Ep. 2074 - Christa Pike "May Not Fully Recover" After Being Executed

Okay, fellas. Since Hollywood can't do anything right anymore, we did their job for them. The Daily Wire's newest movie is an ode to the great funny action films of the 80s and 90s, good guys win, bad guys lose. No one apologizes for it. Check out Run Hyde Fight Infidels now streaming only on the daily wire. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business, lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at Cardiff.co/noles. Undercover video has caught Texas Democrats red handed, paying people to vote for them in November. Buying votes is a violation of both state and federal law. But on the other hand, it's also kind of the definition of democracy. We will get into what it all means for the midterms. Then women go viral standing with the female accuser of the Cornell seven as New York Governor Kathy Hocal proposes changing state law to reclassify many voluntary sexual encounters as rape. We will get into the one weird trick required to stand with Jane Doe, and then the New York Post is reporting that condemned inmate Christopher Pike is still in the hospital and may not make a full recovery after her execution last week. That's the bad news. But looking on the bright side, very few people recover at all after being executed. Many people seem to be forgetting that fact and lots of other facts about this case. I'm Michael Noles. This is the Michael Noles show. (Music) Welcome back to the show. A trans identifying New York Times executive was murdered by her Asian in-laws. She who identified as a him after she threatened to murder the in-laws and her wife. How many things had to go wrong for that to happen? How many, it's like 10,000 things had to go wrong. So many errors in thinking to get to trans New York Times executive murdered by her Asian in-laws. Anyway, before we get to that murder, we will get to the execution or almost execution of Christopher Pike. I get into all the political stories. We are in the heat of midterm season. Things are looking rough. But this story, it's the story that gets crazier by the day. New York Post headline, this one caught my attention just last night. Christopher Pike remains in heavily guarded hospital room, quote, "may not fully recover after botched Tennessee execution." That very, very few people in history have fully recovered after being executed. Very, very few have recovered to any degree after execution. NBC, rather, reporting, quote, "there was no medical oxygen or mask in the execution chamber where Tennessee tried and failed to kill convicted murderer, Christa Pike, which meant staff had to go and get it when things went wrong according to a source who witnessed what happened. Can you believe there was no oxygen tank? There was no life-saving medical care in the execution chamber. Isn't that crazy? We need an investigation into this. We need people need to be held to account. Why wasn't there life-saving care in the place where you kill people?" The reason this story keeps fascinating me and fascinating so many other people. It is one of the leading news stories. It's not so much the grizzly detail. It's not even so much what a horrible life this woman had and lived and her victims and everyone involved. It's not even that. It's the absurdity. It's the incongruity. It's the absurdity. This is why people, myself included, keep making macabre jokes about it. It's because one of the central aspects of humor is incongruity. It's things being totally out of proportion and out of whack. These are the craziest headlines you can imagine. There was no oxygen tank in the execution chamber. Next, you're going to tell me there was no surfboard in the desert. Next, you're going to tell me there was no ice tray in the oven. Yes, one would expect that there would not be life-saving medical care in the execution chamber. Saving lives is not what execution chambers are for. The fact that the lawyer is saying she might not make a full recovery. It's so absurd and the reason that we keep entertaining this is because we refuse to accept what the capital punishment is. We still want capital punishment. We still kind of want the death penalty, but people don't want to admit that they want the death penalty. There's still a very strong moral argument for the death penalty, but we don't like making those moral arguments because they kind of make us feel icky. We're totally schizophrenic on this subject. One minute, we're killing this lady. The next minute, we're desperately trying to save her lives. Now there's an added legal question because during the botched execution, which was really pretty rough, really grizzly for this one. If you didn't feel bad for this woman before, I think you probably do now. Her arm was on the brink of exploding. They're now reporting she has brain damage. There's this interesting legal question, which is, okay, well, if she is brain damaged, can we still execute her? We have laws in this country to stop you from executing criminals, even heinous criminals who don't have the mental capacity to stand trial or to receive their punishment. This woman almost certainly has brain damage. Now what they're going to say is, okay, well, I guess the law said you could execute her before and this went on for 30 years and went all the way up to the Supreme Court, went to the governor and they all said you can execute her, but now she has brain damage. Now you can't execute her, but she incurred the brain damage while she was being executed. So I don't know how much everybody knows about executions, but during precisely 100% of executions, the condemned get brain damage. That's how executions work. And in fact, the culmination of that brain damage when the brain stops working is the definition of the end of the execution. So what's so strange in this case and pretty grizzly is that what we're seeing is a very, very slow motion execution. The drugs didn't work as they were intended. We shouldn't use those drugs. The purpose of those drugs is not mercy toward the condemned. It's mercy to ourselves because we don't want to acknowledge what we're doing, which is killing someone. A more honest method of execution would be the guillotine or a firing squad. In fact, this woman requested a firing squad and they wouldn't give it to her. A firing squad seems way more humane, seems way more merciful than these drugs that fail 7% of the time. In this case, caused her immense pain and now led her to have brain damage. But is brain damage really a sufficient justification to overturn her condemnation, to overturn her execution? If that were the case and we take that to its logical conclusion, then we can never execute anyone. Because every single, there is a moment during every execution when the person is still alive, but has brain damage. So at that point, when that happens, do we just stop the execution? We say, okay, hold on now. Their brain has been deprived of oxygen long enough that they now have brain damage. So now we have to stop the execution because you can't kill people with brain damage. This is, I've made a bunch of macabre jokes about this and I intend to continue, but this is really horrific for this woman. I don't think that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment. I think it's absurd to make that argument. But whatever this is definitely is cruel and unusual punishment. And at this point, I mentioned this right when it happened. I said, you know, if you try to murder someone, Dwight, not murder, in this case, if you, if you try to execute someone twice in accordance with the law and the civil authority and it doesn't work, maybe that's a sign. You know, maybe that's a sign that we got to stop. Although probably at this point, the more merciful thing to do is just to finish what they started. In any case, this is really, really horrific and what it gets down to is our society refusing to grapple with capital punishment. We don't want to admit that we kill criminals. We don't want to admit that there is an argument for killing criminals. Even, even Catholics are dealing with this. Obviously, the Catholic Church not only defended the death penalty on moral grounds, but carried out the death penalty for a very, very long time for roughly 2000 years. But in 2018, there was this strange change to the catechism of the church by Pope Francis. This had built upon something that began under John Paul II. John Paul II is the first Catholic Pope to say, you know what, probably we shouldn't use the death penalty, probably civil governments today should stop using the death penalty and prefer life in prison. But what John Paul II said, St. John Paul II, was a prudential judgment from the Pope. He said, look, the death penalty is totally legitimate, totally morally in principle, it's fine. But as a practical and prudential matter, technology has progressed, societies progress to the point that we don't need to carry it out. And so, prudentially, I say, you shouldn't carry it out. Pope Benedict, his successor, maintained the same position. He said, look, I'm personally against the death penalty. As a practical matter, you probably don't have to do it anymore, but reasonable minds can disagree on this. Pope Francis, when he followed Benedict, said basically the same thing, at least at the beginning, but then he changed it in 2018. In 2018, Pope Francis came out and he said, no, no, the death penalty is wrong in itself. They still didn't say morally evil, because that would contradict scripture in 2000 years of church tradition. But he said, it is inadmissible, and it is contrary to the gospel in itself, because it violates. the inviolability of the dignity of the human person. Now, that is a radical change. That's something that John Paul II and Pope Benedict avoided. Pope Leo seems to be maintaining that view. But this is a very difficult view to maintain. It's a very difficult people statement even to explain because if the death penalty is contrary to the gospel, then one might conclude that St. Paul's defense of the death penalty is contrary to the gospel. Is St. Paul an author of the New Testament contrary to the gospel? No one could ever think that. The great doctors of the church, the great church fathers who defended the death penalty, in at least in principle. Are they contrary to the gospel? St. Thomas Aquinas, the common doctor of the church. That would be very difficult to understand. The Pope's, some of whom have been beatified on their way to being canonized as saints, blessed pies the night, carried out some 500 executions in the papal states. Were they acting merely in accordance with the circumstances of their time, which are fine in principle, but now today would not be carried out? Or were they contrary to the gospel? Were they violating the dignity of the human person? Very, very strange, very, very difficult to carry out. And so these are important conversations as it pertains to the Catholic church, I suspect this issue will be settled on a longer time frame. The church does not measure her ages and days or weeks or years even but in centuries. So it'll be figured out on that kind of scale, is my strong suspicion. But this is even broader socially than the Catholic church, which is we don't want to grapple with what we're doing. Why are we killing inmates? Is there a moral justification for killing inmates? If that is true, how should the inmates be killed? If there is to be mercy, where should the mercy be dulled out? We can't do that. So we say, okay, we feel we want to kill them. We kind of want to kill all these reasons, which is why our civilization has done this forever. And here are the arguments and we need justice for the innocent and whosoever sheds the blood of man by man shall this blood be shed for man has made the image and likeness of God. Okay, it's an argument from human dignity. So we want to do it, but it's kind of grizzly. So you know what, we're just going to, instead of having an executioner, we're going to have doctors come in. Doctors are going to do it instead, which is a total violation of the hippocratic oath, but it makes us feel better about it. Then someone pointed out the other day, someone posted this to Twitter. They said, you know, it's so gross to have medical professionals perform these executions. I said, I agree. They said, this is why you can't find qualified medical professionals to actually administer the lethal injection. I said, well, that part's not true. If you can't find qualified medical professionals to administer lethal injection, who's performing all the abortions? Who's performing all the euthanasia? Both of which are growing right now. That's not true. There are a lot of unethical medical professionals, but we pretend that that is not killing. We pretend that abortion and assisted suicide, that that is somehow not killing. And then in this case, we say that the death penalty is killing. We try to draw a comparison between the killing of the innocent in abortion, which is murder with the civil authority in the execution of justice, killing people who have committed heinous offenses and been convicted of them. Well, those are different things anyway. We're very, very confused about it. And so one of the productive aspects of this really horrific case for this woman who's probably suffering a lot, is that it is focusing the mind. If we're gonna have the death penalty, we should be honest about it. We should know what we are doing. We should stop trying to fool ourselves in ways that's actually really much cooler to the condemned. Languishing for 30, 40 years on death row, and then having poison administered to you that fails 7% of the time that leaves you to brain damage as your arm basically exploding, either kill the condemned or don't. Whatever this is though, whatever this is, probably is cruel and unusual punishment. Okay, speaking of women in crime, ladies are now going viral for defending the accuser, identifying with the accuser in the Cornell 7 case, even as the claims of rape from this accuser are consistently day by day proven to be absurd, even the accuser's own words. We'll get to that in a moment first. I don't want to tell you about Tacovus. Go to Tacovus.com/Nolts, KNAW.L.A.S. There seems to be an unnecessary psychological barrier around cowboy boots. People think I like 'em, but am I allowed to wear them? The answer is yes. You are allowed to know cattle required, even I can pull them off sometimes, and I'm about a yank as they come. Now, for me, when I don't want to wear the cowboy boots, and Tacovus are the only cowboy boots I will wear, and they're extremely comfortable. You don't have to break 'em in. They're already broken in. They're just phenomenal. But they also have these really, really nice loafers. They have a nice, like, bison leather, they're very, very comfortable. Look very, very good with all of their stuff, especially the cowboy boots. Easy to dress up, easy to dress down. Even beyond the shoes, guys, go out there. This is my little secret recommendation for you. The Tacovus wallet might be the best wallet I've ever had, phenomenal. I also get a lot of compliments on that on the rare occasion by pay for something for people. Right now, I get 10% off at Tacovus.com/Nolts, KNAW.L.A.S. When you sign up for email and texts, that's 10% off at TECOVAS.com/Nolts, KNAW.L.A.S. Tacovus.com/Nolts, he's side for details. Tacovus, point your toes west. Do you stand with the Jane Doe accuser of the Cornell 7? - I am Jane Doe. - I stand with Jane Doe because I am a Jane Doe. I am Jane Doe. - I am Jane Doe. - You are Jane Doe. To say I am Jane Doe is to say, I actively participate in Menazza Wheat. We clean up the language on this show. It's a family program. I actively snort ketamine off of the appendages of various strange men while I enthusiastically engage and depraved acts with them. I am Jane Doe. And one of those chicks there, I don't know if you're just listening to the show, you couldn't see it. One of the women who said I stand with Jane Doe, she is dressed up in all this kind of crazy makeup, including a witch symbol, like a wick a symbol, says I am Jane Doe. That one, she might be honest about that. The rest though, why would you admit that? I am Jane Doe. I identify with this woman who's engaging in depraved sexual acts and degrading herself and doing lots of drugs. Why would you admit that? Because what they're trying to say is that Jane Doe is the victim here. What they're saying is the Jane Doe was raped. Here is some kind of slam poetess, making the point inverse. I am Jane Doe, because millions of women who reported what happened to them never got a response back. I am Jane Doe, because tears roll down my cheeks. I was just wishing it would all end. I am Jane Doe, because I had a life before my life that came with story. I was someone's daughter, someone's best friend, who had plans for next week, next year, rest of her life. Maybe it's not a yes. Silence is not a yes. A shrug is not a yes. Because if you have to guess, if you have to convince, then it was never consent. And that is why I'm not telling you one story. I'm telling you one of millions. Nearly one in three women were experienced physical or sexual violence in her lifetime. He had 140 million Jane's daughters, friends, sisters, mothers, 137 every single day. And while you're watching it somewhere, across another country, under the grow, it's becoming another Jane. Can I get a little pentobarbital for this drink here, please? Slam poetry, as Harold Bloom pointed out, is the death of art. And I don't give into despair or hopelessness ever, I'm a pretty chipper guy. That one has me contemplating, shuffling off this mortal coil. That's really, really awful. Just on the artistry. Then let's get to what she's saying. She says, "If you have to guess, if you have to guess, then it's rape." You know, a shrug is not consent. Feeling uncomfortable and pressure and kind of silence is not consent. Okay, sure. But Jane Doe wasn't silent. She didn't just shrug. This case is the most clear cut of these campus sexual stories that we've ever heard at every step of the way the guys asked her if she was okay with these things. They got the thing that the feminists demand, which is enthusiastic, verbal consent. Said, "Hey, do you wanna have two guys?" At the same time, she says, "Yes." Okay, you want three guys? She says, "No." So then there's no extra guy. They say, "Do you want to do these drugs?" She says, "Yes." Do you want us to do drugs off of you? Yes. Do you want to do this? Do you want to do that? By the end, she says, "Okay, it's seven hours later." She goes, "All right, I think I'm done now." The guys immediately say, "Okay, that's fine." During the act, during this depraved act, another guy walks in and says, "Hey, this is gross. Stop this, everybody get out of here." And according to the reporting and the messages and the testimony, Jane Doe said, "Hey, it's no big deal. People used to do this all the time in Medieval Times. We're all consenting adults here." I don't know, I mean to laugh about it, 'cause it's really sad for everybody involved. But this completely knocks down any argument that the we stand with Jane Doe feminists can possibly make. The only way to stand with Jane Doe here is to change the facts in retrospect. That's the only way to say, "Well, she didn't really give enthusiastic." She didn't really say that. She didn't really agree. Jane Doe reportedly in text messages the next day said, "None of the sexual stuff was illegal. None of it, we all consented." In fact, the reason that this became a case at all is because, Jane Doe was disappointed that her alleged rapists didn't invite her back to the scene of her alleged rape a week later for a party. And because she was disappointed, she didn't get invited back, she then went to the police or the campus authorities and totally changed her tune on what happened. The only way to make this into anything illegal, forget about immoral, it's deeply immoral and deeply disgusting and wrong, and everyone should feel ashamed. But the only way to make it into something illegal is to lie about what happened and to change the facts, so why are they all doing it? They're all doing it because of shame. She feels ashamed. The people on campus started to make fun of her, they didn't view her as sexually liberated, they viewed her as an object of male desire and exploitation, and she became a punchline. There's this kind of strange calculation at some point because the feminists say casual sex is good and liberating. They say that weird, aberrant sex is good and liberating, but they say that this manaja wheat is somehow exploitative, so there's this question of how many guys, according to the feminists, what is the optimal number of guys at which the act is liberating before it becomes exploitative? Someone's going to write their PhD thesis and gender studies on that. This isn't just limited to the gossip and even the court case here about what happened. This is going all the way up to the governor of New York, the governor of New York just came out and said she's going to change the law. She says, "Voluntary intoxication is not a license for sexual assault or gang rape, period. I support closing this loophole and will work with the New York State legislature to accomplish this." Loophole, what loophole? According to the state of New York, just because these two people had been, well, eight people, had been drinking and doing drugs, they say that doesn't necessarily make it rape. They were apparently aware enough to consent to all of these things, they weren't, no one was passed out and nobody, and so they say, well, this is a loophole. Voluntary intoxication is not a license, so now any time, any time, a guy and a girl have one drink and then engage in any kind of sexual activity, according to Cathy Hocal's preference in New York, one or both of those parties could be accused of rape, and of course, the party that's going to be accused of rape is the man. It's not going to be the woman. Even though, according to some of the reporting about the Cornell case, it was the woman, it was Jane Doe, who was approaching without asking consent some of these men. But of course, we know that that's how it's going to shake out, and it's probably how it should shake out in the sense that men and women are different, and we relate to sex differently, but the feminists deny that fact. And so, really what this all comes down to is everybody changing the facts here because of shame, and the real important political takeaway here is that as people are lying, as people are trying to change the facts, as people are denying reality, they're doing so because they think it'll make it better, but it actually makes it worse. Think about this, I feel bad for this girl. It's awful that she is ruining these guys' lives by accusing them of rape, apparently baselessly. That's really bad, and she should be ashamed of herself for that, among other things. But I feel bad for her in that she did bad things. She was led to do bad things by a bad culture, by a bad society, by bad lessons, by the bad ideology of feminism. Yeah, it's a bad, and the guys acted very badly too, without question. But notice what she did here. She did the weird sex thing, because she wanted to be one of the boys, she wanted to be liked, she wanted their affection, she wanted to be liberated, she wanted whatever. She does that, and she thinks this could be cool, and it's going to actually make her better liked. It's going to increase her social prestige, because she did it. It's going to increase her, I don't know, avant-garde, radical cred, whatever she thought was going to happen. Then a week later, people made fun of her for it, she was humiliated. And so she said, okay, well, I know what can happen. The way to get out of this shame that I'm now feeling is I'm going to accuse them of rape. She accuses them of rape. This is apparently investigated on campus by police, and when the facts came out two years ago, they said, you know what? This really wasn't rape. Look, we want to accuse boys of rape as much as the next guy. The campuses do it in this country all the time, but really here it's so clear cut, we're not going to do that. So she still feels all this shame. The stigma keeps sticking with her. Two years later, she brings a civil suit. She says, well, I'm going to get a lot of money out of that. I'm going to get a lot of money out of the school, because the threshold in a civil suit is way lower than in a criminal case. So the civil suit comes out, that gets publicized, then they reopen the criminal investigation. Now I'm not naming this woman's reported identity. I think that would be gratuitous, but a lot of people are reporting on it. Just as I'm not reporting on the men's identity, I'm not reporting on the women's identity, because it's all gross and no one benefits from that kind of gossip. Nevertheless, this woman's face and name are plastered all over the country. Whatever shame she was feeling before, I bet it's gone up by several orders of magnitude now. It keeps getting worse. The key political takeaway is the more that we lie to cover for ourselves. The more that we lie, not just for our own selfish private interest, but it is a coping mechanism to try to change reality. The more we lie about the differences between men and women, which is one of the biggest lies of the last ten years, the more we lie about our own behavior, the more we lie about the morality or propriety of our own behavior, the more that we do it, the worst things are going to get for us. The first step to things getting better is sometimes just taking the L. You take the L, you admit you did something gross and depraved, you accept the social stigma that goes with that, you ask God for forgiveness, you avail yourself of the sacraments, you work toward practicing virtue, and things could get better for you. They really can. But if we live in this culture that just keeps doubling down on all of the lies, it's only going to get worse. So much so that now in New York state, instead of saying, you know what, feminism was pretty stupid. We're going to get rid of feminism now because this keeps happening to girls and men keep degrading themselves in this way. It's just like all it's wrong, men and women are different and a woman, it's not that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. And you know, we're going to go back to the old way, which worked a lot better when you didn't have Monagia weed on Cornell campus. Instead of doing that, she says, no, no, we're going to double and triple down on feminism. We have to believe women, even when the women previously told us they weren't raped, we need to believe them when they tell us that they were raped, even if it's two years after the fact, and we need to, we're in a double and triple down. So much so that now voluntary sexual Congress is going to be redefined as rape explicitly enthusiastically, voluntarily sexual Congress is going to be redefined as rape. Okay, that's going to work out. That's going to make it better. No, people are going to keep engaging in the depraved behaviors. They're going to continue to feel shame because the natural law isn't described in every human heart. We all have a conscience. They're going to, people are going to continue to have their lives ruined. Relatively innocent people are going to be defamed and smeared and lose their jobs. It's only going to get worse. Okay, speaking of insane Democrat state laws, let's turn to Gavin Newsom in California, who is now in preparation for running for president, signing a law requiring large companies in the state of California to disclose any ties they may have had to slavery 150 years more than 150 years ago. What is that law about? It's, what gets, it gets back to what we're talking about right at the very top of the show, which is some of the perverse incentives of democracy. This is a pretty, pretty yucky mob rule. First, I want to tell you about balance of nature. Go to balanceofnature.com, use code NOLs. The things that shape your life are usually rather boring. Not the grand resolutions, the things you do every single day. Well, the secret of a good habit is you do it every single day. I have a few good habits, not a lot of bad habits, but I have a few good habits. And the trick to them is you stop negotiating with yourself about whether or not you're going to do it. You stop coming up with all these rationalizations. You just do it every day eventually. That's your habit. That is a great way to think about balance of nature. The whole health system is not asking me to undertake some grand health transformation every morning. It is just a simple routine built around 47 ingredients of whole fruits, vegetable spices and fibers, three foods capsules, three veggies capsules, two scoops of fiber and spice. Simple enough to do easy enough to keep doing. That is what ultimately matters is a theoretically perfect routine that you abandoned in two weeks is not going to be useful to you. A good habit is one that you keep. If you would like to make balance of nature, part of your daily habit, there is an unusually good reason to start right now. You go to balance of nature.com subscribe to the whole health system. Use promo code Noles. You will get 35% off your first subscription order. That is 35% off balance of nature.com code Noles. The Truth in Disclosure Act. This is the first in the nation law in California requiring large corporations to disclose whether they or any of their predecessor entities profited from slavery. This is a top priority, not only for Gavin Newsom, it is a top priority for the California Legislative Black Caucus. This does not target any company. It only targets companies with worldwide gross receipts exceeding $100 million of very, very large companies. It targets companies that were in existence or that had predecessor companies in existence on or before December 31, 1964. First and foremost, the nation measure to finally hold to account those California companies complicit in slavery. This as part of the broader effort for California to pay reparations for black people because of slavery, this in California, a state that never had slavery. This is the craziest irony in all, all the really radical slavery reparations, black grievance, politics stuff is coming out of California, a state that never had slavery and even more absurdly, a state that was admitted to the union, specifically as a free state, and when it was admitted to the union, basically caused the Civil War. It's not, it's not just the California kind of avoided slavery. The topic of whether or not California would have slavery was a major national question. The fact that California said no, we're not going to have slavery caused to the Civil War. And they say, no, no, no, it doesn't matter. You still need to pay reparations. By you, I mean, you, white taxpayers need to pay reparations to black people in California, many of whom have absolutely no tie to slavery whatsoever, not a personal tie, like even a familial tie. We get an immigrant from Kenya who showed up in 2016. That guy could theoretically be, be open to reparations from white people in California. White people whose ancestors came in the 1930s in California, a state that never had any point had slavery. So what's the deal with this specific law? This law, first of all, is just Gavin Newsom pandering to the worst elements of black political activism. Gavin Newsom, you will remember, who is so desperate to pander to black people and who has such a low opinion of black people that he thought the way he was going to win them over was saying he was a big stupid dummy just like them. I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you. I'm like you. I'm no better than you, you know, I'm a 960 SAT guy. You know, and I'm not trying to offend anyone, you know, trying to act all there if you got 940. But literally a 960 SAT guy, I cannot, you've never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech. Maybe the wrong business to be in. You know what I'm saying, Jeff Turkeys, I'm just like, I know you all. Now listen here, homie. You might be thinking that with my slick back hair and my personal white skin and my tailored Italian suit, you might be thinking that I'm some kind of honky, but I'm not. You dig? I'm black as you. I'm like, I'm like Steve Martin at the beginning of the jerk. I was born a poor black child. And here's my proof, fellow black people. I'm a big dummy. You know, like red fox used to call his son on our favorite TV show, Sanford and Son. You remember that? It's like me. Forget about it. I can't take standardized tests. I can't even read. You dig. That's why I'm black because I can't read. That's what I think defines black people. So says Gavin Newsom, one of the leading candidates for president among the Democrats. It's so delightful. It's one of my favorite, but I love it. I love just the cringey, you could almost contort your whole body permanently. Just lock in permanent muscular damage from the cringing that that that clip induces. He panders real hard specifically to black people. And so this is just part of that. This is okay. We're going to shake down the companies. But notice, he's not shaking down a small company. He's only shaking down the big companies because if you shook down a company that makes a million dollars a year, you're not going to get any real reparations money out of them. So this is specifically a shake down of companies that have the money that Newsom can go in and steal to redistribute to black people who may or may not have any relation to slavery at all and who, unlike Gavin Newsom, may or may not have the ability to read, probably more likely to read than Gavin Newsom is. No one. I've seen no one identify the biggest hypocrisy of this whole legislation. California, today, virtually every big California company, today, participates in slavery, actively, not 150 years ago, not 160 years ago, there are basically no companies to do that. Today, and it's not just California, it's the whole United States. Any company that manufactures or receives products that are manufactured in China is participating in slavery today, and not just China, a whole host of other places in East Asia, South Asia, elsewhere in the world too, certainly in Africa, you're participating in slavery. But China is the more egregious example because we manufacture so much of our stuff in China and they have a very active explicit government sanctioned program of slave labor. They do that today. Gavin Newsom, he's not sounding the alarm about that. The California black caucus doesn't seem to care about that at all. This has nothing to do with the morality of slavery. They totally misunderstand California's history or they just don't care about California's history when it comes to slavery, but they don't care about slavery generally. This is just a shakedown to pit black people against white people and to pander to the black people so that Gavin Newsom can become the Democrat nominee because in order to become the Democrat nominee, you need to very, very successfully pander to black people. That's what this is about. That's his calculation that's going on here. I want anytime Gavin Newsom does one of these town halls, if he does a town hall, he probably doesn't want to talk to voters too much, but if he does, just ask him that, "Hey, Governor Newsom, it's so important that you want to bring justice to the companies that participated in slavery 160 years ago. That's so important. Thank you for standing up for freedom and dignity. That's great." Will you also introduce legislation to sanction companies that use slave labor today? Like Apple? I don't know, like all the companies, I don't know all the companies that manufacture, will you do that? Not quite, not quite. I don't think so. Okay. Now, we turn from California Democrats to Texas Democrats, Texas Democrats, forget about pandering. They are now openly admitting that they are explicitly buying votes from people in contravention of state and federal law. We'll get to that in a second. First though, all the more reason to think about GOP votes, go to GOPvotes.org. The midterm elections are here, and if the DSA Democrats win, they will push a radical socialist agenda and drown President Trump in endless investigations. We've seen their playbook before. They tried impeaching him. They tried putting him in prison. They've tried everything. Do not let them win. Because if we lose, they will undo everything our movement is fought for. I need you to vote early. You can bank your vote and fight back against the left's turnout machine. You go to GOPvotes.org right now, find out when you can vote. If you live in the critical battleground states for the Senate of Maine or Ohio, early voting is already underway starting this week, making your voice heard is easier than ever. You can get election reminders. Look up your polling location and pick a date to vote early. Go to GOPvotes.org today, paid for by SLF PAC, not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. My favorite comment on Friday is from Grace May, who says, "Michael's comments about the girl in the Cornell 7 wanting to be one of the boys, I honestly think might be true. I like hanging out with guys and would give a lot to be one of the boys because I find guy friendships to be so much more relaxed and fun than women friendships. 100% not even, not even, they're barely comparable. I like to think I'm smarter than the girl was, but still bone-shilling how close to home that hit for me. So true. Male friendship is simply different than female friendship. Some would say women can never be friends with each other. That's probably taking a little too far Aristotle kind of made that point, but they can't be like friends in the fullest sense of the term. But regardless, male friendship and female friendship are different. Because men and women are different and when the girls want to hang with the boys, sometimes they're doing so in a really kind of annoying, pick me away. But sometimes they're doing so because they really do share at a deep level certain attributes with the guys and male friendships are more relaxed and it's great. It's a big proponent of male friendship. But the danger there is men relate to women differently than they relate to men. Men want different things from women than they want from men. Men feel different temptations with women than they do with men. And so either that can lead to a romantic relationship and a wholesome way and you get married and have kids in a white pick offense or it can lead to some bad stuff, especially when you're hanging at the frat house and everybody's drinking and you realize, oh wait, I'm not actually one of the boys because I'm a girl. And this isn't how boys interact with each other except for sometimes, I guess in some cases they do interact that way, especially in whatever this kind of mezzo-finuch Cornell frat house was. But generally, no, no, they're different. I'm not one of the boys' yikes. Maybe I shouldn't believe those lies. Okay. Texas Democrats are now very openly just buying votes from constituents. We are paying people $25 to it's need to one hour zoom fast to like the learn why voting is important and why the republicans are causing all these bad things. So it's like a roundabout way of paying people for their business. that's essentially, which is interesting. - What's the, what's this clock? - It's called the paid relational program. I think Rally, Texas is the official name. You can't pay someone to vote for someone. You can be like, here's $25 go vote for me. You can say, attend a one hour class and you can receive $25 and then the class just talks about like the importance of it. - Yeah, it's a little great. - Creative way to, it's a creative way to kind of, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But right now we can use all the help we can. - Yeah, you know, like if I, if I was a Republican, I would be, this would be like, that's the Sadious. - Yeah. - Yeah, and you know what, if I were a federal prosecutor, I would, it's not that I'd be ticked off, I would, I would be excited actually to prosecute this pack. This, the Texas majority pack, this guy is an organizing manager there and his name, his name is Sky Macatams. So that, was he just developed in a petri dish by the Democratic National Committee and then sent off to this super pack to, I don't know, Sky Macatams, that is as libaname as I've ever heard. And he says, yeah, what we're doing is we're paying for votes. It's a little bit of a roundabout way, but we pay someone $25 to take a Zoom call and then the Zoom class just tells you how terrible Republicans are. Pretty clear what we're doing here, we're paying you $25 and we're gonna, we're gonna get your vote. That violates both state and federal law. So I hope the DOJ prosecutes these people to the fullest extent of the law. I hope they go behind bars. I, you know, maybe we don't need to go as far as a capital punishment to bring us back to the top of the show, but they need to be punished for sure. However, paying people for their votes is not merely a violation of state and federal law. It's also the definition of democracy. So at more virtuous stages of our Republic, people were more focused on the common good and they were more sacrificial in their review of politics and they were less factional and less interested in simply getting theirs. However, it is a recurrent perennial feature of democracies that you basically buy people's votes. So you can either say, here's 25 bucks. Take a phone call with me where I tell you all the terrible things about Republicans. You could go even further and just say, here's 25 bucks, go pull the lever in the ballot box for my guy. You could do that or you could say, hey, if you vote for me, I'll steal from Whitey over there and give you reparations. That's what Gavin Newsom's doing. Gavin Newsom's doing nothing different than these Texas Democrats are doing. And what he's doing is frankly more egregious 'cause he's talking about companies worth over $100 million. Forget about, forget about $25 for a Zoom call. When we say, hey, vote for me and I'll increase your entitlements. I'll increase welfare spending. They vote for me and I'll make sure that we build more factories for this company that's really important in your district. That's just the nature of democracy. So in as much as we can hold up the letter of law and hold Democrats to account, that's great. But let's not be utopian about it. You got to play in politics as it is. Democrats really are better at this. The leftists, the organizers are better at dealing with the gritty political reality. And they do things that are immoral and unjust. I'm not saying we need to totally copy it, but I think they have a more realistic view of politics, of political organizing, of electoral politics than the Republicans do, who sometimes get a little too idealistic. Let's not get high on our own supply. Let's not believe our own press releases. Yes, prosecute these people and they violate the law, but also recognize they're just doing democracy. That's it. Politics is the art of the possible. Speaking of Texas Democrats, James Talleriko, not backing off any of his radical views. James Talleriko was just grilled on what would happen on immigration. If the Democrats retake the House and the Senate, eventually the presidency. What do they want? What is the idea that we're just gonna let these illegal aliens stay in America? Zero position that anyone who is here illegally that doesn't have a criminal record, they should be able to stay in the country. No, I believe that they should have a Catholic citizenship, which includes paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a criminal background check. If they can meet all of those standards, I think they should be eligible for citizenship. So with that being said, do you then wait though until someone an illegal migrant is here, doesn't have a criminal record, and then hurts an American. You have a case like Jocelyn Ungray. I know you know that story, of course. Here in Texas are 12 year old, brutally killed, two illegal migrants from Venezuela. They didn't have a known history. They were caught and released, and it wasn't until they murdered this young, young girl. And it's why we should know who's coming into our country. It's why I'm a border security Democrat. And let me say something, a lot of Democrats won't say, it is not racist to wanna know who's coming into your country. And I believe that. And it's why we need to make sure that we know exactly who is coming into our country. We need to have a full, orderly vetting process to ensure that we are keeping Americans and Texans safe. - You know, he's pretty slick at talking, so maybe a lot of people will just be hypnotized by what he said or fall asleep. But the question was, hey, James Taylor Rika, do you believe that the illegal aliens, you say they shouldn't be deported, so what, they should just stay? And he says, no, that's not what I believe. I think they should become citizens. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on. You say, no, no, no. They shouldn't stay. They should be given citizenship. So then what is the no refer to? You're not saying no, you're saying yes, and they should be given even more than that. Because becoming a citizen usually involves staying. Says, yo, you think these illegal aliens should just stay? No, no, no, I don't think they should stay. I think we should make them citizens, eligible to become members of the US Senate, and receive welfare. No, no, no. So either he has no idea what he's saying or he's lying in this really blatant way. But then there's a great follow-up question, which, you know, I do wish there had been a follow-up of hold on, you just contradicted yourself. You're just, you're saying you should become citizens? Okay, but she says, well, hold on, you say that we shouldn't have the criminals here. But all these illegals who keep murdering Americans, raping them and committing all these crimes against them, they didn't have a criminal record. So in other words, if you did a criminal background check on them and then allowed them to stay, you wouldn't have been able to know that the next day they would go rape and murder somebody. That was their first major crime after they came into the country illegally, and they were only able to commit that crime because Democrats like you allowed them to stay. And he says, no, yes, no, I take that very, very seriously. That's why we need to have to know who's coming into our country. But by your own logic, you wouldn't know that they were potential violent criminals 'cause they would have passed the criminal background check. By your own logic, you also don't wanna know who's coming into the country because you support an open border. You are saying that you're a border security Democrat, but your preferred policies that you articulate in the very same breath or that you just let all these people in, and then you not only give them amnesty, you give them citizenship. This is a degree of dishonesty that is actually somewhat shocking. Maybe it shouldn't be from the guy who says that God is non-binary and who invokes the blessed Virgin Mary to defend killing babies in the womb. Maybe it shouldn't be surprising to me, but this guy, this guy is bad news, man. They're running James Talleriko as the nice, soft Democrat. Even a lot of Republicans, when we make fun of him, we're making fun of him for being this weak soyboy beta. That's like the image that we have. I don't know, man. This guy seems more like Patrick Bateman than some weak soyboy. You know, this guy seems dark, man, this guy has an edge. I mean, if you have the temerity to invoke the blessed Virgin Mary to defend abortion, there is something really rotted in your soul. And if you have the ability to just look a reporter dead in the face and say, "No, no, no." The thing that you're accusing me of is not true. My opinion is much, much worse. No, no, no. We can't know who's coming into our country. And that's why we have to know who's coming into our country. If you can just do that on command, I don't know, man, that is spooky. That is spooky. This guy was a beautiful dodge. I gotta give him credit for that game-recognized game. But he just kept answering a different question. Okay, so much more to get to. I really want to get to the Trans New York Times executive who was just murdered by, he goes by a hymn, but he's actually a she, by her in-laws. But I don't have time. I don't have time. That's my tease for tomorrow. We will get to the story. We will get to the story tomorrow. Hold me accountable. We don't hold our politicians accountable. You can hold me accountable. We will get to that story tomorrow. Today's music Monday, the rest of the show continues. Now, you do not want to miss it. Become a member of US Co-Knowles Canada VLAS. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. (bright music) (buzzer) Every significant movement in history is started with protesting. No, it's Uncle Todd. 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 Saunders, he would be allowed on campus. Ah, can you hear me okay? Saunders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. This is a decision I cannot find. Islam will conquer the West. (speaks in foreign language) 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 beads into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leaf brush. Stretch them out when they listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling. [MUSIC PLAYING]