere close to 34.99 because that is what Pure Talk charges for unlimited high-speed data. 34.99 per month period. I have had my Pure Talk phone and my Pure Talk service for a long time. I can make calls, send texts, watch videos, use the unlimited data. The coverage is superb. We're talking about the best towers in the country. You can also take it overseas. Apparently, I'm not the only one in a recent industry survey of more than 120,000 wireless customers. Pure Talk was the only wireless company to earn five out of five stars in every category, coverage, support, value, and data. So you're not sacrificing your service to save money. Go to puretalk.com/knowledge. You will also get 50% off your first month. Then unlimited high-speed data, just 34.99 a month, puretalk.com/knowledge. 34.99 a month for unlimited high-speed data. Stop overpaying and make a switch. Abdul El Sayyad, one of the worst Democrats in it. It's running alternately a jihadi and a communist. Is he appealing to the Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan? Is he appealing to the purple-haired white liberal ladies who have graduate degrees, which are his actual base? It's a tough campaign because there's this wedge in between his supporters. So he was asked about a wedge issue at this town hall event. Listen to his answer. You can imagine our surprise as Persians, our sadness when we heard you, Abdul, a leaked audio tape of you saying that you didn't want to comment on Supreme Leader Humanez death and that people in Dearborn were sad when he died. And I just have a simple question, Abdul. That silence was how to gaping hole in our community. And I want to ask if you regret that silence. I want to ask if you renounce the people that held vigils that supported this terrorist for all the stuff that he's done. I wanted to ask if you stand unequivocally against the IRGC, against the Islamic Republic of Iran that has killed 50,000 protesters. Abdul, I haven't heard anything from you about the protesters of Abdul. Please, I appreciate your question. And thank you. What I will tell you is this, for too long and too often, when we think about our role in the world, we have turned ourselves into the world's policeman. And I think what we all want, what we all need, is more democracy, more freedom in the world, but also an understanding of what we actually can and should do with respect to that. And here's my point. One can disagree with the governance of a foreign country. One can stand in solidarity with freedom and democracy movements, but my worry is when one decides that we are going to go in and take out the leadership of a foreign government. I hate this. I hate this answer so much because it's a great answer. It's a great answer. You got to give the devil his do. It's an excellent answer. He goes on. We don't have time to get to the whole answer. He goes on. He says, you know, there are sometimes selfish motives in these wars. And you know, sometimes they're really being fought for private interests and oil companies. It's a good answer. It is. You see the setup here from this young man who's obviously an opponent of Abdul Al-Sahed comes out. Thank you. But Abdul, will you please stand with the Persian people against the IRGC? And Abdul Al-Sahed goes, hey, yeah, I do. I stand with freedom and democracy movements, but statecraft isn't just about ideology in the abstract and we need to do what's best for the American people. His answer, Abdul freaking al-Sahed, communist jihadi. His answer is basically, we just need to look after Americans first. Communist jihadi Abdul Al-Sahed says, you know, we actually need prudence in politics because prudence is the paramount political virtue. And we need to make sure that we're behaving in the appropriate way and doing and not making the situation worse and not getting bobbed down in wars in the Middle East. And it's just it's an excellent answer. I don't know whether he really believes this. I think he'd be a horrible senator. I hope he loses and his candidacy goes down in flames. His candidacy ain't going to go down in flames with that kind of answer. The Iran war is polling at 33% approval. So then all right, I've said enough nice things about Abdul Al-Sahed. I'll try never to do that again. I hope I don't have to do that again. I want to know the motivation of the questioner here. I don't know if that questioner works for the opponents political, you know, for Mike Rogers, political campaign. There's no evidence that he does. I don't know if he is actually a Republican. I don't know that I don't know if he was put up to it. Maybe it's just a totally sincere question. Could be whatever it is, though, that question is not helping Mike Rogers. That question is not helping the Republicans. They think it is. I'm sure some genius political strategist, some brilliant beltway consultant thinks this is a good way to help the Republicans. Yeah. Get let get Abdul Al-Sahed to weigh in on the IRGC in the oppressive Islamic Republic of Iran, not not the brave Persian people. Voters don't care about the brave Persian people. Hate to break it to you. Voters don't want to hear it. Voters are not motivated by the kind of slogans that Republicans ran on during the global war on terror 20 years ago. Republicans lost eventually because of those slogans because people are not that interested. American voters are not that interested in spreading democracy as a global secular crusade. Increasingly, we're interested in a religious crusade, but we're definitely not interested in one of these secular, liberal, global crusades, the kind of which we saw 20 years ago. Americans are far less concerned with the freedom and democracy of the Iranian protesters than they are with the price of diesel. Then they are with focusing on issues that are nearer to home. In other words, I want to clarify this for any GOP consultant or any candidates out there who are listening. You are not going to improve your numbers by trying to pin the Democrats down on the Iran war. Every second that you spend talking about the Iran war, you are losing. The Iran war is simply a losing issue for Republicans. By the way, there is an argument that it was a good thing to do. There is a grand strategic, you know, I cautioned a restraint on this most recent Iran war as a practical tactical matter. There is an argument that the Iran war could end up being a good thing in the long run. If the Iran war had gone well from the beginning, it would have been the greatest grand strategic victory. So there are strong arguments for the war from the standpoint of geopolitics. But from the standpoint of electoral politics in the midterms, it is simply a loser. Don't talk about it. The only way that Republicans are going to improve their chances in the midterms is by reducing the importance of the Iran war in people's minds. It's not about trying to win the argument about the Iran war. It's not about talking about the poor beleaguered Persian people. It's not talking about spreading democracy. It's not talking about the profiteous evil, awful mullets. It's like Ronald Reagan, his old line, when you're explaining you're losing, well, that is especially true when it comes to this issue. And the fact that Democrats have a good answer, Democrats don't need to offer an alternative. They don't need to come out and say, yeah, we want to do, we want to buy off the mullets. We want to improve the political standing of Iran. Yeah, you know, we don't want to defend American interests. Yeah, we want to abandon Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and Israel and our other allies. And they don't have to say any of that. They just have to say diesel price is bad that we would have done it differently. They just have to sit there as armchair quarterbacks and say they would have been way better. That will be more persuasive to people. Not good. Especially at a time when it looks like Abdul Al-Sahid is going to win that race. Anything could happen. It's a tight enough race. Anything could happen in the meantime. But if Iran remains the top political issue, it's going to go very well for Abdul. Okay. Now, speaking of candidates, let's look ahead to 2028. It looks like that Republican field. It's already becoming quite populated. On the one hand, the nomination of the vice president seems like a fate of complete. As nearest rival, Marco Rubio has already endorsed him. President Trump has effectively already endorsed him multiple times. He's the guy. He's the next in line. He's done an excellent job. I think he's the most popular member of the administration, certainly of anyone who could run for president. So you say, okay, it's going to be JD Vance, right? Except other people's signal, they're going to run the first person to do that was Rand Paul. There's a libertarian lane. Second person to signal that was Senator Cruz. There's a Reaganite lane. And a Santos has kind of signaled that a little bit. There's a lane for him too. His lane would be Trumpism outside the administration. Trumpism without the baggage of, I don't know, I don't know, that's a tougher lane. But he was a very good governor, so he could do it. Well, we have a new one. We have a new candidate. You maybe not, you were not expecting him. I've been expecting him. I am never taken by surprise by the political ambitions of governor, Chris Christie, the Christie renaissance, the Chrisessons, the croissants we call them, might be upon us for the restoration of Chris and dumb. Are you ready for Christie 28? We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about Yaf. There's a lot more to say. First, they'll go to Yaf.org/national-journalism-hiphon-center. If you're young and you know that you want to make an impact in media or politics, please do not spend the next five years waiting for somebody to give you permission to start. Right. I love Yaf. I've worked with Yaf for gosh, almost 10 years at this point. I remember when I was a student and I was able to hear great conservative speakers because of Yaf. Well, Yaf has the national journalism center since 1977 and JC has been helping launch young journalists into political media through a 12 week paid full-time internship in Washington, DC. This is not an internship where you spend three months getting coffee. You're working Monday through Thursday inside real political newsrooms, including the Daily Wire with opportunities to contribute published work. Then every Friday you learn directly from prominent conservative journalists, plus you receive one-on-one investigative training from reporters who know how to dig deeper, uncover stories and hold powerful people accountable. Here is a huge deal for anyone trying to afford DC at the beginning of their career. Housing Uncapital Hill is free. That is worth it in itself. If you're serious about journalism, stop wondering how you're going to break in and go get the experience. You're off the sidelines, get into the game, apply to the National Journalism Center today. Yaf.org/National-Hyphen, Journalism-Hyphen Center. He's signaling it. Christy is signaling that he's going to run. Where is it? New Jersey Globe. That's what they call him, by the way. The New Jersey Globe. No, it's not nice. Come on. I don't mean to make jokes about that. I actually do have quite a lot of respect for Christy as a politician because he's just a political animal. You forget about ideology, you forget about the shots he's taken. He's a political survivor. He just keeps running. He's tenacious. But anyway, so the New Jersey Globe, as we say, says that Christy is considering a third presidential bid in 2028. The former New Jersey governor says midterm results could determine whether the GOP is ready for a different direction. I'm going to say it now. I know I said it again. I said it in 2024, and I was early. When all stradamus predictions were early, but I mean it. Christy has a lane. He might need a few lanes actually. No, he does. Christy has a lane, because here's how I see the field shaping it. I think Vance is going to be the nominee, probably. I think basically anyone putting money down today would say that Vance is going to be the nominee. But there are other candidates who are going to run. Their friends over at Calche have all sorts of odds for people who are going to run for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination. Obviously right up there at the top is JD Vance, but you've got some other people. There's still some odds for Ruby. I don't think he's going to run. You've got Thomas Massey. I bet he will run. He and Rand Paul are going to fight for the libertarian lane. Rand Paul is going to run in the more mainstream libertarian lane. Massey is going to run in the more dissident outsider, libertarian lane. Right now Calche has Christy at 31%. So his odds are spiking, and I think he has a lane because, as I mentioned before, JD almost certainly the guy. Ruby oh, probably doesn't run. DeSantis probably doesn't run, but could. His lane would be, I'm running as Trumpism, but better. I'm Trump without the baggage, Trump without the tweets, Trump without the eccentricity is. That's how he ran in 24. It didn't work because he was literally running against Donald Trump. So he was running as Trump bigger, better, faster, stronger, but all of his natural supporters were anti-Trump. So there was just this intrinsic conflict in the campaign and it didn't work. The same dynamic is going to play out again because Trump is going to be very involved in 2028. Whoever the nominee is, let's say it's JD Vance right now, JD will be the avatar for Trump. So DeSantis probably gets squeezed. Senator Cruz has signaled that he's going to run. Senator Cruz definitely has a lane. Cruz was the number two guy to Trump in 2016. Senator Cruz is very good at running for president. He has a natural base of support for people who were always a little bit skeptical of Trump and some people who don't like JD Vance, whether because they think his foreign policy views are not interventionist enough, whether because they think that his economic views are too interventionist, whatever it is, there is a kind of Reaganite lane for Senator Cruz. I think he's going to dominate that lane. There's always the Rand Paul, sorry, the Libertarian lane, which probably is going to be Rand Paul or Thomas Massey or somebody. But then who's running is the actual establishment Republican? Who's running is the actual Mitt Romney character? Chris Christie could own that lane. The only way that it works is if the Trump administration totally implodes. The only way that the Trump administration totally implodes is if Iran goes off the rails. I don't think Iran's going to go off the rails, but it's going to go on for a long time. It's a long shot for Christie. But if the Trump administration goes totally off the rails, improbable though it may be, then nobody in Trump's blast radius is going to actually win the presidency. So that means that Senator Cruz is in a much better position than the people currently within the administration or even around the Santas. But Senator Cruz has also worked with Trump very well. It was very big of Cruz. They ran a brutal primary against each other in 16 and then they have a very good working relationship. That's good if the race is calibrated just perfectly that Trump administration hasn't totally imploded, but the figures in the administration have lost their popularity. Trump's lost a little bit of his touch and you want the kind of an alternative, but who can kind of work with the Trump world. Senator Cruz has got it. He's got that area totally mapped out. But if the calibration goes totally off-kilter, if there's too much weight on one side or the other and you need a counterweight, like a big, giant counterweight, that's your Chris Christie because Christie is totally outside of Trump world. He's totally establishment now. He was an effective governor. He's a political animal. He can take hits. He's tenacious. He'll never give up wanting to be president. I'm not predicting Christie's going to be the nominator that he's going to be president. I'm just telling you, he's got a lane. The Chrisessons might be upon us. Okay. Speaking of who should run the world, Barack Obama just said something that, oh, it makes you roll your eyes. It makes your cortisol spike. He's going viral for it, Barack Obama said that if women ran the world for just a couple of years, everything would improve. Even when I was president, I sometimes fantasized about, if you put women in charge of every government for like two years, and then just kind of saw how things are going. I have a strong belief that things would, they wouldn't be perfect, but they'd be better. Oh yeah. Oh yeah, Obama. You hear this from every feminist guy who's trying to get some feminist chick to undress. You see this, you hear this from every feminist guy who's trying to flatter some chick. So you know, I think if we just gotten women to run the world, you imagine how better things would be. I think we just need to get women to run the world for a couple of years. Oh yeah. You think that Barack Obama? That's funny. seem to recall your life's work culminating in and not letting a woman be president. You remember that? I know it's ancient history now. 2008, Hillary was the presumptive nominee for the Democrat Party. And then Barack Obama comes out of nowhere and spends 18 months insisting that she should not be the leader of the free world. You remember that? So if Barack Obama believes there will be so much better of women right now for two years, why did he do that? Because Barack Obama, like every feminist man, is a liar. He does not really believe that. And it's particularly absurd, and tone death to, and actually absurd means tone death. It means that out of tune, just a little etymology trivia for the show today. It's especially tone death right now because we are coming off of a national episode in which women have looked crazier than they have looked maybe in the entire history of the world since Liza Strada. This is coming off of the Lindsey Clancy episode where you had hundreds of women showing up to the courthouse, some with their kids to defend a woman who murdered her kids. You, you, you have many, many more women on social media creating videos and solidarity with Lindsey saying that now we're told that these women that they're really peaceful, they're really smart, they're really rational, they're, okay, I'm super pro woman, I love women. It is not true. If women ran the world, there would be more wars. Women hate each other. They do. They just do. Come on. You're not late. Women sometimes are a little bit more emotional than men. I think I think we would all have to admit that's true. Women can be rather violent in different ways than men. The women have become more violent and more crazy as the result of left-wing social policies, notably abortion. Yesterday was the beatification of archbishop Fulton Sheen. Fulton Sheen said he said, can you imagine with a legalization of abortion and rovy weight, can you imagine what it's going to be like in 10, 15 years, how crazy women are going to be when they have the guilt of murdering their own children on them? So all of that is true. I don't say this to denigrate women, men have their problems too. I'm very pro woman. I believe in the complementarity of the sexes, the spiritual equality of the sexes. But it's just not true. And I guess my biggest takeaway from this, and I rarely hear this brought up in these kinds of debates and commentary. So I imagine, you know, men have been running the world forever. Imagine if women ran, the men have done such a bad job. Imagine if women ran the world, how much better things would be. Okay, let's look at the issue from the other direction. Why is it the case that men have been running the world forever? You've had some great female leaders, some very impressive female leaders. Elizabeth I, I didn't agree with some of what she did, but she's an impressive female leader. Margaret Thatcher. She was a great female leader, very impressive. What happens? But it's the exception, Queen Victoria certainly, but it's the exception. Why is it? And by the way, women do better as monarchs than they do as prime ministers or presidents. But why is it the case that men tend to lead in public life? Is it possible? I guess this, to me, what's interesting about this, actually has very little to do with men and women, and it just has to do with the way that liberals and conservatives look at the world. The liberals look at the world and they see how things are and they say, well, the world sucks. I'm unhappy with the world. I'm discontent. I want to change the world. So everything that is should be the opposite. It should be opposite day. That's what, that's basically liberal politics. And the conservatives look at the world and they say, okay, well, this is the way things are and the way that things basically have always been everywhere. Maybe there is a reason for that. It's just fundamentally two different ways of looking at the world. One from discontent and revolution and resentment on the left and one from curiosity and humility and interest and interpretation on the right. Those are just two different ways of looking at the world. So as a conservative, I look at the fact that men generally run politics. I look at that and I say, well, why is that? I guess that tells you something about men's nature, about how men work, about how politics works. And usually don't stay home to take care of the kids. Men usually run the government. Maybe that tells you something about it. And then I say, okay, now I want to learn about men and women. I'm going to infer something. I'm going to try to understand that. Obama says, no, no, the liberals say, no, no, no, no, they look at, they say, okay, I see how reality works. Let's just do the opposite. Let's burn it all down. By the way, those liberals are about to very likely win a lot of political power, okay? So much more I want to get to, okay, I will get to just one more story. It's actually two stories, but they're kind of related. A substitute teacher just got caught on OnlyFans. A substitute teacher in her kid's school, actually. St. Louis County, she just got caught on OnlyFans. So she was fired as a substitute teacher. I think that's pretty fair, right? Then she was told she can no longer volunteer at the school. And now she's up in arms. This substitute teacher comes out. She says, hold on. I knew because I produced pornography of myself. I knew this was going to come out, people find this stuff. And so I had a feeling I might lose my job. But hold on, you're telling me that I can no longer even volunteer at my kid's school. She's horrified by this. It's like all of a sudden she says, I've done something so wrong and sinful that I'm not even allowed to volunteer at this school. I can find another job. I can handle the backlash and the criticism. But when it affects my child or my children, that's where I draw the line. And she really believes this. What's so sad is how tone deaf she is, how absurd her reaction is. It was, hold on. Now you're affecting my children, no. As if her own decisions didn't affect her children. As if it's never occurred to her that it might be bad for her children that she made herself into a public prostitute. She prostitutes herself on camera. That could never have any effect on her children. It's the fact that now they won't let her help out in the lunch room. That's going to have the negative effect on her children. She never even asks, why is it that I've been fired as a substitute teacher? She's been fired as a substitute teacher because of the scandal, because she will be scandalizing little kids, which you know, the Gospels, Christ and the Gospels tells us merits a millstone being tied around your neck, scandalizing little kids in particular. She says, okay, but, I mean, that's fine. You don't have to hire me for this job. But why can't I keep scandalizing little kids as a volunteer? Totally tone deaf. Doesn't, doesn't understand it at all. And this relates to another story out of Ukraine that I mentioned at the top of the show. Ukraine has been in this war with Russia for a dozen years now. Russia first started to invade the Eastern part of Ukraine in 2014. And United States has been involved in that proxy worse since 2014, too, since the Midon Revolution. But this war has been going on for a long time, and then Russia obviously comes in and formally invades Ukraine about eight years later in the Biden administration. And they're running out of money. And we've given them a ton of money, but they're running out of money now. So they've decided they're thinking about legalizing pornography to pay for their war. I can't help but think this is a bad idea. You see, facing a massive defense budget shortfall, Ukraine has not been able to cash in on the millions of dollars earned by its clandestine adult content industry. This is the point, it's like that old Michelin Web bit, you know, where the Nazis are looking around and say, are we the baddies? Ukraine has this massive pornography industry, but to Ukraine's credit, it's illegal. So they don't get tax money from it. It's all illegal. There's a black market of only fans and weird sex stuff. But they say, we're not going to profit from this. We should clamp down on this, they basically look the other way, but we're, you know, this is wrong and we don't want a country of pornography. Well, the war is dragging on, they need some money. There's a lot of money being left on the table. Ukraine has this $27 billion budget gap and they realize that the porn industry is making a lot of money. So they say, you know what, we're going to legalize porn and we're going to tax it. So we're going to fund our war by prostituting our women. This seems like probably a bad way to fund a war, certainly if you're trying to present the war as a righteous moral crusade, especially if you want God on your side, you know, I'm not going to speak for God, but that doesn't seem like a good way to do it. So if the war in Ukraine, getting all the way, we were talking about, talking about international wars at the top of this show, if the war in Ukraine is this righteous crusade against a revanchist, expansionist Russia that is just invading and killing people's civilians willy-nilly. If that's the war, I can get behind the Ukraine side. If it's a war for the just defense of a country being invaded by hostile power. But if the war is to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity for the purpose of liberal globalism, the liberal global empire, it actually does make sense that you're going to fund the war on pornography. That does. Pornography is a big part of liberal globalism, sure, okay. But now I'm a lot less interested in funding that war. It's just so perverse. You read that story, you say, I know, I know how we'll fund the war, we'll prostitute our women. I don't know. Those don't sound like the good guys. Russia, I think Russia is the bad guys. But Ukraine is doing everything they can do to convince me otherwise, not smart. I hope they withdraw that bill. Now, I'm very excited to get to the mailbag first though. I want to tell you about lean. There's a lot more to say first though, go to takelean.com, use promo code nulls. Fall arrived approximately. five minutes ago. Suddenly it's gloomy, gets dark earlier, everyone wants to stay inside. We've officially entered the portion of the calendar where physical activity steadily declines, while food consumption moves aggressively in the opposite direction. We're only getting started. Next comes Halloween, then Thanksgiving, then Christmas. Pretty soon, we're approaching three straight months of candy, pie, stuffing, cookies, cocktails, Christmas parties. Somebody will inevitably wake up January 2nd and announce that it's time to get healthy. But people talk about preventative Botox. May I propose preventative lean? Do not wait until January to start paying attention. Lean from Rick House nutrition was developed by doctors for people seriously trying to lose 10 pounds or more. It's studied ingredients are designed to support healthy blood sugar, fat metabolism, and appetite and craving control. This is not permission to eat 17 Christmas cookies. If appetite and cravings are usually where your good intentions fall apart, lean can be another tool alongside a healthy diet and exercise plan. People in our office take it. They're very pleased with the results. Other people in our office should take it. Maybe some people on my team, even. I'm not going to name names. Perhaps this year, we do not wait for the New Year's resolution. Go to takelean.com. These promo code Noles for 20% off plus free shipping that is takelean.com promo code Noles. I did not pick the comment yesterday. The producers did. My favorite comment is from Justin Lee who says, "The more I hear about this Hitler guy, the more I don't like him." Yeah, it was a very wise man who first said that. Our mailbag is sponsored by PureTuck at PureTuck.com/Noles to get 50% off your first month. Take it away. Hey, Michael. My name is Melanie and the question that I want to ask you is about purgatory. I'm a Christian. I guess you could say Protestant. I have always understood the Bible to be to mean and say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. If you're a Christian and you're saved, when you die, you go to heaven. The opposite is true. If you are not a Christian, you die. You immediately go to hell. However, I have heard you reference and other Catholic friends that I have reference purgatory and I'm just curious as to where that is in the Bible and what the understanding of purgatory is and where that comes from in the Bible. I do have a little knowledge of the bosom of Abraham and that in the Old Testament, but to my knowledge and understanding, Christ dying on the cross and making that atonement for our sins, removed all of the prior Old Testament laws or understandings around life after death. You could just explain that. I'd greatly appreciate it. Yes, very good question. It's not the bosom of Abraham. There is the bosom of Abraham, which is sort of like Hades. It's like before Christ Harrow's Hell and that's kind of what the bosom of Abraham is talking about. Don't think of purgatory that way. In fact, it's probably helpful not to think of purgatory as a place at all. I think it's more helpful to think of purgatory as a process. Where do we get the idea of purgatory and scripture? We get it from the first John where John is writing about the distinction between mortal and venial sins. All sins are bad. All sins is unrighteousness, but there are some sins which are not mortal. What does he mean by this? He means there are some sins that they just kill you. They totally sever this relationship of grace and some just aren't they're bad, but they're distinct and they're less grave. Okay. We have our Lord talking about the debtor, the debtor who will not get out of the debtor's prison until he pays the very last far thing. We have all sorts of talk throughout the entire Bible about how we will be judged according to our works. We're not saved by our works. So get that out of your mind. But there is some kind of judgment that somehow kind of involves our works. Okay. And then in the book of the Apocalypse of St. John, the book of Revelation, we know that nothing imperfect is permitted into heaven. So what does all this mean? It means that if we believe in Christ and we follow him and we take up his yoke, his yoke is easy and his burden is light and we do what he tells us to do, then we can be saved. Okay. That's really great. But nothing imperfect can enter into heaven. And some sins totally kill us, but some sins don't totally kill us. And so how does that work? If I die at the end of my life, if I'm not perfect, and I haven't yet paid the very last far thing, and I'd have committed sins, which are not more at all, but what do I what happens? St. Paul writes about this in the first letter to the Corinthians. A first Corinthians three verses 11 through 15. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now, if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man's work will become manifest for the day will disclose it because it will be revealed with fire. And the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. This is probably the clearest description of purgatory, which again, for people get hung up on it because they think it's like some third option. Some people go to heaven, some people go to hell, some people go to purgatory. That's not what it is. If you go to purgatory, you are going to heaven, but I think it's easier, especially for the modern mind to think of purgatory as a kind of process, this process of testing by fire, burning up of a kind of a salutary fire. That's, and the fire imagery is exactly what we get from St. Paul. It's not like the fires of hell. It's a salutary kind of fire that makes sense of all of those other verses. We haven't even gone through all of them, but it makes sense of all of the other verses that tell you about what it means for heaven to be absolutely perfect, for you not to be absolutely perfect, and for Christ to save you. Okay, next one. Good morning, Michael. This is Arun. A couple of years ago, before the AI revolution was in full swing, I had a debate about transgenderism with a friend of mine who asked me if I think that an AI can have a gender, and at the time I told him, well, no, it can simulate a gender, but real gender requires gonads and chromosomes and such. But it looks like, at some point in the near future, AI will be able to simulate almost every facet of human consciousness, and perhaps we'll even have physical attributes that currently are only applicable to humans, perhaps even sex organs. So I am curious, in light of that, how would you answer his question? Thank you as always for your wisdom. Excellent question, Arun. I'm sure people are thinking about this as the robots become more and more human-like, and I've predicted for a long time once AI pornography and the robots are perfected, the sex robots are made. That will be the extinction of the human race, of course. But will they really truly have a gender? And the answer is no. They won't have a gender, because gender sex is an inseparable accident of the individual. So St. Thomas Aquinas writes about this. It's actually a very helpful way to think during the big transgender debate. Is what is sex, you know, is it some part of our nature of our souls or something? Well, if that were the case, if sex were totally part of our souls and our nature, then men and women would be different species, and it sometimes feels like we are, but we're not actually. So it's not that. Sex and gender are inseparable accidents of the individual. They don't pertain to our nature as such. It's to the individual creature, that natural substance. So men and women have sex. The sexual difference is known by its tealos, which is making babies. It is ordered toward making babies. Not every man, not every woman is fertile or able to have a kid, but their sexual distinction is ordered toward the making of babies. That's what it's for. And so it's clear, even just from those observations, that the AI will not have gender. Even if you do weird stuff with the AI, it will not actually have a gender or a sex, because sex and gender pertain to natural substances. AI is just an artifact. It's just a machine. AI is just a really, really complex version of the leftist-years-tumbler, or the microphone, or the candle. That's all that it is. It is categorically different than we are, because we human beings are our natural substances. We're hieromorphic. We're bodies, but we're also souls. And the soul is the substantial form of the body. So that's why I'm not just a combination of molecules, popping around in carbon and water, but I am a distinct creature called Michael. That's because my soul gives form to my body. When it comes to AI, it's just hardware plus software. Plus gonads, apparently, is what you're going to add on to it. Okay. There's so much more to get to. I know I'm running late. I don't care. Give me another mailbag. Michael, over the years, I've noticed that the conspiratorial mindset has become way more mainstream amongst your average normal person who's not even necessarily politically dialed in. It's no longer just people in the early 2000s listening to Alex Jones, but it's your average friend or family member. I've also noticed a compounding effect of this, where it's not just the major events of JFK assassination type things, or 9/11, that are conspiracies, but it's everything. every little thing is a farce. facade. There's a veil over it of some kind being put on by big brother. I'm obviously the internet. Social media plays a huge part in this, but I was just wondering if you've noticed this amongst your average person and what the reason behind it is. Yeah, it was COVID. It was COVID. COVID is the reason that the conspiratorial mindset has proliferated and with good reason, because all of our officials lied to us. They lied to us and they shut down the whole world and they seriously damaged our lives. It was a major trauma that we still haven't dealt with. That's why. I'm not saying it's good. Conservatives of always, right wingers have always got a little kick out of conspiracy theories in part because it's the sign of an active mind and they're kind of fun, but they can go dark too. But the reason it totally accelerated is because of COVID. That's on the authorities. At a certain point, you have to be skeptical of a lot, a lot of things. People have made that observation that conspiracies have proliferated because of COVID. The part that I haven't heard them talk about, and this is the second thing that's made the conspiratorial mindset spread, it was transgenderism. It was transgenderism because all of the big powerful institutions told us something that was obviously false. They made us lie about it and they wielded power to make us go along with something that was so obviously false that it totally destroyed anyone's belief in the judgment of those people. If they would lie to us so brazenly about something so obvious, they must be lying to us about everything. That's why. So it spreads. It's perfectly natural that it's spread. It's bad. You don't want people to be skeptical of literally everything because then you just can't function as a society, but that's where we are. It's really not primarily the fault of the conspiracy theorists. It's primarily the fault of the authorities who failed them. What did I tell you? I said, I don't care. I want more voicemail. Last one. Hey, Michael. I have a question for you. Since one of the main emphasis of the Protestant sect of the Christian faith is being able to read and interpret scripture for yourself, does that necessarily lead to the more LGBTQ affirming churches like the Episcopalian Church? Yeah. Oh, I was a short question. And the answer is, yeah, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush here because obviously there are a lot of Protestant communities that are super anti-LGBT, that are much more orthodox and not crazy lips and everything. But yeah, that is a feature of Protestantism itself. There are a billion things to criticize the functioning of the Catholic Church for. There are a billion things. I've made some of those observations myself. But you'll notice on the big issues, on the big, real important stuff, the Catholics are basically the only ones that have held out, even despite all sorts of pernicious bishops over the years and all. We've had bad popes over the years. But despite that, even at the height of the cultural revolution, when all the mainline denominations are embracing the sexual revolution, you get a fairly liberal Pope Paul the 60 comes out with Humane Vita. He says, nope, no gay stuff, no contraception, no abortion, none of that. We are holding to the perennial teaching. And that might be a miracle. That could be viewed as a miracle itself that the church did not cade in the 1960s and 70s to that stuff. But beyond that, without kind of going down a checklist of the Protestants did this right and the Catholics did this right and that, yes, I think to your intuition, this is just a feature of Protestantism. Protestantism as such with all the denominations is what distinguishes Protestantism from Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and to some degree, Anglicanism, even though Anglicanism is Protestant. What distinguishes it is that it exalts private judgment above any other interpretive principle. So it says, it go out there and figure out what the religion means yourself. The ultimate authority is your own conscience. You might say that you submit to the authority of some pastor or some preacher or something, but if you don't like what he says, you're just going to go find another church. And the Catholics don't have that. We owe some obedience of our intellect and will to our priests and our bishops and ultimately to the supreme conf--pontive. And so Protestants don't like that. And I, you know, I kind of get it, but that is what has permitted the Catholic church to avoid that in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I think, to avoid some of those pitfalls. Is the church says, yeah, you can have individual conscience. You definitely should read the Bible. You should, you should go to adoration and to mass and say, you're all your prayers and think and reading and all the great doctors of the church. Yeah, you can disagree with each other. Yeah, but ultimately we are claiming an authority that is above private conscience. We are claiming an authority that is above individual interpretation. We believe that we possess the positive faith, the magisterium of the church. We believe that Christ gave to the to Peter, the keys to the kingdom of heaven, a kind of authority that we believe, I think with good reason, has been present since the release days of the church. And so no, you don't get to just believe whatever you want. And so there are going to be plenty of Protestant communities that say, well, no, we've stuck to our guns on all sorts of good stuff. That's great. Good for you. That's awesome. I love that. But then you're going to get James Talleriko's pastorus, who says, actually, I don't think that Jesus even existed. And I don't believe in the virgin birth. And I think everyone should be a lesbian. And you're going to get that. And there's not any mechanism. There's no ecclesiastical system or authority that is going to be able to tell her she's wrong. Okay. It's fake headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss. I have a special guest on. I have a buddy of mine who's coming on this show today. I'm not going to tell you who it is. It's Nick Freitas. Become a member of preusco nulls. Check it for two months for your all-annual plans. Every significant movement in history started with protest. This is our generation civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should have figured as polarizing, as late sounders, he would be allowed on pants. Okay, hear me okay. Daughters is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. This is a decision I cannot find. Islam will conquer the West. 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. Muhammad is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel beams into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leave front. Stretch them out when they listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling.